Both Candidates Often Shift Positions (AP Extreme BARFARAMA)

AP ^ | 9-12-04 | TOM RAUM

[Ken K]

Is the AP a registered 527?

[OldFriend]

I have one word for AP.......

BBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOO

[LisaMalia]

Yes, I certainly hated to hear that. Sounds like we may have a serial arsonist on our hands. Hopefully, they catch the monster who did this soon.

I see you are a Blue Jackets fan! My son in law worked for the organization as a client services manager before he left to go back to OSU fulltime to get his MBA. He and my daughter, son, and some friends were out after the Buckeye game, and ran into one of the Blue Jackets players. I guess the place stayed open until 3am in his honor.....LOL. When I called my daughter this morning, she was still a little groggy from the late night out....:)

[VegasBaby]

***GOP Ignores Bush Flip-Flops in Pinning Label on Kerry***

Nope...no bias there! Unreal.

[dufekin]

_A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

That's not a flip-flop. Bush still wants Usama dead or alive, he's just trying to tear down the rest of al-Qaida and work to stabilize Pakistan as best as one can.

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

No flip-flop here either. Nobody wants to lead a nation into war. But some pea-brained reporter seems to have forgotten about 11 September 2001 and the significance of that day. I'll clue you into reality here: three thousand Americans perished, killed by terrorists. Of course Bush would prefer peace, but the terrorists shattered that peace, and Bush will commit to fight the war until the enemies cease to exist, at which time we shall have peace. Simple, pea-brain, simple.

Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale: The need to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction until none were found; liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator; fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home; spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it's a safer America and a safer world.

More evidence that media personnel have pea-sized brains--and don't even engage them. Bush had several reasons for going to war in Iraq. None of the reasons given contradict any other reason. Just because Bush emphasized one reason or the other on one particular day didn't mean that he ever abandoned any previously-emphasized reason.

"Fighting terrorists in Iraq and not at home," makes "a safer America and a safer world" because it "liberates the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator," which in turn enables the "spreading [of] democracy in the Middle East" and would have enabled the "seizing [of] Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction," had they been found. See, I've just combined all of your reasons into one succinct, rational sentence that does not contradict itself.

Try doing that with John F. Kerry's positions on Iraq that he emphasizes on successive days this week. Once you've reduced them into a succinct, rational sentence that does not contradict itself or betray the candidate as a purveyor of sedition or cheerleader of traitors, then you can start whining. Meanwhile, I don't want to hear anymore from you, pea-brain.

[wmichgrad]

At least the Dispatch title is a more accurate portrayal of the content of the article. I had no idea I was going to get a total Bush bash when I read this article on Yahoo!