-----Original Message----- From: Sam Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 12:01 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Bin Laden shows his ugly face
> I heard what he said clearly. You're trying to spin it > but it won't work. How could the statement, in full context, mean what you intimate it means? How does "where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons" imply that world permission is required? The sentence structure is clear that "your doing" something and that although you're doing it you "can prove" to others that it's the right course of action. However, at the very least, the comment is definitely open to interpretation. So, when in doubt, you ask the person that said it: and Kerry has repeatedly stated clearly that he would not give another country veto authority over our security. For the Bush campaign to hear a clarifying explanation and still claim in speeches and attack ads that a "global test" (with the phrase taken completely out of context) is the "Kerry Doctrine" is simply disingenuous. Spinsanity.com said of the issue: "Clearly, Kerry meant that a President must be able to demonstrate to the world that the preemptive war is being waged for legitimate reasons, not that foreign governments must provide 'permission.'" "In fact, Kerry said the exact opposite at another point in the debate. In his very first answer of the night, the Democratic candidate said, 'I'll never give a veto to any country over our security.'" And later: "Journalists should debunk this misleading attack, which only distracts from the substantive issues debated by the candidates." Both candidates should be allowed the grace to clarify their positions on issues when they've used language that could be misinterpreted. I greatly respect a candidate that is able to accept a clarification from the opponent and let the matter drop despite the potential political advantage of misrepresentation... Bush has clearly been unable to do so in this case. Should we take everything Bush says word for word, despite later clarifications? Remember that he said with conviction that "we will NOT have an all volunteer army" (of course shortly thereafter, at the prompting of his audience, he clarified his position to be exactly the opposite). Bush himself has intimated, charmingly, at times that he's not the best person with the English language. Perhaps semantics is not an area that the Bush campaign should be battling on. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:133494 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
