Kerry Blows Red Sox Stats, Again, and Again

This week John Kerry twice messed up the Red Sox playoff scores, in one game proclaiming them to be ahead 10-9, in another 7-1. The Sox never had 10 runs in the first game (they went from 9 to 11 on Mark Bellhorn's two-run homer off the right field foul pole), and scored six in the second (see footballfansfortruth.us for more info). For those of you who are not Boston-area natives, you might not understand that Red Sox loyalty is far greater than political loyalty, and while this might not cause anyone to vote for Bush, it might make Kerry voters stay home. Worse, many Red Sox fans have vowed to see the Sox win a World Series before they die, so tens of thousands of Kerry voters could die before November 2. Of course, this won't affect Massachusetts, Vermont, or Rhode Island, and probably not Maine, but New Hampshire is a possibility.

Comments

Comparison

[Skyshadow]

Okay, this is a really fucking stupid discussion to be having, but seeing as it's a Tuesday morning and my only other alternative is to actually *work*, allow me to provide a comparison:

One candidate has messed up the score of the Bosox series a couple of times, keeping in mind that the series is also taking place during the busiest most demanding time of his life.

The other candidate traded Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Manrique, and as a sidenote also rushed us into a terrible protracted destablizing and unnecessary war in the middle east while running up record deficits and presiding over a massive job loss.

Make your choice, America.

Sanctions were not working

[Anonymous Coward]

"And so long as you ignore the fact that the sanctions were working in terms of preventing WMD aquisition..." Yet, he was still trying. And he was in violation of many of the cease-fire agreements. As much as you would like to forget. "the real reason for the war, remember?" No. The WMDs were but one of many valid reasons. You are also forgetting that Saddam, up until the invasion, was still refusing weapons inspections. "that Iraq was effectively contained at the cost of $2 billion a year" Contained? Saddam's terrorists operated in Kuwait and Israel. " and 0 lives lost" This is the oddest claim of all. 0 lives lost? Saddam was executing 10,000-20,000 citizens a year. I've ignored no facts. You have ignored many, and have lied a few times.

Re:Sanctions were not working

[pudge]

The President has been asked directly (3 times, IIRC) to name any mistakes he's made. He couldn't come up with one, large OR small.

Therefore he thinks he's done everything perfectly. Perfection is the absence of mistakes.

You are incorrect. Bush said specifically he had made mistakes, he just didn't say what any of them were. That is inconsistent with the view that he said, or thinks, that he has made no mistakes. Check yourself.

Re:Sanctions were not working

[pudge]

If you read the original statement, the use of the phrase "the president insists that he did everything perfectly" was in relation to the invasion of Iraq.

And he never insisted that, nor even implied it.

They only time the president has every critically admitted a flaw about the unilateral invasion of Iraq, was when he stated we were too successful in taking Iraq, and we weren't prepared for that success. In every other case, he has defended his decisions and stated that he would make them again.

There was no unilateral invasion of Iraq. Please stop lying. Unilateral has a specific definition, understood by all, and the fact that multiple nations were involved means it was not unilateral. You only hurt any case you're trying to make when you use such blatantly deceptive language.

And Bush said he made mistakes in Iraq. You're simply wrong. Two months ago, he said he miscalculated the conditions in postwar Iraq. It was big news; it's odd you didn't know about it.

Re:Sanctions were not working

[pudge]

The justification given to congress implied the backing of the UN

That is absolutely false. You are just making things up. It was well understood at the time that specific authorization or backing of the UN would not be required. No words to that effect appear in the bill itself, and, in fact, amendments requiring additional action by the UN were defeated. Further, our government officials said at the time that we reserved the right to act, under the passed law, without UN approval.

This was well-understood by everyone at the time. You're attempting to rewrite history.

We unilaterally invaded Iraq

That never happened, but I already addressed this in my previous reply, so I won't belabor the obvious point.

The UN as a whole wanted the inspection process to finish, and progress was being made.

No, it wasn't. Iraq had irrevocably failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441. There was no chance whatsoever that they could ever comply with UN Resolution 1441, because it called for Iraq's immediate compliance, and we know that Iraq repeatedly refused to comply with several key issues. On some, it eventually gave in (such as on the SA-2 missiles); while on others, it never did (such as on interviews with scientists outside of Iraq). But eventual compliance still constitutes a breach, because of the initial refusal.

Beyond that obvious legal point, it is still true that even regardless of the lack of required immediate cooperation, they kept stalling, never intending to fully cooperate. We uncovered former sites after the invasion that were never disclosed, though they were required to be.

The process was a failure. You cannot make progress on a failed operation.

So yes, there were two reasons presented. 1) Iraq's WMDs, and 2) Iraq's unwillingness to follow the UN security resolution 1441 on Iraq's WMDs.

Those were the two reasons Powell focused on, yes. Of course, the administration talked about several others, including terrorist aid (which Powell also mentioned), most of which is not in dispute (direct aid to suicide bombers in Palestine; harboring terrorists, some of whom had killed Americans, like Abu Nidal; allowing terrorists to operate freely in his country; etc.). And then there's the broader reason of stability and security, which everyone in the region agreed that Hussein was a continued threat to (this was stated as a matter of fact by the unanimously adopted Resolution 1441). And the fact that Hussein tried to assassinate a US President, and regularly attacked American planes for a dozen years.

There were a whole lot of reasons.

No, but he has inferred it numerous times.

No, YOU inferred it, and he never implied it.

During the second debate, he claimed his biggest mistakes in office were appointments of people.

Again, you're making things up. He never said that. He said he made some mistakes in appointing people, but neither the question nor the answer implied those were his biggest mitakes. And saying he made some mistakes is not an implication he did not make others, so you're just wrong, again.

In a news conference in April of this year when asked what mistakes he said : "I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one"

You are attempting to prove he thinks he has done everything perfectly by showing he said he is confident he has not? Are you drunk?

So, literally, yes the president has never stated that "I did everything perfectly", but he has most defiantly implied it.

No, he did not. You're lying.

Calling such an inference, a lie, shows a ignorance of logic.

You have a lot of gall to lie about what Bush said in the second debate, and to say that being confident he has made mistakes is evidence he thinks he has not made any, and then accuse me of being ignorant.

Re:Sanctions were not working

[macrealist]

And he never insisted that, nor even implied it.
No, but he leads people to infer it.

There was no no unilateral invasion of Iraq. [ed] ?
Ok, then where was the support of the UN, and the resolution that we were enforcing? The US and the UK invaded Iraq, no UN troops were involved. A majority of the permanent UN security council (France, Russia, China) condemned the action. During the first five months of the war, the only casualties were US and UK. Yes, two nations were involved, but both were acting in defiance of international opinions and support. It was a very one sided decision .

he said he miscalculated
I believe that I mentioned his admission in the argument that you quoted.
But he did not admit a mistake, just a "post-war miscalculation". In the article you link, he said, 'just as his father has done, that he would resist going "on the couch" to rethink decisions.' Again, implying he would not change any of his decisions if he were to make them again.

Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up. -- John A. Appleman

Re:Sanctions were not working

[macrealist]

I never believed that Hussein had WMD.

What? In your journal you state "We know Iraq had some WMD agents and delivery systems. What is in question is whether they had *significant* programs for *NBC* weaponry (that is, nuclear, biological, chemical): and the answer to that question, by all indications, is No. But that doesn't mean there were no WMD: in fact, there were."

Lie seems to be your favorite word. no wonder.

You are ignoring attacks.

[Anonymous Coward]

"and other attacks on America, and one was run by a guy with a moustache"

That would be funny, except for the fact that Saddam's forces engaged in more than 2,000 attacks on US and UK peacekeepers in the "no fly" zones.

Re:Lighten up

[pudge]

If nothing else, it is a cardinal rule that you don't use the children of your opponent to score points for yourself. Even if this was not about homosexuality, he was wrong to do that, no matter what he said. It was low and slimy.

And you might not agree with that, but most people -- especially parents -- do.

Re:Lighten up

[pudge]

Sorry, but parents aren't the only ones who get to "make rules", as you say--I'm perfectly capable of developing a sense of ethics on my own.

I didn't say "parents" in general. I said, when you are talking about THEIR children, THEY get to make the rules.

I'm certain she wasn't wounded for having been acknowledged as a gay woman by the opposition

I never said she was. I said it is wrong to use your opponent's child to score points for yourself.

What you're saying with regards to Keyes and Santorum is that it's ok to insult a politician's kid if, through doing so, you're not trying to attack the politician's ideas.

I said no such thing. I didn't excuse it. I said it was different.

I don't have kids (yes, I know, "I can't possibly understand")

I didn't say you can't understand. However, if you are a parent, you DO understand. It is possible for you to not understand without being a parent, but the fact that you didn't told me you're not.

Really, you misrepresented almost everything I said in your reply. Please think a little bit more next time.

Your arguments are logically flawed. "You can't possibly understand" and "it's slimy because I said so" don't cut it.

Again, I never said the former. As to the latter, I said that only in the sense that "it is slimy because Dick and Lynne say so," which is true, because they are the parents, and they make the rules. You don't even have to agree, it doesn't matter, because almost all parents agree, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality: it has to do with using the child of your opponent to gain points for yourself. Any parent in that position would be pissed off, which is what makes it true.