New Bush Fear Ads One Uses Wolf Image To Show America Will Be Attacked Under Kerry, 2nd says We Will Be At Risk 10-23-04

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I think it's a great ad. It is based in reality

Man, I've gotta declare you as the most prolific neocon on AT. Just don't get yourself banned; neocons are slowly becoming an endangered species on here.

BTW does the "CAD" in your nick mean you do AutoCAD for a living?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I think it's a great ad. It is based in reality

Man, I've gotta declare you as the most prolific neocon on AT. Just don't get yourself banned; neocons are slowly becoming an endangered species on here.

BTW does the "CAD" in your nick mean you do AutoCAD for a living?

First off - I'm not a "neocon". Second, I am well aware of what happens around here on that front. Third, yes - I'm a CADsortaGUY that does Electrical Design/Drafting.(soon to formally be a Controls Engineer though)

CsG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

First off - I'm not a "neocon".

That's pretty sad that you cannot even be proud to admit toeing the line of your favortite Neocon leader Hannity. You echo him 110%, if that's not Neocon then Apple Pie is Not Made of Apples.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

First off - I'm not a "neocon".

That's pretty sad that you cannot even be proud to admit toeing the line of your favortite Neocon leader Hannity. You echo him 110%, if that's not Neocon then Apple Pie is Not Made of Apples.

I don't listen to Hannity. And no, I'm not a "neocon" - I'm a Conservative and a proud one at that.

Your mama must have fooled you into thinking that pears were apples.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And no, I'm not a "neocon"

CsG

To the extent you agree with everything in this neocon administration, you are a neocon.


I can also only assume you are one of the many Bush supporters who mistakenly believe he is pro-environment (PIPA study).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And no, I'm not a "neocon"

CsG

To the extent you agree with everything in this neocon administration, you are a neocon.


I can also only assume you are one of the many Bush supporters who mistakenly believe he is pro-environment (PIPA study).

:roll: OK info - you're right. You know me better than I know myself. I'm a neo-con. I hate wolves. I hate the environment and seek to destroy everything.



CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm a neo-con. I hate wolves. I hate the environment and seek to destroy everything.

CsG

Can I put this in my sig please? Let me know.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And no, I'm not a "neocon"

CsG

To the extent you agree with everything in this neocon administration, you are a neocon.


I can also only assume you are one of the many Bush supporters who mistakenly believe he is pro-environment (PIPA study).

:roll: OK info - you're right. You know me better than I know myself. I'm a neo-con. I hate wolves. I hate the environment and seek to destroy everything.



CsG

Apparently a lot more people than Info know you better than yourself.

Don't worry we forgive you, The Fearless Liar, Rush & Hannity are great successful Brainwashers, we understand.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And no, I'm not a "neocon"

CsG

To the extent you agree with everything in this neocon administration, you are a neocon.


I can also only assume you are one of the many Bush supporters who mistakenly believe he is pro-environment (PIPA study).

:roll: OK info - you're right. You know me better than I know myself. I'm a neo-con. I hate wolves. I hate the environment and seek to destroy everything.



CsG

Apparently a lot more people than Info know you better than yourself.

Don't worry we forgive you, The Fearless Liar, Rush & Hannity are great successful Brainwashers, we understand.

Yeah, it's funny how people think they know things they haven't a clue about.

Info - Sure you can put your lies in your sig if you want to continue being a liar.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Info - Sure you can put your lies in your sig if you want to continue being a liar.

CsG

Sounds like you don't want me to... It would be humorous. And are you saying you were a liar since you're the one who posted it?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, Bush can use wolves against Kerry, and Kerry can use this against Bush.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Info - Sure you can put your lies in your sig if you want to continue being a liar.

CsG

Sounds like you don't want me to... It would be humorous. And are you saying you were a liar since you're the one who posted it?

No, I'm saying you'd continue to be the liar if you posted that. But hey - post away.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, Bush can use wolves against Kerry, and Kerry can use this against Bush.

He has been trying to use his BS against Bush

CsG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, Bush can use wolves against Kerry, and Kerry can use this against Bush.

He has been trying to use his BS against Bush

CsG

Hehe, better response than I thought you were going to come up with


Seriously, I pay little mind to these ads. Too bad anyone cares about them. We are spending hundreds of millions for this crap?

If there were one amendment I would make to the Constitution is to limit this trash by making all national elections 100% regulated. Qualifying candidates would all get the same (and substantially less) funds. Then maybe the parties would have to make their ads worthwhile. Maybe not, but at least we would have to watch less of the junk out there.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Info - Sure you can put your lies in your sig if you want to continue being a liar.

CsG

Sounds like you don't want me to... It would be humorous. And are you saying you were a liar since you're the one who posted it?

No, I'm saying you'd continue to be the liar if you posted that. But hey - post away.

CsG

It's funny how you endorse the Bush campaign's continued use of words taken out of context to attack Kerry -- as do you, yourself -- yet call Infohawk a liar for suggesting the same tactic. How telling that the Bush apologists don't even attempt to hide their hypocrisy now. Instead, they are proud of it. They wallow in it. They are defiant about excluding themselves from the rules of decency and fairness.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Info - Sure you can put your lies in your sig if you want to continue being a liar.

CsG

Sounds like you don't want me to... It would be humorous. And are you saying you were a liar since you're the one who posted it?

No, I'm saying you'd continue to be the liar if you posted that. But hey - post away.

CsG

It's funny how you endorse the Bush campaign's continued use of words taken out of context to attack Kerry -- as do you, yourself -- yet call Infohawk a liar for suggesting the same tactic. How telling that the Bush apologists don't even attempt to hide their hypocrisy now. Instead, they are proud of it. They wallow in it. They are defiant about excluding themselves from the rules of decency and fairness.

The desperation of the Neocons was certainly expected and right on que.

Gotta love how they are resorting to calling others Liars when they are the supporters of the biggest Liar of all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Info - Sure you can put your lies in your sig if you want to continue being a liar.

CsG

Sounds like you don't want me to... It would be humorous. And are you saying you were a liar since you're the one who posted it?

No, I'm saying you'd continue to be the liar if you posted that. But hey - post away.

CsG

It's funny how you endorse the Bush campaign's continued use of words taken out of context to attack Kerry -- as do you, yourself -- yet call Infohawk a liar for suggesting the same tactic. How telling that the Bush apologists don't even attempt to hide their hypocrisy now. Instead, they are proud of it. They wallow in it. They are defiant about excluding themselves from the rules of decency and fairness.

I assure you that I did not take that issue out of context to attack kerry. Infact - I'm about the only one that WANTS to address the underlying issue if you didn't notice. So yes, infotroll can continue to lie if he wants to put that in his sig. It's not my fault he wants everyone to know he's a liar. *shrug*

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Info - Sure you can put your lies in your sig if you want to continue being a liar.

Sounds like you don't want me to... It would be humorous. And are you saying you were a liar since you're the one who posted it?

No, I'm saying you'd continue to be the liar if you posted that. But hey - post away.

It's funny how you endorse the Bush campaign's continued use of words taken out of context to attack Kerry -- as do you, yourself -- yet call Infohawk a liar for suggesting the same tactic. How telling that the Bush apologists don't even attempt to hide their hypocrisy now. Instead, they are proud of it. They wallow in it. They are defiant about excluding themselves from the rules of decency and fairness.

I assure you that I did not take that issue out of context to attack kerry. Infact - I'm about the only one that WANTS to address the underlying issue if you didn't notice. So yes, infotroll can continue to lie if he wants to put that in his sig. It's not my fault he wants everyone to know he's a liar. *shrug*

"That" issue? There's that reading problem again. Which issue? I didn't specify any specific issue. Indeed, I expressly indicated that I see this as a continuing tactic, a tactic you've used countless times. Half of your attacks are based on comments taken out of context. Virtually all the rest are fabrications. (That's a polite way of saying "outright lies.")

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Info - Sure you can put your lies in your sig if you want to continue being a liar.

Sounds like you don't want me to... It would be humorous. And are you saying you were a liar since you're the one who posted it?

No, I'm saying you'd continue to be the liar if you posted that. But hey - post away.

It's funny how you endorse the Bush campaign's continued use of words taken out of context to attack Kerry -- as do you, yourself -- yet call Infohawk a liar for suggesting the same tactic. How telling that the Bush apologists don't even attempt to hide their hypocrisy now. Instead, they are proud of it. They wallow in it. They are defiant about excluding themselves from the rules of decency and fairness.

I assure you that I did not take that issue out of context to attack kerry. Infact - I'm about the only one that WANTS to address the underlying issue if you didn't notice. So yes, infotroll can continue to lie if he wants to put that in his sig. It's not my fault he wants everyone to know he's a liar. *shrug*

"That" issue? There's that reading problem again. Which issue? I didn't specify any specific issue. Indeed, I expressly indicated that I see this as a continuing tactic, a tactic you've used countless times. Half of your attacks are based on comments taken out of context. Virtually all the rest are fabrications. (That's a polite way of saying "outright lies.")

Ah, so your delusions run deeper than just that other thread then? So now it's a continuing tactic and the rest are lies?:roll: Try again bow - the only continuing tactic of mine is to show the left for what it is. And the only lie I tell is that when I say that I think there is hope for everyone - it's clear that for you there isn't. In your case we have a classic case of RBH, with a touch of kerry apologism.

Now back to the topic - the great political ad.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur
The audience of Crossfire was laughing at this ad. Begala said the wolves looked like puppies. The puppies are coming! The puppies are coming!

My son is home from school this weekend. That was his reaction too when the ad came on last night. "Awww. Look at the cuuuute puppies!." We cracked up.

Poor little Georgie, 'fraid of a few puppies. Does Dick tuck him in at night?


Edit: Oh! Oh! I just figured it out. Wolves come from Canada, right? I'll bet those wolves are carrying those killer Canadian drugs Bush blathered about in the second debate. That's why he's afraid. The puppies are Canadian terrierists, armed with Weapons of Mass Prescription!

Awww. Look at the cute puppies.


Sorry, George's fear campaign will have to do better than that.

 

[conjur]

http://www.factcheck.org/article291.html

Summary

A new Bush ad claims Kerry supported cuts in intelligence ?so deep they would have weakened America ?s defenses? against terrorists, and shows a pack of hungry-looking wolves preparing to attack. Actually, the cut Kerry proposed in 1994 amounted to less than 4 percent, as part of a proposal to cut many programs to reduce the deficit.

And in 1995 Porter Goss, who is now Bush?s CIA Director, co-sponsored an even stronger deficit-elimination measure that would have cut CIA personnel by 20 percent over five years. When asked about that at his confirmation hearings he didn't disavow it.


Analysis

The Bush ad released Oct. 22 is called ?wolves,? and is a direct appeal to fear.


Speak Softly But
Use Scary Words and Pictures

Using a soft-spoken female announcer to deliver the harsh message, the ad shows blurry images of a dark forest and a pack of hungry-looking wolves eying the camera and apparently contemplating an attack.

The announcer says that ?after the first terrorist attack on America ? Kerry ?voted to slash America ?s intelligence operations.? The ad is misleading in several ways, some of which we went over last March when President Bush first accused Kerry of trying to ?gut? the intelligence budget.

Here are the ways this ad misleads voters:

?Old news: The ?first terrorist attack? the ad refers to didn't happen September 11, 2001, as some listeners assume. It actually was more than a decade ago, in 1993, when a truck bomb went off in the parking garage under one of the World Trade Center towers. In fact, Kerry was supporting regular increases in intelligence spending for several years prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

?Exaggerated Wording: Kerry never proposed a single $6-billion cut in intelligence spending. He did propose S.1826 (see "supporting documents" at right) which included a $1-billion cut in 1994. That measure also would have frozen intelligence spending at that reduced level through 1998, allowing it to rise only by the rate of inflation. That could fairly be called a $5-billion cut spread over five years.

Total intelligence spending is a classified figure, but was estimated at the time to be $27 billion per year. So, the cut Kerry proposed amounted to an estimated 3.7 percent -- hardly a proposal to "slash" expenditures. That measure was debated on the Senate floor and on Feb 10,1994 it was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.

The following year Kerry introduced another deficit-reduction package, S.1290 (see "supporting documents" at right). This one would have lowered the ceiling for intelligence spending by $300 million for five years starting in 1996. That would have amounted to a reduction of just over 1 percent of estimated intelligence spending.

Not only was this proposed reduction a small one, it came at a time when it had just become known that one intelligence agency had been hoarding $1 billion in unspent funds from its secret appropriations. Kerry's proposal died without a hearing, but a similar Republican-sponsored measure eventually became law (see below).

Saying that either of these proposals would ?slash? spending is an exaggeration. Saying that a 4 percent or 1 percent cut would have ?weakened America ?s defenses? is an opinion which the Bush campaign has a perfect right to state, but it is not a fact.

?Missing Context: The ad doesn?t tell the whole story. Some Republicans also supported similar cuts in intelligence spending at the time, including Bush?s current CIA Director Porter Goss.

Goss co-sponsored a draconian, deficit-elimination bill in 1995 (see "supporting documents" at right) that would have cut the number of CIA employees by 20 percent or more over five years. Goss wasn't the main author -- he signed onto an 1,188-page bill authored by Gerald Solomon, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, of which Goss was a member. The measure died without a hearing and had no prospect of passage, as it called for elimination of the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce among other things. When questioned about his co-sponsorship of the bill during his confirmation hearings in September Goss said only, "the record speaks for the record."

Another Republican-sponsored cut similar to Kerry's proposed 1995 measure actually became law. On the same day Kerry proposed his $1.5-billion cut spread over five years, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. That measure was proposed by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and a companion measure was co-sponsored by Kerry and Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership. Specter explained at the time that the $1-billion cut was intended to recapture funds that had been appropriated for spy satellites, but which had gone unspent by the National Reconnaissance Office.


Sources

Dana Milbank, ?Goss Backed '95 Bill to Slash Intelligence; Plan Would Have Cut Personnel 20%,? Washington Post, 24 Aug 2004 : A3.

"Hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Nomination of Rep. Porter J. Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency," transcript, The Federal News Service, Inc., 14 Sep 2004.

103d Congress, 2d Session, S. 1826, "To reduce the deficit for fiscal years 1994 through 1998," 3 Feb. 1994.

104th Congress, 1st Session, S.1290, "To reduce the deficit," 25 Sep 1995.

104th Congress, 1st Session H.R. 1923, "To balance the budget of the United States Government by restructuring Government, reducing Federal spending, eliminating the deficit, limiting bureaucracy, and restoring federalism," 25 Jun 2004.




Related Articles
Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's
President claims 1995 Kerry plan would "gut" the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar.

Supporting documents:
http://www.factcheck.org/Uploa...-Intelligence-Cuts.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/Uploa...cit-reduction-bill.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/Uploa...cit-reduction-bill.pdf