Kerry Flip Flops with new Ad - Calls Bush Liar 10-3-04

[dmcowen674]

10-3-2004 New Kerry Ad Says Bush Lied About Debate

"George Bush lost the debate," an announcer says in a television ad Kerry's campaign unveiled Saturday. "Now he's lying about it."

The Democratic presidential candidate's accusation came two days after his first debate with Bush, when he told moderator Jim Lehrer that he avoids saying that the president is lying to the American people.

"I've never, ever used the harshest word, as you did just then," Kerry said. "And I try not to, but I'll nevertheless tell you that I think he has not been candid with the American people."


Kerry spokesman David Wade said the Massachusetts senator's new ad will run at least in all the places where Bush airs his own new ad called "Global Test."

That ad refers to Kerry's comment in the debate that a pre-emptive strike must pass "the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

The Bush ad called it the "Kerry doctrine," and asked: "So we must seek permission from foreign governments before protecting America?"

 

[tec699]

I'd rather have a flip floper then a crook. I could be receiving free health care right now but yet were pissing millions in a war that should have been avoided.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: tec699
I'd rather have a flip floper then a crook. I could be receiving free health care right now but yet were pissing millions in a war that should have been avoided.

Billions not millions. Imagine what that money could've been doing instead.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tec699
I'd rather have a flip floper then a crook. I could be receiving free health care right now but yet were pissing millions in a war that should have been avoided.

You mean you have to get a real job and not mooch off the government your whole life? Cry me a river. Free healthcare is a dying whale, and it's not even implemented yet. It's worse than Social Security, as it will instantly have more people withdrawing than putting in.

 

[chess9]

It's about time Kerry started hitting a lot harder. The guy's ads have been soooo wussy for so long....

Kerry shouldn't forget that Republicans will not hesitate to stoop much lower than their political enemies.

-Robert

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: tec699
I'd rather have a flip floper then a crook. I could be receiving free health care right now but yet were pissing millions in a war that should have been avoided.

Billions not millions. Imagine what that money could've been doing instead.

Opps.. your correct. "Think of the children people!!"

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: tec699
I'd rather have a flip floper then a crook. I could be receiving free health care right now but yet were pissing millions in a war that should have been avoided.

Billions not millions. Imagine what that money could've been doing instead.

Opps.. your correct. "Think of the children people!!"

Ironically, the ones that are pro-life, don't give a sh*t about what happens to those children after birth. Compassionate conservatism at its best.

 

[Smilin]

Sorry, but I agree with him. The "Global Test" means you were right. Right is right and wrong is wrong by both a global standard and an American standard.

A Preemptive strike is what Israel did when they started the 6 Day War in 1967. They were clearly the aggressors. "The Global Test" has since vindicated them. They were about to be obliterated by their neighbors and had to act in their own best interest.

A Preemptive strike is also what Iraq did with they started the first Gulf War in 1990. They were clearly the aggressors. "The Global Test" has since found them to be attacking not out of self defense. They were wrong and were acting out of aggression and not their own best interest.

If you are not the aggressor it is difficult to be in the wrong. Peaceful behavior is always the right way to behave but sometimes it is not possible. Always offer someone flowers, but if they're pointing a knife at you offer them the wrong end of a gun instead.

When you decide to violate the sovereignty of another country and invade them you better make damn sure you are in the right. Acting in self defense is always justified even when you do it proactively. If it turns out you are wrong then preemption is simply aggression.

When is it ok for me to break in to your house and shoot you? Damn skippy...the circumstances are pretty narrow when that is the just thing to do. If it turns out that you had one of my neighbors kidnapped in the basement and bomb making materials in your living room I will be vindicated by "the neighborhood test." If it turns out that you were writing crappy letters about me and had a picture of me as a dartboard then guess what. I'm going to jail for home invasion and murder.


What Kerry said was we have the right to make a preemptive strike anytime we want. We're just going to make sure that we're right. As usual, George doesn't get it. It confuses his lil head so he says, "Aha! Flip-flopping again!"

If we strike preemptively it must be for a good and just reason. America MUST ALWAYS stand for truth, justice and what is right. We cannot fail in this.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: tec699
I'd rather have a flip floper then a crook. I could be receiving free health care right now but yet were pissing millions in a war that should have been avoided.

Billions not millions. Imagine what that money could've been doing instead.

we would still be in a deficit w/o the iraq war, so you wouldnt be getting anything "free" from the govt. You aren't losing any of your benefits b/c of the iraq war, and a national healthcare isnt gonna happen, regardless if kerry gets elected. You liberals need to stop looking for free handouts and get out there and learn to make some money.

 

[Todd33]

The Bush ad called it the "Kerry doctrine," and asked: "So we must seek permission from foreign governments before protecting America?"

Of course this is the complete opposite of what Kerry said during the debate, but why tell the truth when you can crop out three words and make an ad from it. They never amaze me with their ability to mislead and lie.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Ironically, the ones that are pro-life, don't give a sh*t about what happens to those children after birth. Compassionate conservatism at its best.

Originally posted by: Smilin

Sorry, but I agree with him. The "Global Test" means you were right. Right is right and wrong is wrong by both a global standard and an American standard.

A Preemptive strike is what Israel did when they started the 6 Day War in 1967. They were clearly the aggressors. "The Global Test" has since vindicated them. They were about to be obliterated by their neighbors and had to act in their own best interest.

A Preemptive strike is also what Iraq did with they started the first Gulf War in 1990. They were clearly the aggressors. "The Global Test" has since found them to be attacking not out of self defense. They were wrong and were acting out of aggression and not their own best interest.

If you are not the aggressor it is difficult to be in the wrong. Peaceful behavior is always the right way to behave but sometimes it is not possible. Always offer someone flowers, but if they're pointing a knife at you offer them the wrong end of a gun instead.

When you decide to violate the sovereignty of another country and invade them you better make damn sure you are in the right. Acting in self defense is always justified even when you do it proactively. If it turns out you are wrong then preemption is simply aggression.

When is it ok for me to break in to your house and shoot you? Damn skippy...the circumstances are pretty narrow when that is the just thing to do. If it turns out that you had one of my neighbors kidnapped in the basement and bomb making materials in your living room I will be vindicated by "the neighborhood test." If it turns out that you were writing crappy letters about me and had a picture of me as a dartboard then guess what. I'm going to jail for home invasion and murder.


What Kerry said was we have the right to make a preemptive strike anytime we want. We're just going to make sure that we're right. As usual, George doesn't get it. It confuses his lil head so he says, "Aha! Flip-flopping again!"

If we strike preemptively it must be for a good and just reason. America MUST ALWAYS stand for truth, justice and what is right. We cannot fail in this.

Very well said. The only problem is, who can know the outcome of the 'global test' beforehand? What if we, using our best judgment, are still wrong and this is discovered after the fact?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Very well said. The only problem is, who can know the outcome of the 'global test' beforehand? What if we, using our best judgment, are still wrong and this is discovered after the fact?

Ah yes. That will always be the problem. For most things you must simply use your best judgment when you cannot see into the future. When the stakes are very grave and irreversible you must use exceptional judgment. To put a man to death for instance there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Most states in this great country even go one step further and submit an automatic appeal in capital punishment.

In our most recent case of a "preemptive strike" our intelligence beforehand could all be "reasonably doubted." Even if all of the intelligence had turned out somehow to be true the findings of Hans Blixes team left "reasonable doubt" for the case as a whole. Iraq had certainly used up a number of "appeals", but there is *nothing* more grave and irreversible than war. We failed wait for weapons inspections to finish, failed listen to the judgment of longtime allies and basically failed to allow one more appeal. Then it turns out we were wrong.

Our president used his "best judgment" and did what he though was right. Yet he failed the standards by which we judge a single man's life in this free and just country of ours. His "best judgment" has now cost 1000 of our lives, 7000 wounded, 15,000 Iraqis and the moral standing of our country to judge others.

Again, we MUST be in the right if we are to preemptively attack another sovereign nation. It is vital to the honor and values of what is "America". It is vital to our future. If we cannot see the future we must use our "best judgment". I think our presidents judgment failed this time. I can forgive him as a person since I know he thought what he was doing was moral. As my leader and representative of MY judgment I would like him to step down. I will express this in November and I would encourage you to do the same.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Ah yes. That will always be the problem. For most things you must simply use your best judgment when you cannot see into the future. When the stakes are very grave and irreversible you must use exceptional judgment. To put a man to death for instance there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Most states in this great country even go one step further and submit an automatic appeal in capital punishment.

In our most recent case of a "preemptive strike" our intelligence beforehand could all be "reasonably doubted." Even if all of the intelligence had turned out somehow to be true the findings of Hans Blixes team left "reasonable doubt" for the case as a whole. Iraq had certainly used up a number of "appeals", but there is *nothing* more grave and irreversible than war. We failed wait for weapons inspections to finish, failed listen to the judgment of longtime allies and basically failed to allow one more appeal. Then it turns out we were wrong.

Our president used his "best judgment" and did what he though was right. Yet he failed the standards by which we judge a single man's life in this free and just country of ours. His "best judgment" has now cost 1000 of our lives, 7000 wounded, 15,000 Iraqis and the moral standing of our country to judge others.

Again, we MUST be in the right if we are to preemptively attack another sovereign nation. It is vital to the honor and values of what is "America". It is vital to our future. If we cannot see the future we must use our "best judgment". I think our presidents judgment failed this time. I can forgive him as a person since I know he thought what he was doing was moral. As my leader and representative of MY judgment I would like him to step down. I will express this in November and I would encourage you to do the same.

Agreed again, but what is the solution? Are we going to have a jury of the president's peers to judge whether or not he's made his case beyond a reasonable doubt? I thought that's what the Congress was for. As I proposed once before, I think there should be a supermajority (2/3) of each house of congress to take military action. This should actually be voted WHEN the action is going to take place, not just to give funding should it ever be needed. This is the jury system we need, and the 2/3 vote required means that force will only be used if we really do need it, not when partisanship or other agendas deem it a good idea at the time.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Very well said. The only problem is, who can know the outcome of the 'global test' beforehand? What if we, using our best judgment, are still wrong and this is discovered after the fact?

We'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it.

Although, your unveiled attempt at trying to equate that sentiment with the current situation in Iraq is duly noted and thoroughly dismissed.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Very well said. The only problem is, who can know the outcome of the 'global test' beforehand? What if we, using our best judgment, are still wrong and this is discovered after the fact?

We'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it.

Although, your unveiled attempt at trying to equate that sentiment with the current situation in Iraq is duly noted and thoroughly dismissed.

*throws a * Fetch!

Some of us are trying to have a real discussion, do you mind?

 

[fjord]

Its hard work being a flip-flopper.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: tec699
I'd rather have a flip floper then a crook. I could be receiving free health care right now but yet were pissing millions in a war that should have been avoided.

You want free healthcare? :laugh:

Get your lazy ass a job.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Agreed again, but what is the solution? Are we going to have a jury of the president's peers to judge whether or not he's made his case beyond a reasonable doubt? I thought that's what the Congress was for. As I proposed once before, I think there should be a supermajority (2/3) of each house of congress to take military action. This should actually be voted WHEN the action is going to take place, not just to give funding should it ever be needed. This is the jury system we need, and the 2/3 vote required means that force will only be used if we really do need it, not when partisanship or other agendas deem it a good idea at the time.

You are asking me to speculate on a future set of circumstances that are unknown. The framers of the constitution believed that war was such an important matter that two branches of govornment needed to agree on it. Although the executive branch controls the military, the legislative branch must authorize war. Our military can conduct action for some time without a declaration of war. This is even more necessary in todays times when war can be measured in days (or even minutes, God help us) instead of years. In the case of a preemptive attack it may be necessary for our president to act immediately and then later submit to the judgement of congress. When it all comes down to it, he is the "Commander in Chief" and bears all responsibility. Sometimes the decision will have to be his alone.

In the case of Iraq there was plenty of time to make a decision. We had time for congress to convene beforehand. Our congress said "We are with you and will trust your final judgement when the time comes." They gave him the power to preemptively attack if it appeared all other avenues would fail. If congress had said, "Come back just once more before you do so we can vote for War." it would have cost our commanders strategic initiative during an age where wars can be won or lost by the time it takes them to find their seats (I exagerate, but it certainly would have cost lives, and I think you understand without me delving into the details)

I do not believe all avenues had been exhausted in this case. Had they been we would have realized in time our errors in judgement and the war would not have happened. We failed to remove all reasonable doubt before marching to war.

It seems that there were a number of factors that hastened our strike. Support for the war was begining to fail in the Public, in congress and in the U.N. I believe the president had already decided on war (he asked our terrorism czar to look for supporting evidence on September *12th* 2001) and he did not want support to slip any further before it started. I do not feel that he used good judgement that simply turned out badly. I believe he used poor judgement that turned out badly. You can *not* make a mistake when going to war. He made a mistake and I want a new leader.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: tec699
I'd rather have a flip floper then a crook. I could be receiving free health care right now but yet were pissing millions in a war that should have been avoided.

You want free healthcare? :laugh:

Get your lazy ass a job.

But but but...didn't the Constitution say "free health care" was a right?

CsG

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: tec699
I'd rather have a flip floper then a crook. I could be receiving free health care right now but yet were pissing millions in a war that should have been avoided.

You want free healthcare? :laugh:

Get your lazy ass a job.

Healthcare costs are rising at 4x the rate of incomes. I guess our lazy asses will need to get four jobs before too long. I doubt we would all have free healthcare but I could certainly think of other things I would rather spend 120 (soon to be 200 and counting) Billion dollars on. How 'bout chuck it into the FBI/CIA budget to fight terroists for instace. Think 120 Billion bucks would bust a terror cell or two? Nah, "America is safer" if we don't.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Smilin
You are asking me to speculate on a future set of circumstances that are unknown. The framers of the constitution believed that war was such an important matter that two branches of govornment needed to agree on it. Although the executive branch controls the military, the legislative branch must authorize war. Our military can conduct action for some time without a declaration of war. This is even more necessary in todays times when war can be measured in days (or even minutes, God help us) instead of years. In the case of a preemptive attack it may be necessary for our president to act immediately and then later submit to the judgement of congress. When it all comes down to it, he is the "Commander in Chief" and bears all responsibility. Sometimes the decision will have to be his alone.

In the case of Iraq there was plenty of time to make a decision. We had time for congress to convene beforehand. Our congress said "We are with you and will trust your final judgement when the time comes." They gave him the power to preemptively attack if it appeared all other avenues would fail. If congress had said, "Come back just once more before you do so we can vote for War." it would have cost our commanders strategic initiative during an age where wars can be won or lost by the time it takes them to find their seats (I exagerate, but it certainly would have cost lives, and I think you understand without me delving into the details)

I do not believe all avenues had been exhausted in this case. Had they been we would have realized in time our errors in judgement and the war would not have happened. We failed to remove all reasonable doubt before marching to war.

It seems that there were a number of factors that hastened our strike. Support for the war was begining to fail in the Public, in congress and in the U.N. I believe the president had already decided on war (he asked our terrorism czar to look for supporting evidence on September *12th* 2001) and he did not want support to slip any further before it started. I do not feel that he used good judgement that simply turned out badly. I believe he used poor judgement that turned out badly. You can *not* make a mistake when going to war. He made a mistake and I want a new leader.

Yeah, I accidentally left out the part about requiring the 2/3 majority for all military actions exceeding 30 days.

I guess what I'm saying is that the Congress should be more involved in the process. They shouldn't just say at arbitrary point A "Here's your money, have fun" then turn the president loose on a shopping spree at some arbitrary point B in the future. There needs to be a greater possibility for checks and balances, I guess, though I can't necessarily tell you what it should be. Placing the sole responsibility on one man can have disastrous consequences, regardless of how honest and good-willed he might be. This is borne out by Iraq, and demonstrates to me that the current system needs reworking. If nothing else, Congress needs to include in the funding proposal explicit stipulations as to what exactly is required before action may be taken (e.g. Bush must get a vote on a new resolution from the UN or something).

 

[gutharius]

THis is the ad in question:
Ad
Personally I see this as a clarification of what Kerry said in light of Bush's attempts to spin his miserable performance at the first debate.

Edit: And yes, from what I have heard bush is a liar. Sorry, but you can't blame Kerry for speaking the truth.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: gutharius
THis is the ad in question:
Ad
Personally I see this as a clarification of what Kerry said in light of Bush's attempts to spin his miserable performance at the first debate.

Edit: And yes, from what I have heard bush is a liar. Sorry, but you can't blame Kerry for speaking the truth.

They're both liars. http://www.factcheck.org

 

[gutharius]

Well lets see, based on factsheck.org, in the last 2 weeks they have cited 4 Bush ads with blatent lies or misrepresentation and just one from kerry. Hmmm. I think a 4-1 ration is fairly good, expecially given the fact we are dealing with politicians here, and kerry is 20 year vet. So it looks like to me Kerry is a more honest fellow than Bush is. But I already knew that! Maybe some neocons on this forum will realize they are being lied to by a hypocrite president who says one thing then turns his back and does another.

 

[Genx87]

If Bush's campaign was smart he would use Kerrys response about Iran where he said he would give the Iranian nuclear material as a litmus test. Since when is giving a nation hell bent on developing nuke weapons the material they need a good litmus test?????