Thursday - September 30, 2004

Debate Night Questions I’d Like To See

Peter Kirsanow has a list of 40 questions he’s challenging any journalist out there to ask John Kerry.  Tonight would be a good night to start.

They are humdingers.  I wish I could list them all here but y’all would get a bit annoyed with scrolling through them on the chance this does not interest you.  So just right click on the links and open them in new windows.  Here. And here.

I’ll give you a taste to whet your appetite for these delicious beauties:

Senator Fuckface (OK, they can’t say that but WE can!)

----You’ve repeatedly demanded Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation over Abu Ghraib prison abuse. In light of such demand, please respond to the following:
a. Given your confession that you committed atrocities in Vietnam, including burning villages and using 50-caliber machine guns on people, shouldn’t you, then, withdraw from presidential consideration?
b. If your answer is “no,” please explain why a secretary of Defense should be held to a higher standard than an aspiring president who personally committed atrocities objectively more horrific than the abuses for which you hold Rumsfeld accountable.

----You now state that Iraq was “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” yet just a few weeks ago you stated that knowing what you know now you’d still authorize the war. Why would you still vote for a war that is wrong?
a. If the war was wrong, do you maintain Saddam should still be in power? If not, how would you remove him?
b. Which of the following is your primary objection to the Iraq war:
(1) that it shouldn’t have been fought?
(2) that it was in the wrong location?
(3) that the timing was bad?
c. If your answer’s either (2) or (3) above, where should the war have been fought and when?

----During your eight-year tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee, you missed more than three-fourths of its public meetings. You refuse to release your attendance reports for the committee’s closed classified briefings. Why shouldn’t voters infer that disclosure of these attendance reports would reveal that you neglected to attend numerous classified briefings?
a. If you did miss any classified briefings, what duties were you tending to that were more important than attending the briefings?

----Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the president lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. Presumably, this means that the intelligence data didn’t support the reasons given by the president. You had the same intelligence data on Iraq as the president, yet you voted to authorize the war. Why, then, did you knowingly vote for a lie?
a. By doing so, didn’t you also lie to the American people?
b. If so, will you, therefore, urge your supporters to stop running ads declaring that “Bush Lied”?
c. If you maintain that you didn’t lie, is it because you neglected to read the intelligence reports prior to the vote?

---In several speeches before black audiences you’ve stated that a million African Americans were disenfranchised and had their votes stolen in the 2000 presidential election. There are no official or media investigations that support that statement. What evidence do you have to support the statement and if you believe a million blacks had their votes stolen, why haven’t you called for criminal prosecutions and congressional investigations?

---- You’ve stated you would appoint only pro-choice judges to the federal bench. Would you agree that, even if it’s not your intent, such a litmus test could disproportionately disqualify Catholic nominees?

a. What would you do to ensure that your abortion litmus test wouldn’t have a disparate impact against Catholics?

---- What do you consider to be your most important accomplishment during your nearly 20 years as a senator?

---- You also criticize the president for going to war “without having a plan to win the peace.” You’ve stated that “winning the peace” would require more troops — but you voted against the $87 Billion bill to fund the troops who are already there. Could you please explain how you would’ve deployed more troops had your vote against funding prevailed?
a. “Knowing what you know now,” would you have voted in favor of the $87 billion in funding?
b. In other words, do you now regret voting against the funding bill after voting for it?

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 09/30/2004 at 05:37 AM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner