spicersh said:
Surely someone in politics wouldn't flip flop like that....right Mr. Kerry? Perhaps we could dig a little deeper into it to find out Mr. Rumsfeld's well thought out and insightful reasons for what he said at the time.
I would agree if this was a broader question like, "Why did you guys have no bid contracts in the 87 billion war funding budget?" There are arguements that
could be made to justify that. Sometimes it's the only practical way to do things on the quick. But if you do, you put in controls and audit capability, etc. What is the scope and structure of the contract? Is there anybody watching the store to make sure that only those items that MUST be done expeditiously are included and the rest are left for bidding? That topic could be discussed intelligently for hours and in the course of it, much could be learned. He may make the case for it to reasonable satisfaction or you may discover it's FULL of problems. That scope of a question like that requires in depth review before accurate justification or accusations can be made, unless they refuse to discuss it in depth. Then you're left to your own conclusions as to why. You have to give the opportunity before to judge. Kerry has taken the opportunity to answer his accusers, you're just not likely to have access to that answer on Fox.
spicersh said:
Just pointing out that it happens on both sides of the fence. If all we're going to look at is the soundbyte coverage that Dad has so pointedly expressed his distaste for, then why do we get that "well thought out reasons for his actions" spiel when we criticize Kerry for his voting record?
In the linked case, that wasn't a soundbyte. It was a straightforward question, was very simple, limited scope, and didn't require much discussion, only a straightforward answer because it was so simple. Some items are like that and are one sentence answers. He was asked the straight question and his answer was a lie, proven with his own words. For the life of me, I can't see anything left to discuss, but would be willing to listen. Watch the tape again if you don't see that difference.
In the scenario I outlined above, about no bid contracts, if the question was posed, "Did you have no bid contracts in that budget?" and the reply was, "No", then a very short reply, showing that it was a lie, would end that discussion. The follow up as to "why" could get several hours of discussion started.
As for Kerry, which one do you want to discuss? When charged with voting against the 87 billion budget, Kerry agreed that he did that. No lie. Then, the next logical question is, "Why"? That answer is very revealing. I would pose the same question to Rumsfeld after he lied, "Why"? That answer, too, would be very revealing. I also doubt he will be wanting to discuss that. While there may be several answers, none will be good. It will take an independant investigation to get to the bottom of that one.
C'mon Scott, you're arguing for arguement's sake here. I know you're better than that. :thumb: You're trying to pull a "Fox News" on us.