Why would the Bushies think this speech supports their side?

[LittleClarkie]

I was listening to Rush today (know thine enemies, dontcha know) and he was being his usual jackass self about Kerry holding the same position on the Iraq War, pretending to laugh his head off at such an assertion.

He cited this speech by Kerry from November 9th, 1997 and read parts of it on air. I could tell right away it was exactly what he's been saying all along. How does this show him as a flip/flopper. To me, it shows that he is rock solid in his position, and also shows how long this issue has been a concern for him.

He doesn't say rush into war in 1997. He does say that we should be concerned about Sadaam Hussein and that we need to hold him accountable. He talks about going in unilaterally if need be. That's the point -- we didn't NEED to go in there unilaterally. He talks about demanding that the inspectors be allowed to do their job. That's exactly what he's saying now.

Links to this speech are all over several cites for the Right, and even on Free Republic. I just don't understand how the Right can think that this is a plus for them. How can people not see that it's the same damn position?

Here's a link to both the 1997 speech on the Senate floor, and Kerry's speech from Temple University. Judge for yourself how much he's changed his position. I'm going to print both speeches out, I think, and use them.

http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_1997_11_09.htm

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html

[Goldmund]

1. Well, there are the Bushies, and then there are the Bushbots.

The Bushies know which buttons to press to program the Bushbots.

[Vincardog]

3. There you go thinking again. Sheepel are not allowed to think

And The FASCIST pigs don't bother with reality it interferes with their message. They just keep repeating the same lies as answer to every question.

[Goldmund]

5. What I was saying is..

...that I think it's obvious that the Bushies don't believe any of their drivel. To them, it's all a chess game -- the one and only purpose of which is to manipulate the Bushbots.

I think that's become a standard in our political culture. Even the bots don't care anymore what the truth is, but only which side seems to be winning the pissing context for the programming rights.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Typical distortion, plain and simple (nt)

[Inland]

4. Because they have accepted the false choice

that Bush has been making in his lying ass way for two years--there was only a choice between invading and "doing nothing".

If you are a Rushite functioning brainstem, you hear Kerry talking about holding Saddam accountable (ie, not merely doing nothing) and you hear the Bushite code words for "we are going to invade next week". They are so used to Bush's code words and lies where he uses every word except what he really means--the permanent war--that anyone who doesn't wave a white flag and speaks english about "holding Saddam accountable" is assumed to be the same page.

[mbee]

6. A focus group from Ohio was aired on C-Span and some of the

comments were very revealing. The subject matter was how these folks felt about the campaign ads running. One guy just came right out and said how the ads remind him of why he hates Bush. I think these were undecided voters although you could tell some liked Bush and some hated him. Another comment was that this person thought Kerry had integrity because he put out an ad responding to criticism and wanted to explain his position. Another comment was from a person who said Kerry could back up his Vietnam services with a live person and Bush could not. Mosly all the people wanted to know how the nominees plan to help the country rather than the personal attacks.