Guess who gave this harsh quote about the war:
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
That's right ... the one and only SEAN HANNITY, back in 1999, concerning Clinton's war in Kosovo! (April 5, 1999, FOX News)
Hannity likes to paint Democrats as lilly-livered, America-hating knee-jerk critics of the war. Thanks to Lexis-Nexis, I've found quite a few gems of Hannity's that show he was just as "America-hating" (har har) back in 1999. Here's some of my favorites below the fold...
Unbelievable. This woman needs an (R) next to her name when she's on the air.
Just saw this on CNN:
JOHN KING, CNN: They say that is one of the reasons that Senator Kerry is bringing former President Clinton to the Philadelphia area early next week. The Republicans say that is proof to them that the Democrats are a bit nervous -- Judy?
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN HOST: It does smell that way. All right, John King, thank you very much, traveling with President Bush.
[ no link until transcript becomes available ]
Right now it's at 90 percent Kerry. What say we get it to 95?
Ahhh, the compassionate Right.
A little snippet of Hastert this morning on "Fox News Sunday":
"WALLACE: Speaker Hastert, can you put a little more meat on those bones in terms of specific proposals you think [Bush will address in his Convention speech]?
HASTERT: Well, I think, you know, one of the things -- whining that we hear from the other side is this whole issue on outsourcing."
Yeah, that whining sure gets annoying. Thank God you got that cushy job in the House, ol' Dennis.
[no Link until Fox News posts it]
When Bush signed McCain-Feingold
, he made a point to say that a limitation on individual donations would be wrong. (Hence, he's supporting the continuation of issue ads and advocacy groups.) However, now he's upset that there are "billionaires writing checks"
Here are the quotes that the SCLM needs to hear put side-by-side in order to really see the flip-flop in its full glory:
George W. Bush, August 23, 2004:
"I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it. And I wish -- I hope my opponent joins me in saying, condemning these activities of the 527s. It's the -- I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold. I've been disappointed that for the first six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money, billionaires writing checks. And I spoke out against them early. I tried to get others to speak out against them, as well. And I just don't -- I think they're bad for the system." [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040823-4.html]
George W. Bush's position, March 19, 2001:
"Bush last week sent his own proposals to Capitol Hill. While Bush would ban soft money contribution by corporations and unions, he opposes such a ban for individuals. And he has insisted that any reform bill mandate a choice for union members on whether their dues can be diverted to political candidates -- most often Democrats."
George W. Bush's policy principles on Campaign Finance Reform
March 15, 2001
"Protect Rights of Individuals to Participate in Democracy: President Bush believes democracy is first and foremost about the rights of individuals to express their views. He supports strengthening the role of individuals in the political process by: 1) updating the limits established more than two decades ago on individual giving to candidates and national parties; and 2) protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy." [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010315-7.html]
There's the exact contradiction. He's only against individuals giving money when it hurts him. And he certainly has NOT been speaking out against them early. Earlier, he was FOR citizens groups organization.
What a hypocrite.
OK, first diary entry here. Just testing the waters with a short comment
I was just reading through Friday's press gaggle and I noticed an interesting tidbit when the conversation turned to $50-per-barrel oil prices.
"QUESTION: But if that is the fact, and if [Bush's comprehensive energy plan] been going on for three years, then isn't that beating a dead horse? Maybe there's another approach. Would you, for instance, consider opening the strategic reserves, as Kerry has been proposing, and others?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Senator Kerry could change his position [on Bush's energy plan] and join the President and call on the Senate to get it passed and get it to the President's desk."
So...let's say Kerry does switch his position. Would McClellan praise Kerry for the flip flop?
For some reason, I have my doubts.