News Flash from 2005
On Monday, September 6, John Kerry said: "This president rushed to war without a plan to win the peace, and he's cost all of you $200 billion that could have gone to schools, could have gone to health care, could have gone to prescription drugs, could have gone to our Social Security."
***NEWS FLASH*** from March 2005
HEADLINE: "In hindsight, $200 billion would have been worth it."
In the wake of last week's terrorist attack on the United States, in which six malls around the nation were simultaneously blown up, critics are becoming increasingly vocal of President Bush's use of $200 billion in his first term that went to schools, health care, prescription drugs and Social Security. In 2002 Bush said, "I believe that the terrorist threat really isn't much of a danger to us right now. Osama and his cronies got their kicks on 9/11, and I'll bet they settle down for a while. Instead of wasting all this extra cash on this unnecessary 'War on Terror,' I want to use it to improve the lives of the American people here at home."
Senator John Kerry, who lost to Bush by 16 points last November, criticized President Bush for not going to war with Iraq. "This president is unfit for command. He should have recognized the threat that Saddam Hussein and other global terrorists posed to our nation, but instead he created record deficits by spending money we didn't have on schools, health care, prescription drugs, and Social Security. Although the aforementioned are important, our security and physical well-being trump these domestic social issues."
Ira Cook, an 82-year-old Medicare-recipient from Miami, told the AP, "I only wish President Bush had gone to war with those animals over in Iraq and Afghanistan. The price of my drugs seemed important at the time [in 2002], but ever since the attacks, and the 3,500 people dead, my personal problems seem insignificant."
Not all senior citizens agree. "I think we definitely should not have gone to war in Afghanistan or Iraq," said Homer Johnson, a 77-year-old from Pennsylvania. "Even if we were right, George Bush would have been accused of being a war-mongerer with Imperialist intentions and in search of oil. Also, his political opposition would likely have claimed that Bush's actions made the U.S. less respected in the world."
When asked about Mr. Johnson's opinion, Senator Kerry wrote it off as "obvious senility."
With reporting by Jack Wagoner. Copyright 2005 AP.
***NEWS FLASH*** from March 2005
HEADLINE: "In hindsight, $200 billion would have been worth it."
In the wake of last week's terrorist attack on the United States, in which six malls around the nation were simultaneously blown up, critics are becoming increasingly vocal of President Bush's use of $200 billion in his first term that went to schools, health care, prescription drugs and Social Security. In 2002 Bush said, "I believe that the terrorist threat really isn't much of a danger to us right now. Osama and his cronies got their kicks on 9/11, and I'll bet they settle down for a while. Instead of wasting all this extra cash on this unnecessary 'War on Terror,' I want to use it to improve the lives of the American people here at home."
Senator John Kerry, who lost to Bush by 16 points last November, criticized President Bush for not going to war with Iraq. "This president is unfit for command. He should have recognized the threat that Saddam Hussein and other global terrorists posed to our nation, but instead he created record deficits by spending money we didn't have on schools, health care, prescription drugs, and Social Security. Although the aforementioned are important, our security and physical well-being trump these domestic social issues."
Ira Cook, an 82-year-old Medicare-recipient from Miami, told the AP, "I only wish President Bush had gone to war with those animals over in Iraq and Afghanistan. The price of my drugs seemed important at the time [in 2002], but ever since the attacks, and the 3,500 people dead, my personal problems seem insignificant."
Not all senior citizens agree. "I think we definitely should not have gone to war in Afghanistan or Iraq," said Homer Johnson, a 77-year-old from Pennsylvania. "Even if we were right, George Bush would have been accused of being a war-mongerer with Imperialist intentions and in search of oil. Also, his political opposition would likely have claimed that Bush's actions made the U.S. less respected in the world."
When asked about Mr. Johnson's opinion, Senator Kerry wrote it off as "obvious senility."
With reporting by Jack Wagoner. Copyright 2005 AP.
posted by Seth at 1:16 AM
3 Comments:
Funny. I'm sure you understand that's only an exagerrated satire, and could never happen. But just in case you don't, I shall point out a critical piece of information. Your logic is relying on one major assumption: that Kerry wouldn't have gone to war at all. His argument is that we should have gotten more ally support, leading to less spending by the U.S. and more from other coalition members. The U.S. has footed about 90% of the bill in Iraq, while, for example in Desert Storm we paid only 5%. These statistics are from Kerry's speech this morning. Might want to check out those stats though, he has a tendency to adjust the truth for his own benefit.
Very true. One of the nice things about Kerry is that, compared with everyone else, the opportunity to satirize him is double because he's got two opinions on every issue. For all we know, Kerry might have gone to war in Iraq, but it's doubtful. On the other hand, Kerry might not have gone to war in Iraq, but it's doubtful. See what I mean?
Nicely said. The real question is what the heck would his foreign policy be if elected. He says we need a different one...sure would be nice if we could hear it. If he can finally make a clear presentation of his plans for the future, or even decide it himself, then Bush would have a worthy opponent.
Post a Comment
<< Home