The spinner from spinsanity

From Mr. Fritz's statement:

------------

" In an attempt to use John Kerry's words against him, the Bush/Cheney
campaign has taken two words uttered by him at Thursday's presidential
debate and distorted them in a way that contradicts the Democratic presidential candidate's position."

" Kerry did say that he believes a preemptive war waged by the US should
pass a "global test."

"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."

------------

Hmm, Kerry said the exact opposite? Does that mean he flip-flopped?

After 12 years of sanctions against Iraq, he didn't consider that enough of a "Global Test"?

How many years and how many mushroom clouds would it take for Kerry to approve of preemptive action?

There is no such thing as proof when it comes to the UN and Democrats. Look at:

Somalia - Hit and cut & run - Didn't they believe that the horrors inflicted on the local populations by the warlords were worth fighting against? They pulled out and have allowed untold starvation and murders to continue.

Sudan - Clinton lobbed missiles at milk factories in an attempt to take out Osama Bin Laden. Did he come to the people, go to the UN?

Yugoslavia - Clinton attacked Serbia under the pretext that Serbia was killing millions of Muslims. As we later found out, the Muslims were attacking Serbia from UN protected zones and running back to them after their murder sprees. No hundreds of mass graves, no genocide. One single incident where 8000 or so were killed out of the millions of claimed killings.

Clinton lied while people died? President Clinton misled us? No, Clinton had intelligence provided to him that he thought was credible and he acted on it. He didn't ask congress for help and he didn't involve the UN. Exactly like President Bush with Iraq, except President Bush had unanimous approval from Congress.

Clinton launched a major attack on Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, without permission from everyone.

And what about Korea? I would say the fault of that debacle lies in his hands too.

There is plenty of proof that Iran is producing nuclear weapons and yet Kerry wants to give them nuclear material to prove us wrong, that we really can trust them. Prove us wrong? How about them proving that they're not going after nuclear weapons, not the other way around? Again, another Korea in the making.

Ben Fritz is a Democrat. To pretend that he is "unbiased" is silly. To pretend that any reporter or newspaper has no bias is silly.

I refer back to this quote from that article:

---------------

"you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test 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."

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."

--------------

Clearly? So what happens if America or the world thinks that what you want to do is not legitimate?

Oh yeah, Kerry said "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security."

So which is it? Make your case to the world and then don't attack if permission is not granted or go for it because our security is more important?