What do you make of this?

[yellowdoginGA]

Those who are nostalgic for the 2004 presidential campaign got a treat if they turned in to "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" yesterday. (Granted, that's a big if.) There was John Kerry*, explaining his position on the "scandal" over the Bush administration's allegedly spying on al Qaeda. Here's ABC's account:

Sen. John F. Kerry is calling President Bush's warrantless wiretaps "a clear violation of the law." . . .

Although Kerry did not go as far as to agree with former Vice President Al Gore's belief that the wiretaps may constitute an "impeachable offense," Kerry called for a special counsel and independent investigation.

So he's against spying on al Qaeda. But wait! Here's Reuters, reporting on the same appearance:

Kerry, who endorsed former Vice President Al Gore's call for an independent investigation of the Bush program, said on ABC's "This Week" that some Republicans like Bush adviser Karl Rove are trying to equate Democratic opposition to warrantless spying as weakness.

"What he's (Rove) trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie," Kerry said. "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer."

So he's for spying! Er, hang on a second! Here's the Washington Times:

Kerry yesterday called the National Security Agency's program to eavesdrop on terror suspects illegal, but he said he will continue to support its funding.

OK, so he's on both sides of the question whether America should spy on al Qaeda, but he's definitely in favor of funding spying on al Qaeda. Or is he? Remember that after opposing the Iraq war after favoring it, he voted for the $87 billion before voting against it. So it's possible that Stephanopoulos didn't actually succeed in pinning down Kerry's position.

[Frances]

1. I think Kerry is being very logical about what he does

and does not support.

He does NOT support illegal wiretapping. He does support legal wiretapping.

[yellowdoginGA]

2. Not according to this

he said "whenever and wherever necessary"

[LaurenG]

3. Within the FISA laws is how I took it. nt

[TaleWgnDg]

10. You are blatantly incorrect and are thus manufacturing your answer.

.
You are blatantly incorrect and are thus manufacturing your answer. You are picking and choosing your answer.

For example, Kerry stated (in your own OP words) and I quote:

"What he's (Rove) trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie," Kerry said. "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer."

The first sentence says "eavesdrop appropriately" which means to eavesdrop in compliance with federal laws (FISA Court, for example). Therefore, the second sentence should be read in light of the first sentence. Never attempt to take a person's quotes out of context in some twisted subjective attempt to negate the speakers words. Again, this is not rocket science stuff here. It's merely COMMON SENSE including the ability to have 8th grade level reading/analyzing skills.

[watrwefitinfor]

12. The writers of those articles cherry-picked.

Just like you did.

I saw the whole interview, and they are deliberately using half-quotes and omitting whole sentences from Kerry's statements, as some here have noted. That is just as dishonest as an outright lie.

Why are you putting forward such trash? Why don't you find the transcription and quote that?

Wat

[MichiganVote]

4. You know, I really think your post is illogical.

First of all quotes from several news reports does not an argument make about a politician and his views. Secondly, everyone knows that if you listen to any politician from Washington these days they ALL equivocate their opinions with a this or a that. Bush does it routinely in every speech he has ever given.

Your comment about the $87 billion is nothing but flamebait. Old news and best forgotten.

[babylonsister]

5. If 'spying' is necessary to protect the country, Kerry is for it

from what I gathered from the interview. What he is not for is the gov't 'spying' on U.S. citizens for some nebulous reasons, w/o proper checks and balances from the court.
Why did this admin bypass the court? Seems to me they were doing something illegal they knew they wouldn't get permission to do. Thus, an independent counsel needs to determine whether anything illegal was done. Kerry also agreed if FISA needs to broaden the rules, so be it, but doesn't want this admin making their own up as they go.

[htuttle]

6. It all reminds me of this cartoon from 2002 sometimes...

[TaleWgnDg]

7. Oh, sheesh, come on !!!

1. "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" yesterday . . . (and ) John Kerry*, explaining his position on the "scandal" over the Bush administration's allegedly spying on al Qaeda. Here's ABC's account:

Sen. John F. Kerry is calling President Bush's warrantless wiretaps "a clear violation of the law." . . .

Although Kerry did not go as far as to agree with former Vice President Al Gore's belief that the wiretaps may constitute an "impeachable offense," Kerry called for a special counsel and independent investigation.

Answer: Kerry is saying that Bush's warrantless wiretaps are "a clear violation of the law" . . . repeat: the Bush method thus Bush end result is illegal, e.g., not going through a FISA court, period. And, by Kerry wanting a Special (independent) Counsel, Kerry wants the facts and circumstances documented, in law, by such a Special Counsel who would be independent from all branches of government which is the BEST WAY TO GO for any impeachable offenses. Read nothing more into it.

2. Reuters, reporting the same appearance:

Kerry, who endorsed former Vice President Al Gore's call for an independent investigation of the Bush program, said on ABC's "This Week" that some Republicans like Bush adviser Karl Rove are trying to equate Democratic opposition to warrantless spying as weakness.

"What he's (Rove) trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie," Kerry said. "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer."

Answer: Kerry agrees w/ Gore about a special counsel (independent of DoJ) regarding Bush; however, it is not a "weak" position (as says Rove regarding searches) IF such search complies with the law (unlike Bush's warrantless searches that do not comply w/ existing law).

3. Washington Times

Kerry yesterday called the National Security Agency's program to eavesdrop on terror suspects illegal, but he said he will continue to support its funding.

Answer: Kerry says, of course, why throw out the baby with the bath water? That is, Bush's actions w/ National Security Agency's illegality does then not mean to toss out NSA. No, continue to fund NSA but quit the damn illegalities.

(This isn't rocket science here. Only common sense and the ability to fully read and analyze issues including Kerry's mode and manner of speaking. He's a past prosecutor, a lawyer, and excellent debater, and speaks in that manner attempting to make it so that all can understand.)

[stillcool]

8. It's really quite simple....

Legal=Yes
Illegal=No

[TaleWgnDg]

9. exactly, and how to prove it says Kerry.

[stillcool]

11. Prove?...

what?...that bullshit smells like bullshit?

[TaleWgnDg]

13. Well. It may walk like a duck, sound like a duck, and look like a duck;

however, when it comes to legalities (which this is, btw), tis far better to well document yourself including getting "outside" independent legal determination of facts and circumstances as well as recommendations in law from an independent Special Prosecutor/Counselor as Kerry and Gore suggested. Besides, such Special Prosecutor may mean the first step in an impeachment proceeding against King George II.
.

[stillcool]

14. my misunderstanding...

I was of the opinion that the original poster was playing smear the crap over Kerry. And, in your response I thought you meant proove Kerry supports the law as it has been interpreted until now. Sorry for my flippancy. :hi:

[TaleWgnDg]

15. np . . . after all, it IS bs! . . . n/t