From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
John Kerry's biggest mistake? He believed George Bush.

September 25, 2004 3:01 PM

Whatever you may think of Michael Moore, he's really good at coming up with simple, populist, spin. A perfect example:

You have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.

That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down.

More from the archive in Bush, John Kerry, Lies and Deceit.

John Kerry's biggest mistake? He believed George Bush. (09.25.2004)

Next Entry: Jerry Falwell: Evangelicals control the GOP (09.26.2004)
Previous Entry: Draft, or pull out? (09.23.2004)

Read the 26 comments.


Shouldn't Moore be going after the UN instead of Bush? I'm sure Moore believes the UN has higher moral authority in the world than the President of the USA, and the UN told the world Saddam had WMDs.... "THE UN LIED!!!"

Sat Sep 25 2004 5:15 PM


Please. The UN told the world Saddam had WMDs?? Where were you when Hans Blix reported that UN weapons inspectors had found no WMDs and needed more time for a complete search. Bush insisted that UN inspectors leave without completing their work. If Bush had allowed completion of all inspections by the UN the war would never have happened.

Telling a lie doesn't make it so. The UN certainly did NOT tell the world that there were active WMDs in Iraq.

Sat Sep 25 2004 6:03 PM

Michael Elsdörfer:

"The UN has higher moral authority in the world than the President of the USA"


Sun Sep 26 2004 4:15 AM


Aaron you have been lied too. perfect point was brought up by Al Franken. He played a sound Clip from the Rush Limbaugh show. Rush ranting how Kofi Annan only condemded one nation Israel & said he never condemded terroism. It was a complete lie.

What Kofi Annan said was "To mention only a few flagrant and topical examples: In Iraq, we see civilians massacred in cold blood, while relief workers, journalists and other non-combatants are taken hostage and put to death in the most barbarous fashion. At the same time, we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused. In Darfur, we see whole populations displaced, and their homes destroyed, while rape is used as a deliberate strategy. In northern Uganda, we see children mutilated, and forced to take part in acts of unspeakable cruelty. In Beslan, we have seen children taken hostage and brutally massacred. In Israel we see civilians, including children, deliberately targeted by Palestinian suicide bombers. And in Palestine we see homes destroyed, lands seized, and needless civilian casualties caused by Israel's excessive use of force.

And all over the world we see people being prepared for further such acts, through hate propaganda directed against Jews, against Muslims, against anyone who can be identified as different from one's own group.

Excellencies, No cause, no grievance, however legitimate in itself, can begin to justify such acts. They put all of us to shame. Their prevalence reflects our collective failure to uphold the law, and to instil respect for it in our fellow men and women. We all have a duty to do whatever we can to restore that respect. To do so, we must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection. Every nation that proclaims the rule of law at home must respect it abroad; and every nation that insists on it abroad must enforce it at home. Yes, the rule of law starts at home. But in too many places it remains elusive. Hatred, corruption, violence and exclusion go without redress."

Aaron you are just going to have to realize that all this time you have been lied to. The NeoCons have lied so much. That even the Republicans are sick of them. Hanity, Limbaugh, O'reily, Bush & all down the line have lied to you. An have completely raped this country & stolen many freedoms it will take years to fix the damage done.

Sun Sep 26 2004 9:30 AM

Right Wing Robby:

What freedoms have you lost? Dont just make blanket statements like that. I want to read some examples. Lets hear them.

Mon Sep 27 2004 7:57 AM


I've lost the freedom to read Jim's blog without having to endure nonsensical prattle from right-wing psuedo-intellectuals.

Mon Sep 27 2004 11:05 AM

Right Wing Robby:


How about you answer the question instead of throwing insults around. Its a simple question. I keep hearing about how many rights are being taken away by the evil Bush administration, but have never seen one decent example of it.

Instead of dodging a simple, straight forward question with an insult Paul, how about an answer.

Mon Sep 27 2004 12:03 PM


do you eally want to whole list of what the democrats had to say about WMD and Iraq? How about a select few:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

So we have democrat president, his secretary of state, his national security advisor, the current democrat presidential candidate and all the current democrat congressional leaders verifing WMD and urging action on the part of the US. But still the war cry is "Bush Lied".

Paul, the truth will set you free.

Mon Sep 27 2004 12:04 PM

Right Wing Robby:

My favorite Kerry Quote.

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
But of course Kerry cant be blamed even though he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee. You have to actually show up for the meetings to know whats going on. I guess Security of 280 million Americans wasnt important enough.

(, You like that Jim? Maybe I am coming around, lol.)

Mon Sep 27 2004 12:25 PM


The many positions of John F Kerry (the non XXX version).

Does Kerry have the judgement to be President?
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." -- John Kerry 12/20/03

...(T)he satisfaction we take in (Saddam's) downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." -- John Kerry, 9/20/04

And the ever difficult triple flip:
"But I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job." -- John Kerry on the $87 billion dollars spent to rebuild Iraq and support our troops in Iraq, 9/14/03

"I'm proud to say that John (Edwards) joined me in voting against that $87 billion..." -- John Kerry, 7/12/04

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -- John Kerry, 3/19/04

The Flip on War on Terror:
"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]." -- John Kerry, 12/15/03

"...(W)e must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists." -- John Kerry 9/20/04

I don't get it should I vote for Kerry?
"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." -- John Kerry, USA Today on 2/13/03

"If you think I would have gone to war the way George Bush did, don't vote for me." -- John Kerry, Jan 2004

John Kerry on the threat of Saddam:
"I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." -- John Kerry, "Face The Nation", 9/15/02

"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world....He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ...We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future." -- John Kerry 10/9/02

The United Nations approved this add:
"I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq - Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." -- John Kerry, 7/29/02

"It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." -- John Kerry, 9/06/04

Bush was right, Kerry was wrong?
"George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry, Democratic Debate, 5/3/03

"Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" -- MSNBC’S Chris Matthews, 1/6/04

"I am, yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right." -- John Kerry, 1/6/04

Wonder why there's a dolphin out there pissed off that Kerry is giving Flipper a bad name.

Mon Sep 27 2004 1:37 PM

Right Wing Robby:

Still waiting on those example of lost freedoms Americans have suffered under the Bush Administration.

Come on Libs. I hear this charge all the time. Pony up some examples.

Tue Sep 28 2004 11:05 AM

Jim Gilliam:


I never miss a chance to push a movie:


Tue Sep 28 2004 2:55 PM


Freedom to disagree with the war in Iraq without being called a friend of the enemy.

Freedom to think GW lied about getting us into the Iraqi war.

Freedom to call Bill O'Reilly a common bully.

Freedom to have a president that isn't a Texas redneck idiot.

Freedom to not have the election decided by GW's brother.

Freedom to balance the budget.

Freedom to change my mind without being called a flip flopper.

Freedom to not live in fear.

Freedom to negotiate.

Freedom not to be a corporate but kisser.

Freedom to feel free.

Tue Sep 28 2004 10:41 PM

Right Wing Robby:

As we can see, no one can point to any rights that have been taken away. Our poster gave it his best shot, but came up short.


No one is stopping you from saying or feeling anything. You called the President a Redneck idiot. Are the feds outside your house right now?
You are riduculous.

The truth is NO rights have been taken away from anyone. Its just a liberal spin that the little lambs all follow without needing a single instance of proof to believe.

Still looking for some proof to back up the charge. Anyone?

Wed Sep 29 2004 8:53 AM


Another good movie eing made by an indepedent:

Wed Sep 29 2004 9:55 AM

Darrell Starnik:

Right Wing Robby,

Here are a few links to suppression of rights:

I was also looking for the recent case of the man born in Louisiana (I believe) who was detained for years and recently released with no charges being filed. I'm sorry I couldn't find that since I can't remember his name.


Wed Sep 29 2004 10:32 AM


This is a piece written quite recently by novelist E.L. Doctorow. It first
appeared in the September 9th issue of the Easthampton Star. It is an essay worth reading.

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the
death of our twenty-one year olds who wanted to be what they could be.

On the eve of D-day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of
the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in
a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival,
the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it.
You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the WMDs he can't
seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt
sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal,
a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He
is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a
moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice
for their country. But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he
dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he
has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the
thousand dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be. They
come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and father or wives and children
who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial
relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life.... they come to
his desk as a political liability which is why the press is not permitted to
photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq. How then can he mourn? To
mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his
reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does
not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his
mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that rather than controlling
terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and
crippled youngsters who have fought

this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the
mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs.
He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options
but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you
have to.

Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the
overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his
supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing --- to take power, to
remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their
friends. A war will do that as well as anything.

You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes
inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does
not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is
the President who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the
dead, he does not feel for the thirty five million of us who live in poverty, he
does not feel for the forty percent who cannot afford health insurance, he
does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working
people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay
their bills --- it is amazing for how many people in this country this
President does not feel. But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity
he is relieving the wealthiest one percent of the population of their tax
burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe
for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the safety regulations
for coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving
workers of their time-and-a- half benefits for overtime because this is actually a
way to honor them by raising them into the professional class. And this litany
of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy,
when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life
out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the
millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It
was extraordinary, that spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that
transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the
only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over he world
most of the time. But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of
millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of manki
nd. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was
morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was
turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to
advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of
tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who
could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than preemptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is
conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul.
He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our
lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The
trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble. Finally
the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the
face of our sky, the conditions that prevail: How can we sustain ourselves as
the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective
war making, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy
as to make us mourn for ourselves.

Wed Sep 29 2004 11:02 AM

Right Wing Robby:


The article you posted is Doctorow telling me that how Bush 'feels' about issues. How the hell would that guy have any idea how the President feels? Has he ever asked him? Is Laura giving this guy information on what Bush feels when he goes to bed at night?

Its completely unsubstaniated, contains little or no facts and deals soley with emotion. In other words its a typical liberal ranting. Maybe he could write a few paragraphs on how I am feeling today. Gimmie a break.

It funny how he mentions Eisenhower praying to God as being a good thing. When Bush prays to God the ACLU and liberals try to get the word 'God' removed from his prayers because he is the President.

Wed Sep 29 2004 11:38 AM

Right Wing Robby:

Darrell raises a far more legitimate debate. The Gitmo issues have strong points on both sides. I am not sure it answers the questions about how Americans are losing their rights under this President. It’s hard to make the argument because it just isn’t the case and therefore cannot be backed by facts.

I know both sides of the argument about Gitmo. Both sides have good points to make. Right now, my tendency is to give the benefit of doubt to the government, not the possible terrorist. The fact that there may be people there that are innocent isn’t a problem that is going to be solved. Even in our own justice system people are put away and even put to death that are innocent.

The liberal position seems always to give the benefit of doubt to the criminal. Examples of it can be found in a broad range of issues. I prefer to give the benefit of doubt to the innocent Americans who might be killed by them.

Wed Sep 29 2004 11:48 AM

Indy Jones:

The simple fact is that the liberals in this forum aren't going to convert the conservatives and the conservatives aren't going to convert the liberals. No one is coming here to make up their minds. Democrats come here because they agree with much of what Jim has to say. Republicans come here because they like to be confrontational. That's not intended to be insulting toward Republicans, but I can't really believe there is another reason for them to come here and post.

Wed Sep 29 2004 1:58 PM

Jim Gilliam:


The legal system itself gives the benefit of the doubt to the criminal. It's called "innocent until proven guilty."

Wed Sep 29 2004 2:05 PM



Your first "reference" concerning international law is hardly in support for your position. Current Geneva Convention "law" allows for the immediate execution of combatants captured in civilian dress without designation of a a "uniform". So by your arguement all the detainees could have (should have?) been killed killed instead of being taken prisoner.

Wed Sep 29 2004 2:48 PM

Right Wing Robby:

You make a good point Jim. The problem is that the main purpose of a place like Gitmo is that we are trying to get information about future terror activities or any information that can be useful to prevent thousands more dead on our streets.

Once you enter a lawyer into the picture, the chance of getting information drops to zero.

Thu Sep 30 2004 10:47 AM


I think in all fairness to both sides they both lie and you all just have to do your own research. I see bigger abomnations coming from the left than I have from the right. CBS, Draft, Bombs Stolen, Bush's (Supposed) Oil Ties, Racists, etc.. That kind of rhetoric is what divided this nation and now the left is whining like children that they lost the nation. It isn't a conspiracy, it is simply that people are tired of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and the Heavy Wieght Liberal Media.

There should be consequences for reporting utterly false things as news. Both sides of the news media should not be able to play on our emotions. I know Gore agrees! That is all the Kerry campain was about, scare tactics. "[Seniors you are going to lose you lose your Social Security if Bush is elected]"... These are old scare tactics that the left used last election as well and it never happened.

I am not trying to start a flame and I would be more than happy to listen to any FACTUAL points anyone would like to make. I am your typical swing voter that is in search of truth as I believe our nation's voters should be.

Fri Nov 5 2004 8:18 AM


ok, mark. I have a couple of points to make.

The Draft: HR163, check it out at
Fact, The republicans FORCED this bill to be voted on. The very person who brought this to a vote voted against it. While I do not think that by any stretch of the inagination Republicans would pass this bill, they neverless used it as a PR tool. basicly they went "look at us defeating the draft bill, you're all safe now" That is simply untrue, they can put a traditional draft in place at any time. I don't know if they will, but that's not part of my point.

Bush's "(Supposed)" Oil ties:
He RAN an oil comany. That alone gives him ties to the Oil industry.

Bombs Stolen:
While I am of the opinion that our president is a nitwit, I do not have the same opinion of most people in the military. I think they took those explosives before we got there. I mean 377 TONS??? get real, they'd have to use a fleet of trucks to haul that much out of there.

Social Security:
Either way it's fucked. If there aren't reforms made, it's going bankrupt in about 20-30 years, which means those who are young(er) are screwed (and by this i mean everyone under 35). If it is, it will be alright for those of us who are younger, because we can start putting our money into the private investment accounts Bush is proposing, but older people will be screwed because Social Security depends on the incoming money of the young to be able to pay those that have already retired. and guess who turns out more at election time, the elderly or the young? it's really no-win because Social security never took into account possible population booms and the increasing life expectancy when it was set up, thus setting the stage for this problem back in the Depression era. I actually hope Bush wins on this. (Did I just say that???)

I have more to say, but I'm going to do research on my statements before saying them.

Mon Nov 8 2004 3:08 PM


Reasons I dont like G.Dubya


(1), he was sleeping at his post when 9/11 happened.

(2), He couldnt even find Osama and still hasnt after 4 YEARS and 2 WARS (ps osama is still not believed to have left the afgan/pakistan border region in that time and is currently believed to be in the panshir border region of pakistan).

(3), he sabotaged the kyoto protocol so his oil buddies could make more money at the expense of our atmosphere.
(oil companies worldwide recorded record profets in 2004 due to inflated oil prices, etc).

(4), he launched an invasion without any justification
(right wingers keep saying there was evidence for WMD,terrorist connections, etc, so where is this evidence so?, im sure Dubya would have produced it if it existed).

Brendan, to be accurate bush ran more than one company if you give it all the names it had before he bankrupt it.
Arbusto Energy, Harken oil, etc
PS I believe it never made a profit.
Good guy to let run/bankrupt a country.

Shall we recap his reign of terror.
Comes into power through stolen elections then goes on holidays and lets the country suffer the worst attach in history, cant even find the guy who did it,launches TWO wars to cover this up and so his oil rich buddies make more money, lies cheats, etc.

you cant get anyone more redneck, reactionary, nationalistic and religious without some serious inbreeding.

Hell if even only ten percent of all his crimes were true, its enough to get rid of him.

Tue May 10 2005 9:12 AM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart