Daily Kos

View Story | 140 comments

  •  To be devastating... (4.00 / 2)

    it really should be "true", as well.  This piece is a hit piece, and it reads like it.

    I wrote about this here (the Lying Socialist Weasels' new group blog).  For a much better (and far more thorough) overview, check out this story, also in today's Washington Post.

    The comparison between the two stories is stark, and I predict the latter's detail and even-handedness will more than cancel out Ms. Williams' drivel.

    •  Channeling the RNC (none / 1)

      As I remarked in my own blog, it did seem like Williams was channeling for the Rethugs. Good to learn that she's got a history of that sort of thing.

      I did look at the other WaPo story (and I'm going to be updating my piece to include a reference to it). The potential problem there is that it's five times as long as Williams' op-ed, and you actually have to read it all to get the full impact. Williams makes bullet points that stick in the mind.

      While I think it's great that there's a serious candidate in the race for the White House, somebody that is willing to take the time to make sure he uses the right word in a policy speech (I'm sure I'm not the only one who winced when Bush described his embryonic "war on terrr" as a "crusade") that doesn't mean I want a white paper every time the RNC throws out a little oppo research. Even the quintessential wonk himself knew that you couldn't be all-wonk, all the time. When your opponents hit you with sound bytes, you have to give a response that fits the same format, even if you expand on it later or in other forums.

      •  Bullet points (3.50 / 2)

        I absolutely agree with you.  Fortunately, Kerry has impressed me lately with his ability to come out with simple, but effective, points of his own.

        I think Kerry will get an awful lot of mileage out of the simple notion that several of his votes in the Senate were the result of Bush misleading Congress, just like he misled most of America.  We have to remember that most Americans were in favor of the Iraq War, for example, yet are now having doubts.  They believed Bush, too, so Kerry can position himself as representing a majority.  He's actually in a strong position of guiding the nation from trusting to not trusting Bush.

        Combined with Bush's own blatantly political lying and flip-flopping, I think Kerry's in a pretty good spot.

        Although I was a Dean supporter, I was always a tad worried that his position, while powerful, could be too easily taken as an "I told you so".  Kerry won't have that problem, at least in this area.

        •  Stop spreading this lie (none / 1)

          We have to remember that most Americans were in favor of the Iraq War

          Americans were NOT for the war.  Once the troops went in, suddenly they were for it.  Not a moment before (well, maybe when Colin Powell lied about it, right before the troops went in).  Now Americans are too stupid to remember they opposed the war until the troops were on the ground (and then they had to rally for the troops--what a crock!).  

          Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

          by Asak on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 03:16:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unfortunately... (none / 0)

            According to polls, most Americans were, indeed, for the war.  Much of it was due to a "rally around the flag" effect once the war became inevitable, but the support was there, at least superficially.

            I'm not saying that most thought it was a great idea, especially without the UN.  But enough believed what Bush was saying, and believed they should give a show of support, that Kerry could use it to his advantage.

View Story | 140 comments