Kerry on Iraq

Look, he's just nuanced in a way you can't understand.

All i see is some clever editing that shows a guy who is anything but an extreme-left liberal wimp and who has a nuanced view on what should be done, how it should be done and when it should be done.
Sure his opinion evolves with changing circumstances, and sure a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote does not reflect all the pro's and cons one lines out in the motivation for that vote, or the circumstances surrounding that vote.
If this is the worst compilation they could make of his 'flip-flopping' on Iraq with 5 second soundbits over a 10 year period, i must say i'm actually surprised by his consistency.

Yet another attack ad put out by the RNC. So Bushies, what does Bush have planned for the next four years anyway? He hasn't produced a coharent plan to move forward yet only attacked Kerry while Kerry has run a relatively positive campaign against Bush. Why is that? Simple. Bush has no real plan. Bush can't run on his record. Bush can only attack Kerry. You guys stick with your little blip film and no future candidate. I'll vote for the better of the two candidates though.

Hmmm...

Maybe I should go ahead and make up that Bush video compilation that contrasts "no nation building" with "oh boy, nation building" and "no 9/11 commission" with "love that 9/11 commission" and "don't need or want a department of homeland security" with "good thing we made that department of homeland security".

Then we could do a montage of all the Bush administrators down-playing international terrorism pre 9/11 butted up against their new found "international terrorism is all we ever cared about" post 9/11.

"WOMD and buds with al Qaeda no doubt about it" against, well, still no doubt about, I guess, which isn't so much a flip-flop as delusional.

Follow that up with a humorous look at Bush admin "misstatements" about job growth and the economy that coincidentally flattered the white-house's policies followed by the somewhat more muted "those statements are now inoperative" statements.

And of course we would want the long segment featuring Bush statements of intent and will contrasted with the actual progress and funding of same.

Of course, the available video might not always make our point exactly, so we can edit it into three word sound bites that support our contention.

It is hilarious in that it ends up being a pro-Kerry video in that it voices so many of the obvious faults of the administration's idiotic rush to war.

So many of the flips are about how we were mislead . . . we were all mislead . . . whether by the administration, or, and I doubt this, by the CIA . . . he believed what we all (most Americans) believed: what was stovepiped to us and Congress.

with the exception of the song Flipper and the stupid replaying of that silly statement about 'before voting against' it is more a statement of the anti-war ideas that are justly floating around . .

it has become impossible to simply slander without also airing the obvious liabilities of the Bush Admin and its calamitous four years in office . . . its impossible because it is so clear, plainly true and everywhere . .. even amidst the 'a[[arent' flip=flops of Kerry.

Great editing. I love how they cut him off mid sentence:
"Mr. Kerry, were you for the war in Iraq?"
"Well, first of all, ye*cut*"
They couldn't even let him finish his "yes" or "yeah" or whatever. Shows how they're totally fabricating the whole flip-flopping issue.


GREAT idea.

You have to cut Kerry off. If you don't he would just keep going and going.

This is one of the many reasons why Howard Dean should have been the nominee instead John Kerry. The video makes that point rather well.

www.votenader.org

Kerry is a joke. He talks tuff about the military because he knows Americans are in a warring spirit. Regardless of what he thinks, he will not get votes without promissing to kick terrorist butt better than GWB. He also has gone to acting like a religious man and bringing up faith more and more. He knows that he must get the Christian vote to win and GWB is popular amongst folks of faith. NOONE at my church supports Kerry. His platform is based on nothing more than class warfare. "take from the rich and give to the poor". Promise the poor everthing at the expense of others. This in truth does nothing but extend the poor folks dependency on Gov aid, make them more dependant and give people like Kerry and his leftist friends a reason to exist. Don't you get it? The left does not want to"help the poor". The left wants to keep the poor dependant so that the left has power over them. A poor black kid who goes to school and makes something of himself does not need the left to help him and thus will not buy into the left's line of nonsense and vote for them.

And how excatly do you give that black kid an education? By providing tax cuts for the rich or tax breaks to parent who spend money on their childrens education?

This one is just stupid.

But Bush hasn't been kicking much terrorist butt that I can see. The recent report from the government shows that. It's on the rise not the decline in spite of the hundreds of billions Bush has thrown at the problem.

I'm still wondering if you're for real or just a troll getting his jollies.

No jimmac this one is not stupid. The Deomocratic party survives by keeping people dependant on Government handouts and programs. Give a man a fish and he shows up at your door again tomorrow. Give a man a fishing pole and he doesn't NEED you any more.

Moe

Teeheehee

The republican party survives by protecting the rich ( the top 10 % ) and taking money ( and control ) out of the hands of the middle class and the poor ( read the majority ).

So I suppose your parable is an admission of you being nothing but a troll.

If there are fish left... that is...

Good thing our current President is doing "quite well" on the environment. In fact, you couldn't provide one iota of evidence that his policies or inaction damaged the environment in any way!

What do you Utopians want? A socialist state bankrolled by extreme taxation of anybody with more than 100$ in the bank? We don't want your tax tax tax welfare state.

Perhaps, but I was trying to imply that they cut him off mid-sentence because otherwise he would have said something they couldn't have used. Cut him off mid-sentence and you can use what little was said however you want because then the audience doesn't really know the full context of his answer.

Except that it gives me big tax cuts that help feed my family. I must be rich.

No matter what side you're on, this video is a devastating case against Kerry. Editing alone cannot explain his glaring inconistencies.

Faust:


Of course it's an attack ad. And what the hell is this "Bush can't run on his record?" crap? A revitalized economy, no terror attacks on US soil, two major tax cuts, low unemployment and interest rates, medicare prescription drug benefit?

As for the future: Bush is going to push Social Security reform for one thing. He's also going to talk about more tax relief. He's simply not in that phase of the campaign yet. No plan does not equal "a plan you don't like".


pfflam:


Is it? Funny, to me it looks like Kerry's undoubted flops have been documented in devastating fashion.

There is no comparision between Kerry's flops and Bush's "flops". Bush has gone back one some things, no question. However, he's had good reason to do so on most of them. I don't see how you folks can argue that Kerry flops because he's nuanced, and then attack Bush for nation building after the worst terrorist attack in history. Seems we might have extenuating circumstances there, no?

I completely agree with you and respect your choice to choose another candidate. I'm not sure I'd vote for Nader, but whatever.

Is that what us not wants? hehehe.... Precious.... </gollum voice>

doublepost

I don't know why I bother. I've addressed these very same issues in other threads but here goes anyway.

1. Tax-cuts are no longer a plus for the Bush administration. You can find literally dozens of Polls saying as much, but I'll use a FOX news Poll as an example: http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
   
   Scroll on down to this question:
   
   "If you had to choose, would you prefer balancing the budget or cutting taxes?" Half sample (Form A)
   
   61% of respondents prefer a balanced budget over a tax cut.
   
   Scroll up to this question where you'll see that the largest chunk of people in the US (middle and lower income) feel wealthy people are not paying their fair share. Its the little things that bug the middle class like Bush and Cheney both paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class American. You can look this up. I have faith in you. Find Bush/Cheney income tax forms for this year and you'll see they paid a small portion.
   
   Or, you can scroll down to this question:
   
   "Do you think the tax cuts which Congress passed and George W. Bush signed into law have mostly helped the U.S. economy, have had no effect, or have mostly hurt the U.S. economy in the past year?"
   
   where you'll see that 55% of respondents felt the tax cuts had to effect to a negative effect. This is compared to 41% of respondents who had a favorable view of the cuts. 41% is smaller than 55%.
   
   I can go on, but I'm not going to because I know you believe one thing and will never investigate your belief to verify its validity. If you really look into this though you'll see that most Americans feel the Tax cuts are an albatross--Bush has been hush-hush about this lately for a reason.
   
2. No terrorist attacks in two years means nothing and you know this. 1993 to 1998 is 5 years between terrorist attacks. We are constantly reminded how dangerous the world is now. Simply burring your head in the sand with "We've been safe for two years" is not gonna quell the masses.
   
3. Revitalized economy--Swing by www.BLS.gov for a the real picture. Jobs creation has withered. Jobs quality has withered (the huge jobs growth was in large part due to the growth of lower paying temp jobs). Pay has not increases with inflation. All of this is available from the BLS if you decide to actually read a little on your own instead of getting a canned rehash from Fox.
   
4. Perscription drug benefit!!! You've got to be kidding. Again, here you can find the polls yourself. Most Americans feel this law is a handout for drug and insurance companies. Look at the signup rate from seniors here. Atrocious. If you looked into this you'd see that this is another albatross.
   
5. Bush has nothing to do with interest rates. Most people know Alan Greenspan's name and associate that with interest rates.

[quote]As for the future: Bush is going to push Social Security reform for one thing. He's also going to talk about more tax relief. He's simply not in that phase of the campaign yet. No plan does not equal "a plan you don't like". [quote]

Where is Bush's plan then? I've been to his site: http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/

This stuff is not a plan. It's a rehash of what he's done thus far. Where's George's "plan" for the future.


OMFG too funny. Bush Flip-Flops (on many occasions on many big things like the 9/11 commission and homeland security) and they are reversals for good reason. Kerry Flip-Flops and they are just that Flip-Flops. Talk about Blinded By The Right.

Read what I said Killer. I said it was an RNC attack ad. The ad itself is not hosted on an RNC site but the realmedia video is. This ad was if not produced then sanctioned by the RNC. It is not some independent attack ad thrown together by a couple of guys but a professional RNC hack job. There is a big difference between an issue ad and an ad put out by a political party. In this case it shows the party's candidate (Bush) has no merits so must resort to atlered out of context blip shots.

See, now this is just as partisan as the video which started this thread... Have fun.

http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/...}/20040805.ASX

You'll need windows media player.

You butchered the proverb.

Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today._ Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime

It's a little different this way because it implies that education is an important part of life, while your version simply attacks "government handouts". So, what are these handouts and what kind of $$ figures are we looking at anyway Mr. Misinformed?

We want a govement for the people, by the people.

Not George Bush lying our way to the future.

As for taxes.....

Well someone has to pay for Bush's little spending spree.

It may not have accomplished a damn thing but boy was it fun for him.

If he were to keep running up the bill ( on useless garbage ) we would be in a welfare state.

I saw pictures of your house on your web site. You're not doing bad.


Plus your children will have to pay for this someday.

I remember a few years ago when I went to my accountant to do my taxes they were chuckling about the " Bush kickback check ".

I'm not doing bad either but at least I admit that hasn't anything to do with George Bush.

Are we talking about actual progress or poll results? They are two different topics. I agree that the polling is not very good, but that's not really the point, now is it?

As for your points, for one Job Quality has not withered. This is myth. It doesn't matter how many times it's refuted, you'll still spew the same nonsense.

The medicare bill, which I don't support, is still an achievment. Bush signed what the Democrats have been promising for 40 years. Is it flawed? Yes. But he got it done.

I agree that terror attacks tend to be spaced out. However, if the predictions of Al-Qaeda's increased recrutiment and furor were true, don't you think SOMETHING would have happened?

Bush also DOES have something to do with interest rates, because his tax policies have had an economic impact. It's a loss association though, and that'll give you.

Bush has had some noticeable achivements. He's also done some things I don't agree with. I'm just saying that it's not reasonable to say that we're "in hell" now and that the past four years have been terrible. It's just not true.

Yeah he's had some achivements alright!

Starting a war on a false premise that cost billions of ( our ) dollars and basically accomplished nothing.

Ran up the deficit triple ( from a surplus ) rivaling Reagan's record.

Made the rest of the world wary of us in a time when we need every friendship we can get.

Created a gestopo like branch of government for the purpose of protecting us and it would never be used for other things. No, no.

And guess what? The rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are losing ground again. Go figure.

I'm sure in your bizaro world interpretation you'll twist all of this to fit your alternate reality.

But it does. I've gotten thousands of dollars per year back. Last year I got a $3,000 refund due to the depeciation changes and rate reductions. The tax cuts were REAL. I make a very average salary. Without those cuts, I'd be paying far more. Of that there is no question.

As far as my children, I have to take issue with that. That's the left's typical line: "Your children are going to have to pay for our debts!". Well, I agree that the debt and deficit are an issue, but I don't share the sense of alarm. I have to wonder whether you'd be so upset about this if a Democrat was in office. The fact is that there are some real reasons we are running deficits, most of them very good ones. It is true that tax cuts have lowered revenue in the short term. I argue those cuts were needed to get us out of recession, which they have done. We are also spedning a lot more militarily, which I think is also needed, even without regards to Iraq. We've had additonal expenses for homeland security in the post 9/11 era, etc. There are some very good reasons. We're also spending a LOT domestically. Take education, where the budget has gone up 50% since Bush took office.

Jimmac, once again...don't misinterpret me. I'm not pleased with all aspects of the Bush Administration. I think we need huge domestic spending cuts and efficiencies. I think we need total tax reform (like taking the current system and trashing it and starting over). I oppose the medicare bill as well.
That being said, I believe this election is between two people, Bush and Kerry. Nader is not even really in the race. Between the two, Bush is the clear winner. Security is the most important issue to me...and I would much rather haev Bush's approach of keeping the war "over there" as opposed to here.

" Bush is the clear winner ".

Given everything that's occured and recent polls you'd better have a stiff one on election night.

I wasn't trying to quote the Scriptures so I did not "butcher the proverb". The Democrats want to keep poor folks dependant on them. Their whole platform is to tell folks "You can't do it by yourself. You need us to help you so elect us".The Democrats keep the poor, the black folk anr rhe hispanics down on purpose. There are more and more black and hispanic Republicans as these groups become better represented in society. Nothing scares a Democrat more than a succesful black or hispanic Republican.

Sorry you've got that wrong. It's the republicans who want to let the poor " eat cake ".

Someday this war's gonna end . . . "

. . . um

someday you're gonna grow up
and look at all the incredible cliches that you threw around in your silly youth . . . cliches that are idiotic and simple-minded, and on that day you'll have pangs of deep inner embarassment.

Unless of course you simply stay in Texas all your life and hang around only the same people and only go to the same church . . . in which case, I would venture to say, that you would never grow-up, at least in terms of maturity.

(Now before I get PMed or banned: Mods realize that I am reffering to a clear set of cliches, cliches that illicit a responce and deserve it . . . it isn't a character slur . . . very much)

For some reason I feel the need to repeat the mantra that ALL non-defense discretionary spending totals less than the Defense budget. Much less, if you count the supplemental Iraq appropriations (which are conveniently left off of the official budget, despite totaling more annually than NASA, NIH and NSF funding combined). You could axe everything outside the DoD, and if wouldn't balance the budget. This is more or less the definition of a "structural" deficit. It's not going away without a substantial increase in revenues or extremely disruptive changes in outlays.

As for tax cuts, the recession was two years ago, right? The tax cuts worked, right? Aren't we in a recovery now? I swear I heard the President say we turned the corner. So shouldn't we be thinking of raising taxes to prepare for the next recession? Oh, I forgot. While we cut taxes during a recession, we instead cut taxes during periods of growth. In the Real World(tm), however, the economy is, was, and will always be cyclical. After a few more recessions, there won't be any taxes left to cut. Then what do you do? This tax-cuts-at-all-costs ideology simply makes no rational sense. None. Just like the rest of Bush's economic "plan" - say, the recession-fighting tax cuts scheduled to take effect in 2009 and expire in 2010.

1. You have not really addressed the point. I'm simply saying there are some real reasons for our deficit, some of which are very good reasons to run one.

2. This kind of thinking is exactly the problem. Yes, the tax cuts worked. That doesn't mean we turn around and raise taxes again. Why? Because the government STILL takes too much of the people's money. It's your whole philosophical approach that's wrong. The nation as a whole would be far more prosperous if the government removed its hands from every nook and cranny of every pocket in America. Government in this country takes up to half of every dollar earned when we figure all the taxes paid by the average citizen. THAT'S the problem.

Yeah, black really is white and that's the sun not the moon.