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

[Risiko]

I sincerely hope that the attempt by Bush to call Kerry out on his "global test" severely flops. He's just trying to take advantage of the natural xenophobia and distrust of the rest of the world that some Americans have. I hope, and I am inclined to believe, that the American people are smart enough to understand what John Kerry really said, and reject the gung-ho "the world doesn't much matter" attitude of Bush.

 

[Smilin]

Sadly it's going to work on most people. It's a BADLY out of context quote too. The sentence just before it was:

"I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country.' No one gets a veto over our security. No one."

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Speaking of substance, CycloWizard, which seems to be the new Republican "word of he week"- what substance was there, or is there today, that the invasion of Iraq was somehow "protecting America"?

Where are those massive stockpiles of CBW agents, that nuclear program, those transatlantic drones, those "links" to al qaeda? What happened to "We know where they are" and "We found them"? When did anybody with half a brain begin to accept the idea that those statements are the same as the "woulda, coulda, I just know it, 'cause he's just plain evil" that we're hearing today?

History leaves us with a choice as to how we evaluate the Bush Presidency, and the invasion of Iraq. Either he's delusional, or a liar, take your pick. Neither one is cause for re-election.

Way to change the subject back to Old Faithful. You wouldn't vote for Bush if we found 10,000 nuclear missiles targeted at the US, so quit trying to be self-righteous.

Originally posted by: Smilin
I've enjoyed it myself. It's been a pleasure having someone pose serious questions to me that make me think hard on (or possibly reconsider) my position. It's a refreshing change from the personal attacks, topic changes, or cries of <candidtate A> is an idiot. It's a natural response to be emotional when someone disagrees with you. It just doesn't accomplish anything.

:beer:
Refreshing change of pace to have someone actually answer questions and ask appropriate followups.

 

[Jhhnn]

What, CycloWizard? Are you saying that the Invasion of Iraq wasn't billed as "Protecting America"?

Because that's what the original Kerry comment was in reference to, that GWB had been less than truthful with the public and the world wrt those events, and that he'd be sure to have real, and solid evidence before acting pre-emptively on such a scale... something that would bear the scrutiny of world opinion. Which, natch, The Bush camp is trying to spin into "asking permission"... A truly blatant distortion, a lie for all intents and purposes.

Old Faithful? I suppose so. The truth has a way of surfacing, over and over again. As it turns out, the last time GWB set out to "Protect America" with our military, it wasn't for any good reason at all.

Kerry's right, at this point, to be blunt, to lay it on the line, to call the lies and distortions of the Bush sleaze machine for what they are- dangerous, counterproductive, and a violation of the public trust and the principles of our Republic. Failure to do so would mark him as a coward, and he's obviously not.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
What, CycloWizard? Are you saying that the Invasion of Iraq wasn't billed as "Protecting America"?

Because that's what the original Kerry comment was in reference to, that GWB had been less than truthful with the public and the world wrt those events, and that he'd be sure to have real, and solid evidence before acting pre-emptively on such a scale... something that would bear the scrutiny of world opinion. Which, natch, The Bush camp is trying to spin into "asking permission"... A truly blatant distortion, a lie for all intents and purposes.

Old Faithful? I suppose so. The truth has a way of surfacing, over and over again. As it turns out, the last time GWB set out to "Protect America" with our military, it wasn't for any good reason at all.

Kerry's right, at this point, to be blunt, to lay it on the line, to call the lies and distortions of the Bush sleaze machine for what they are- dangerous, counterproductive, and a violation of the public trust and the principles of our Republic. Failure to do so would mark him as a coward, and he's obviously not.

"Old Faithful" because you repeatedly change the subject. You can't argue the topic at hand, so you revert to one you can argue. Every time. Kerry is a liar. Bush is a liar. Edwards is a liar. Cheney is a liar.

 

[conjur]

In the final month of the campaign, Democrats are increasingly tying the White House to the Saudi Arabian royal family, a line of attack that they say is highly effective, but it has stirred concern among Saudi officials.

Senator John Kerry and the Democratic Party introduced two new advertisements this weekend that criticize President Bush's administration as giving the family "special favors" and as having an overreliance on Saudi Arabia for oil.

And the Media Fund, a Democratic group, said yesterday that it would spend $6.5 million to run advertisements hitting the Saudi theme still harder in Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin during the next couple of weeks.

Officials with the Media Fund said they decided to do so after a test run in St. Louis late last month produced what they said were unexpectedly good results with voters.

The line of attack is reminiscent of "Fahrenheit 9/11," the anti-Bush documentary by Michael Moore that highlights what it call Mr. Bush's ties to the Saudi royal family.

Mr. Kerry's new advertisements imply that ties between the president and the Saudis have caused Mr. Bush to take a slack line against the Saudis on oil prices - a message Kerry aides say they hope will resonate particularly well in the days before Mr. Kerry's Friday debate on domestic issues with Mr. Bush.

"The Saudi royal family gets special favors, while our gas prices skyrocket," an announcer says in one spot as the screen flashes a picture of Crown Prince Abdullah. In another, Mr. Kerry says, "I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation, not the Saudi royal family."

Tad Devine, a senior strategist for Mr. Kerry, said in an interview: "The heart of their policy is to benefit the powerful and the privileged. Bush is beholden to powerful interests and not the American people."

Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Mr. Bush, said: "It's the mainstreaming of Michael Moore. What's unusual is that conspiracies would be adopted as mainstream messages by John Kerry, who's running for president of the United States."

Nail al-Jubeir, a spokesman for the Saudi embassy in Washington, said yesterday that the assertion in the ads was unfair and inaccurate. "Saudi bashing is not an energy policy," he said, denying the nation has won any "special favors." "Unfortunately, it's a cheap shot."

Mr. Jubeir had harsher words for the Media Fund advertisements, one of which calls the Saudi royal family "close Bush family friends" who are "corrupt." It goes on to note "even though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, top Bush adviser James Baker's law firm is defending Saudi Arabia against the victims' families." The spot includes images of President Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah and mug shots of the Sept. 11 hijackers superimposed above a shot of rubble from the attacks.

Mr. Jubeir said yesterday, "There is nothing but fear mongering and hate mongering in some of these ads."

Erik Smith, executive director of the Media Fund, echoed Mr. Devine that Mr. Bush was "putting other people's interests ahead of the interests of the American people."

He said that the Media Fund decided to put $6.5 million behind the ads because in St. Louis they seemed to have had a huge influence. An internal poll the Media Fund shared showed Mr. Kerry trailing Mr. Bush in St. Louis by one percentage point before the ads ran and jumping to a 7-point lead afterward. "It leverages existing perceptions and it's powerful because it's deeply troubling," said Steve McMahon, whose firm produced the spots.

Kerry Ads Draw on Saudis for New Attack on Bushes

Uh-oh...the Kerry campaign is picking up the political tactics of Rove - hit them where their strengths lie.

 

[wiin]

President Bush did not lie. Kerry did say that pre-emptive strike must pass "the global test". I must say that in this case, he is consistent ?I?m an internationalist,? Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. ?I?d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: wiin
President Bush did not lie. Kerry did say that pre-emptive strike must pass "the global test". I must say that in this case, he is consistent ?I?m an internationalist,? Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. ?I?d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.?

No, Bush lied alright. The only thing he didn't lie about was that Kerry used the words "Test" and "Global" There were actualy 64 or so words that Kerry actually used. Selectively quoting someone out of context in such a way that it alters what they said is lying.

Take your quote above for example. Let me requote it for you:

Originally posted by: wiin
President Bush..did say that pre-emptive strike must pass "the global test". I must say that in this case..?I?d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.?

Yes, you DID say that. If I go around telling everyone that's what you said I would be lying though wouldn't I?


Prove to me that you can get this concept and I would be happy to have an intelligent discussion with you. As homework I would like you to come back and quote to us the sentence that Kerry said before the one with "global test" in it. The sentence I'm talking about had the word "veto" in it. Do this task and you'll have some credibility with me. :beer:

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: wiin
President Bush did not lie. Kerry did say that pre-emptive strike must pass "the global test". I must say that in this case, he is consistent ?I?m an internationalist,? Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. ?I?d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.?

The fact that you are quoting an article from 35 years ago just shows how weak the "global test" argument of the GOP is. Things you say now you may feel differently about 2 weeks from now or even 35 years from now. I was anti-abortion not to long ago before I met a woman that had one. She described to me how painful of a decision it was and how after she had the abortion she regretted it but still felt it was the right thing for "her" to do. Her story made me realise that we are not in any position to tell women what do with their bodies and/or lives. I still don't like abortion but have gone from wanting to have it banned to letting the women choose.

20 years from now I could try and run for office and they could find these comments by me as a 22 year old and say I was anti-abortion. You think that'd be fair? You realise how stupid it is to think that your views don't change over time? :/

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Czar
Would just like to thank Smilin and CycloWizard for actualy having a real discussion on this forum 🙂 keep it up, excelent read 😀

I've enjoyed it myself. It's been a pleasure having someone pose serious questions to me that make me think hard on (or possibly reconsider) my position. It's a refreshing change from the personal attacks, topic changes, or cries of <candidtate A> is an idiot. It's a natural response to be emotional when someone disagrees with you. It just doesn't accomplish anything.

Yep, it's a great thing to see so many people come out of a Neocon Brainwashed induced Coma. :thumbsup: