Posted on 08/13/2004 7:04:03 AM PDT by truthandlife
Typical of newsmax
but I hope a lot of undecideds see it and skip over the article.
I don't think 'undecideds' read newsmax.
>>> The leftist media had best hurry up and ignore this.
I prefer that they do.
>>> Where's the lie?
The state of Massachusetts is not responsible for responding to a nuclear war. The point of the EO was that it would be futile to spend money protecting people from something they cannot be protected from. Like I said in an another post, Kerry would respond to this by saying he is a fiscal conservative. It won't stick.
Much as I dislike Kerry, you are correct. I reread the article a couple of times to find where it says that Kerry wouldn't respond.
The Kerry order stated emphatically, however: "No funds shall be expended by the Commonwealth for crisis relocation planning for nuclear war."
Monica Conyngham, Lt. Gov. Kerry's spokeswoman at the time, defended the controversial document, telling reporters, ''We believe that [evacuation] plans are absolutely futile and that there are no safehavens from nuclear war.''
Those statements from the article are not lies are they?
It may just be an article as you preach to us, but the 19 years Kerry was in the Senate with his socialist voting record tells us exactly what he is all about. He refuses to talk about THIS RECORD but it shows the cut of the man. His actions after his 3 months in Vietnam cut the legs out from under the brave men and women who were still there and fueled the angst America experienced from the rabid left. That changed America forever. Kerry is a self grandizing liar the likes of which America has never seen.
At the time, in the heyday of the U.S. nuclear-freeze movement, GOP sources say, Kerry -- who was then Dukakis' lieutenant governor -- bragged that he was the impetuous behind the order after having campaigned aggressively against Reagan-era nuclear policies in his bid for statewide office.
The order, which in part read, "Whereas the existing and potential strength of nuclear weapons is such that nuclear war can neither be won nor survived, it can only be prevented; and Whereas the only effective defense against the horrors of nuclear weapons lies in their elimination and in the prevention of nuclear war or attacks," said the Commonwealth of Massachusetts "shall seek to ensure the safety of its citizens by pursuit of policies reflecting a serious commitment to prevention of nuclear war." "Such policies," it continued, "shall include education of citizens concerning the real nature of nuclear war and efforts to influence national policy towards negotiation of an end to the nuclear-arms race," but that "No funds shall be expended by the Commonwealth for crisis relocation planning for nuclear war."
That's from The Washington Times...
It depends on your definition of "Betray" and who his country is.
As you know, the statement was focused on EVACUATION POLICY. You broaden the issue to "response", which is a much more broad word, and insinuate that Kerry said he would not RESPOND to a nuclear attack.
It is blatently dishonest, when somebody says "we're not going to prepare for evacuations for a nuclear attack", to write a headline that says "NO RESP0NSE" to a nuclear attack.
While his overall attitude is well represented by the policy, and while that policy is legitimately subject to all kinds of ridicule, there was no policy (at least in the info cited here) to NOT RESPOND TO A NUCLEAR ATTACK.
That I even have to explain to you why the headline is misleading is ridiculous. You know why it is misleading. And when you write something that is intentionally misleading, you lie.
If you wrote this headline, shame on you. This is why newsmax is not a credible news source, and therefore wastes good opportunities (like this one) to help the conservative cause.
Not true. In Kerry's view at the time, the state of MA had limited responsibilities in the event of nuclear war, as the Kerry EO makes clear.
He outlined two choices in the EO. Education and prevention vs civil defense preparation. Kerry chose the first option, saying any defense against a nuclear attack was pointless.
What he would do as president, I have no idea. He hasn't spoken to the issue during the campaign.
But we do know that the only time he had responsibility for formulating a plan to respond to a nuclear strike, he said preparing a defense would only encourage an attack.
That's part of Kerry's record and the American people are entitled to draw whatever conclusions they deem appropriate.
Come on. You are smarter than this. And more honest.
What do expect from a journalist that thinks Kerry was
a young soldier in Vietnam
I oppose Kerry's candidacy 100%. That you read my criticism of Newsmax's headline and thought I was defending Kerry's views simply means you too poor a reader to take part in the conversation.
negotiation of an end to the nuclear-arms raceGee, what a revolutionary point of view! Signed in 1984, was it? President Ronald Reagan's START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) talks began in 1982 -- showing once again how shallow the Democrats must think everyone is.
The American people will never see this article, precisely because you have a reputation for sloppiness, which reputation you are working hard to preserve on this thread.
Yes, and I know that the title used here is the title of the article. I also know that the policy here is to use the title of the article as the title of the thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.