Kerry: Bush intentionally exaggerated case

[Katie]

Kerry: Bush intentionally exaggerated case
‘The president has made some colossal mistakes’
CLEVELAND - Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumed Democratic nominee for president, accused President Bush on Tuesday of having knowingly exaggerated evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, saying the president made “colossal mistakes” before, during and after the war.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4846266

[RoyGBiv]

1. After?

After the war? Interesting choice of words ... bizarre and Orwellian, but interesting.

Anyway, I watched this entire interview. Kerry did very well and issued the kinds of challenges some have been demanding he make.

I know there will be criticisms of certain aspects of it, but in all, I think this was good for his campaign.

[DaveSZ]

2. Finally he's showing some balls!

Go Kerry!

[Nlighten1]

14. Better late than never.

The Democrats have been handed a golden opportunity to put the smack down on the Republicans and so far they haven't seemed to take advantage of it.

[jobycom]

15. Yes they have, but no one's been paying attention

Kerry's been saying this since he wrapped up the nomination, but the media has been ignoring him or else burying his comments behind war stories. Watch him, he'll keep saying the same thing, and in two weeks there will still be threads here claiming he's not doing anything.

I've never seen a presidential candidate as aggressive as Kerry before. They always stay away from such direct accusations, and accuse the other administration of having bad ideas, or of failure, not of lying and incompetence. Then again, most have never faced someone as corrupt as Bush.

I just hope he watches his back. Literally. Bush doesn't like criticism. Ask the National Enquirer editor about that.

[Skittles]

21. balls are not required for courage

he has developed a SPINE

[FlemingsGhost]

3. In other words: Bush lied.

Kudos to Kerry.

I just wish he'd admit to his own mistake regarding the invasion of Iraq.

[demoman123]

4. WTF does this mean?

“We know that the president and the White House exaggerated material that they were given purposefully, even though they were told otherwise,” Kerry said in an interview on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball.”

Can someone explain this to me? He's even starting to talk like Dubya.

[ComerPerro]

6. I don't know, I was wondering about that

I thought maybe it meant that they exaggerated their case, even though they were told things that contradicted what they were saying...

Maybe that they ignored information that didn't tell them what they wanted to hear?

Not sure.

Its definately worded in a strange way.

[emulatorloo]

11. word order is switched

should have said "We know that the president and the White House purposefully exaggerated material that they were given, even though they were told otherwise."

[jobycom]

17. LOL Yeah, even smart people flub up their grammar on live TV

Difference is, that would be one of Bush's better statements, whereas with kerry it's an aberation. To bad the press doesn't clean up Kerry's statements the way they clean up Bush's.

What he means is clear, though, unlike with most of Bush's comments (food on your family, and such). Bush purposely exaggerated evidence, even though he was told that the evidence wasn't that solid.

It's easier to write than to answer a question in a live interview with an idiot host known for laying traps for Dems.

[ComerPerro]

5. OMG did you see that poll?

Who would you vote for if the election were this week?

27842 responses


George W. Bush
30%

John Kerry
67%

Ralph Nader
3%

[demoman123]

7. But that's a poll of people who wanted to read what Kerry said...

These will tend to be Kerry supporters.

[Flubadubya]

8. That poll, it turns out, is very interesting....

That very question was on MSNBC website starting early yesterday morning. By the afternoon there had been 262,573 votes and the outcome was Kerry 54%, Bush 42%, and Nader 4%.

For some reason the poll was completely reset late in the afternoon, thus the "new" set of numbers. I have no idea why that happened. However, I do doubt very seriously that with a population that large (i.e. over a quarter of a million people)it represented "just Kerry supporters".

Another thing about the poll, since it did draw from such an extremely large population, I tend to believe it is more accurate than the so-called "official" CNN, Gallup, etc. polls.

[dammit905]

9. I like Randi Rhodes...

But she should actually take a statistics class before talking about the contents of a statistics class. True, internet polls are taken from larger samples, but the samples are extremely biased and inaccurate. Still, I get the feeling that Kerry's campaign is going well, and that those numbers may not be too far from the truth.

[clonebot]

10. still - it can't be called scientific

polling isn't perfect but the so called 'scientific' polls (gallup for example) are supposed to adhere to some basic guidelines. and also keep in mind that if the polls are extremely slanted and bias towards a certain canidate for example and time and time again their polls do not reflect the outcome of an election - the pollsters will lose credibility and news outlets will no longer use them (this has happened to some major pollsters in the past who just plain sucked) so pollsters do have a reason to be accurate and truthful.

but anyways... those guidelines i mentioned earlier are basically things like having political scientists review in pilot testing the questions to check for impartiality (since 50% of the population or more's answer depends completly on the way the question is actually phrased) - second, a poll cannot be created strictly to create a sense of doubt regarding a particular canidate (unfortunatetly this happens all the time, but NOT by the major pollsters, this is done by campaigns) for example - a "pollster/campaigner" calls you up and says "would you be willing to vote for john kerry if you knew that he called colin powell a n*gger?" or something awful like that. there is no scientific purpose whatsover, nor is he even keeping track of the responses - just wants you to think kerry is an asshole. and third, the sample has to come from a wide spread of people, not just internet users or people that hang out in a liberal neighborhood - this is why telephones are still the most reliable form of polling. unfortunately these days people are less likely to participate or even finish the poll due to time constraints or lack of interest - which further raises questions about the validity of polls.

remember - in order for a poll to be accurate - the pollster has to come to you, not the other way around. those who actually go and do an online poll on say, cnn.com, is likely to be active in studying politics and reading about current events and will most likely have formed a strong opinion about the subject and this obviously does not represent a majority of the population.

also POLLS CANNOT BE CONDUCTED ON ELECTION DAY! which is when around 10 percent of the population will actually make up their mind! so thats something to keep in mind as we look at polls today

[jobycom]

18. It's hard to say

MSNBC runs this poll a lot, and most reset the numbers at some set interval. It always favors Kerry, no matter what the story is about.

During the 2000 elections, and before, and even after, Internet polls ALWAYS leaned Republican. Now they do seem to be leaning Democrat. The specific numbers may not mean much, being even more unscientific a sampling than Gallup uses, but that trend is interesting (and also unscientific, since it is based on my impression, not on any actual studies). Either the demographics of who is on the Internet has changed-- and that's likely as computers and access have gotten cheaper and easier-- or those on the Internet are changing their opinions, maybe because they are the ones seeing the more in-depth coverage of stories, and thus are more knowledgeable than those without the Internet.

In other words, I think we may be seeing a change. Those most informed on the issues are beginning to see through Bush and the constant media promotion of him.

[kori]

13. Wish this was a good sampling poll, but it is not.

These kinds of polls where people contact the pollsters are very poor at predicting future results. If there is demographic information supplied with the vote these polls can be very helpful in identifying groups of supporters or detractors. Polling is a true science but only a momentary snapshot. How questions are asked and of whom are extremely important. However, occasionally you get a gem of a poll. I am not sure this was one.

I did see one yesterday though. It was conducted on CNBC the business channel. Always an extremely heavy Republican viewership. They asked people to vote on should Chaney reveal information on his energy task force. Sixty-nine percent of respondents said yes. I suspect that one will make it to the Republican campaign leaders and shows a vulnerability to Chaney Bush even in the Republican camp.

[TahitiNut]

24. Some comments on such polls.

These are surveys of those who chose to access that website. As such, they'd be best characterized as market surveys - looking at the opinions of their readership. It's NOT a sample of any larger population, merely a subset of the entire population, the overlap with any other subset (i.e. "voters") being completely undefined.

It's nonsense to say it's not "scientific" since this makes a slight inference that there's some kind of sampling of a larger population. There is no sampling. No inference whatsoever can be validly made regarding those in some other 'market' or subset of the entire population. (Remember, age and citizenship are not even considered.)

To make this clearer, it should only be necessary to make the obvious observation that an election itself is not "scientific" since those who choose to vote in an election are an indeterminate part of a 'market' - a political market which is itself a relatively well-defined subset of the entire population.

Absolutely no inferences can be made regarding elections based on such internet polls. Some broad inferences can be made, however, by the editorial staff regarding the opinions of their "market" -- and, especially considering this is a repeated question, the traffic levels for this web site, or part of the web site.

[dbt]

12. This is (maybe) a hopeful start for the Senator,

but the word is LIED. As in, bu$h LIED to everybody about why we had to invade Iraq.

LIED. It's short, it's simple, it's one fucking syllable. Its meaning is utterly clear, leaving no wiggle room the way "exaggerated" does.

LIED. It's what bu$h did, it's what he does and it's BY GOD what he needs to be called out for doing.

We all know damn well that if it were Clinton, "lies" would have been used long ago!

:grr:
dbt

[jobycom]

19. It's not a start, it's what he's been doing all along

Kerry's been critical of Bush. Before using that word "lied," though, you have to lay the groundwork. It's best as a candidate if you build to it, show other people where your opponent misled, and let the media use the word "lied" first.

It's a long campaign, and Kerry is playing it well. If he started calling Bush a liar now, the media would ignore everything else he said, and the argument would devolve into namecalling between him and Bush (meaning that's all the media would cover). Kerry is simply avoiding stepping on his taglines. That word will come up later, but if Kerry is smart (and he is) he won't be the one to start using it. Either another Democrat will, or the media will. Kerry's first accusation that Bush is "lying" should come as an answer to a question from the media.

But again, he's been attacking Bush like this since he wrapped up the nomination. I truly don't get why DUers haven't seen that. Not paying attention to our own Latest News forum, I guess.

[leftchick]

16. Timing is EVERYTHING!!... Wilson Book Due Out on.....

Friday!!! Coincidence? I think Not!

:bounce:

[JI7]

20. Joe Wilson has been on the Kerry campaign for a long time

he is a longtime supporter of john kerry also. i believe he joined the campaign soon after the story of his wife was made public. i think his wife is also working on the campaign now. i know it's not likely, but it would be incredible if kerry won and appointed valerie plame cia director.

[leftchick]

23. Rand Beers...

He is also a friend of Joe Wilson isn't he?

[JI7]

25. he is a friend of Richard Clarke

rand beers is a friend of richard clarke. right wingers were saying clark was doing what he did to help kerry because of the rand beers connection. i'm not sure if joe wilson is a friend of beers though, but i'm sure they worked together since they are helping kerry in the same area of foreign affairs/national security and are probably friends.

[Endangered Specie]

22. Im glad to see some spine from him.

[Just Me]

26. Keep pounding the truth, John,...

,...you have to do it over and over again so that the Americans who pick up sound bites will finally get it.