On the Kerry side we have the story (not linked to a particular story since the entire front page is about this shit at this point) Dan mentioned earlier about the 350 tons of explosives stolen from under Bush's nose in Iraq. That's right, TONS. I could come up with all sorts of examples of stuff you could do with that, but I think you all understand that it really comes down to blowing up LOTS of shit, pretty much all of which will be ours. I guess they really didn't think things were exciting enough over there and decided to help the other guys out a bit.
On the Bush side we have this. Really, that's their big gun. Kerry said he talked to all of the Security Council and it turns out to not have been all of them. Conservatives are fighting tooth and nail against the common sense that this doesn't matter in the slightest.
Let's assume everything about this story is true. John Kerry did not, in fact, meet with the entire Security Council. I'll even go further and assume he didn't meet with any of them. So Kerry lied in order to puff himself up and make himself seem more important than a Massachusetts Senator really is on the world stage. Ok, I don't like lying as a general rule, so that's a negative which I mark up against Kerry.
To me it just shows that he's a politician. As has been said before, Bush has plenty of exagerations throughout his campaign, let alone his term, but none of that really matters. What matters (at least to an extent that overwhelms everything else to me) here are two things: What policies do the candidates support? and What kind of record do they, and especially the sitting president, have?
Bush has a terrible record as President. He's made policy mistakes that have cost the country a lot of money and lives. He supports policies for the second term which seem to continue things as they are, if not worse. Do I like Kerry lying? No, not at all and I wish he wouldn't. Eight days from an election am I going to spend ANY amount of time thinking about chaning my vote over this? Jesus God no. It is AN issue, but so far removed from the other more important issues that it's laughable.
1 comment:
Foul! That's a misuse of the term "October Surprise". The original October Surprise was perpetrated by Reagan's people, who secretly and illegally negotiated with the Iranian terrorists to have them delay the safe return of the hostages until after the 1980 election. No one knew about it until after Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981.
So nothing in the media now can really be an October Surprise, technically. However, to quote Prof. G.H. Dorr, "Though I do acknowledge that the sense that you intend is gaining increasing currency through its use, yes."
Post a Comment