|
Kerry the Dolphin
|
View this Thread in Original format
| speedracer_mec |
Well we all know if Kerry gets voted into office, its because of the hatred people have towards Bush and not for what kerry stands for.
The avg american has noclue on what exactly Kerry stands for and are quite confused on his character.
This new GOP Tactic shall shed some light on who Kerry is.
A nice counter to this nice party in Boston.
Taken From Yahoo
| quote: | GOP Produces Video of Kerry on Iraq
1 hour, 55 minutes ago Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo!
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - Republicans think they've found the ideal person to explain in detail the Democratic presidential candidate's evolving position on the war in Iraq (news - web sites) — John Kerry (news - web sites) himself.
AP Photo
Latest headlines:
· Edwards to Call Kerry 'Decisive, Strong'
AP - 1 minute ago
· Kerry Makes Splashy Homecoming at DNC
AP - 2 minutes ago
· Kerry, Edwards Team Up to Take on Republicans
Reuters - 3 minutes ago
Using video clips of Kerry discussing Iraq on various talk shows, the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) has put together an 11-minute video that traces how Kerry struggled with the issue of Iraq through 2003 and early 2004 as he competed for — and finally won — the Democratic presidential nomination.
Republicans publicly unveiled the video Wednesday morning and sent it by e-mail to about 8 million supporters.
GOP officials also were pondering how to make the video, produced by Laura Crawford of the Texas firm Crawford Creative, available to the general public.
"I reached out to Miramax and asked them if they would consider using it," Republican national Chairman Ed Gillespie said, referring to the film company that initially had the rights to the anti-Bush movie Fahrenheit 9/11 and was involved in finding a distributor. Gillespie suggested the Kerry video could be a "a trailer to Fahrenheit 9/11."
In the video clips, Kerry gradually shifts from harsh anti-Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) rhetoric in 2001 and 2002 to more cautious comments about Iraq in late 2003 and then to anti-war comments by early 2004.
"We've all reached a judgment the United States has to protect its interests," Kerry says on one talk show in early 2002. Saddam "may even slide these weapons off to terrorist groups, it's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat," he says on a September 2002 talk show.
The video reminds that Kerry voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush (news - web sites) to use force.
Through 2003 and early 2004, Kerry became more cautious and talked against the war, as problems grew in Iraq and his primary campaign against anti-war candidate Howard Dean (news - web sites) became more intense.
The video notes that Kerry voted against $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites) in October 2003.
"There's no question that comments here or there, taken out of context and thrown together, are intended by Republicans to try to simplify or dumb down a crucial issue of war and peace into a simple yes-no question," said James Rubin, a senior foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign.
Rubin said Kerry always believed the way the United States went to war was the critical question — giving inspections in Iraq a chance and building alliances first. "John Kerry showed he understood the complexities about going to war the right way," said Rubin.
Said Chad Clanton, a Kerry spokesman: "This video is nothing but a stale old attack from the Bush-Cheney campaign, who can't for the life of them find anything positive to say."
Republicans offered to release the full video of any talk show interview used in making the GOP's Kerry video.
While the video clips are often brief and lack context, they do appear to show Kerry evolving from a harsh critic of Saddam to an anti-war candidate by early 2004 at the height of the campaign for the nomination. The Kerry campaign released more complete versions of the interviews they said show the GOP video distorts Kerry's positions on Iraq.
In early January 2004 with the critical Iowa caucuses looming, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews demands to know if Kerry is an anti-war candidate.
Kerry hesitates, then says, "I am ... yes."
At that point, the theme song about the lovable TV porpoise "Flipper" chimes in.
"They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning. No one at sea, is smarter than he."
|
|
|
|
| LiquidX |
My opinion..
This is all the right-wind propagand doing all they can to discredit Kerry. I think the media has a lot to do with this. Kerry does have an agenda, he has said it, is just that the media likes to focus and reiterate, with the help of republicans, on such little things and made up arguments.. but hey, the DNC is going on, that might refresh your mind on what he stands for and what his agenda is;)
Funny name though.. Kerry the Dolphin lol.. I think having a Dolphin in the White House ( one of the smartest creatures .. more then monkeys ) is better then to have a clueless monkey no? :p |
|
|
| Shakka |
They call him Flipper, Flipper, the king of the sea....
pretty silly, but funny no less. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Ah yes, quite unlike that highly stable and reliable Bush guy, eh?
Fiscal Policy
In February of 2001, President Bush promised to retire “an historic $2 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.”
Now, President Bush proposes to retire no debt and in fact proposes to increase the national debt by more than $2.4 trillion for the period from 2002 through 2009.
In the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush promised to devote the entire Social Security surplus to reducing the national debt, thereby helping to prepare for the retirement of the baby boomers.
Once in office, Mr. Bush has not used any of the Social Security surplus to retire debt but has used the entire surplus to fund the general operations of government each year since his first budget in 2002.
According to Mr. Bush’s budget projections (scroll to table S-12), the entire Social Security surplus will be used to fund the general operations of government through at least FY 2012. In total, Mr. Bush proposes to spend in excess of a trillion dollars of Social Security surpluses rather than retire debt as he promised.
Trade
In the 2000 campaign George Bush asserted that he was for free trade for “not just monetary but moral” reasons and pledged to make the expansion of trade a “consistent priority.” Once in office, Mr. Bush found it politically convenient to impose steel tariffs in order to help his election prospects in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and other places.
When the European Union threatened trade sanctions, Mr. Bush
reversed course again and lifted the tariffs. The President’s insistence on imposing tariff’s on Pakistani textiles also conflicts with his free trade rhetoric.
Stem Cells
Mr. Bush has also waffled on the issue of whether or not frozen human embryos are human life. In his speech about stem cells, the President said:
Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.
In accordance with that position, he barred the use of federal funds in research using any stem cell lines other than the ones existing at the time of his decision. Mr. Bush, however, has not barred in vitro procedures that destroy embryos. As Michael Kinsley has pointed out, his failure to do so is inconsistent:
George W. Bush claims to believe that (that a microscopic embryo is a human being with the same human rights as you and me), and you have to believe something like that to justify your opposition to stem-cell research. But Bush cannot possibly believe that embryos are full human beings, or he would surely oppose modern fertility procedures that create and destroy many embryos for each baby they bring into the world. Bush does not oppose modern fertility treatments. He even praised them in his anti-stem-cell speech.
Homeland Security Department
Mr. Bush waffled on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. When first proposed by Democrats, Mr. Bush opposed the creation of the department. He later changed courses and supported it. He then argued that Democrats who supported the creation of the department but who favored permitting department employees to have Civil Service protection were “not interested in the security of the American people."
In essence, Mr. Bush argued that his previous position showed that he did not care about the security of the American people.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
During the campaign, Mr. Bush promised to impose mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide on the nation's power plants. Less than two months into office Mr. Bush flip flopped on the issue.
North Korea
The administration’s policy towards North Korea has been one big waffle. Josh Marshall has documented that the administration was openly contemptuous of the Clinton policy towards North Korea.
As Josh has noted, the administration has changed its position dramatically:
As I say, most conservative commentators refuse to recognize what is obvious to everyone with their eyes open -- that the Bush administration is now looking for a deal pretty much just like the one the Clintonites were working on.
In the last few days, we have seen that the shape of administration policy towards North Korea is, in fact, remarkably similar to the Clinton policy:
The informal agreement between Washington and its Asian partners on how to approach North Korea represents a partial retreat by the Bush administration, which has long insisted that it would not reward the North for simply freezing its nuclear weapons program...
An Asian official said the proposed aid program would resume fuel oil shipments that were halted in late 2002, after the United States discovered that North Korea had violated a pledge it made eight years earlier to freeze the nuclear weapons program in return for energy assistance.
Disarmament vs. Regime Change
Even with regard to the war in Iraq, the administration has waffled, at least rhetorically, over the issue of regime change vs. disarmament. Before the war, Mr. Bush explicitly stated that war could be avoided only if Saddam disarmed. See, for instance here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
After the war, as it became clear that Saddam had no WMD to renounce, Mr. Bush waffled on the importance of that central rationale for the war.
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/000804.html
Let's see, in addition, Bush opposed McCain-Feingold during the campaign and then signed it. As governor of Texas he opposed an HMO Patients' Bill of Rights then after it passed over his veto he tried to claim credit for it on the 2000 campaign trail, but once in office he tried (successfully) to get it killed in the House, but indicated that he would sign it if it passed.
Damn flip-floppers, all of 'em. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
Honorable mention.
He opposed to the creation of the the 9/11 Commission.. now he praises it.:D |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
John Kerry isn't the only person to struggle on the issue of Iraq, I as well as many other Americans I can guarantee you trusted what we were being told about Iraq prior to the war. Why, because people put a sense of trust in their government that when they go before the entire World as Colin Powell did that the truth is being told. As we now realize claims against Iraq and its weapons potentials were nothing but mere outdated, unsubstantiated, erronious, misleading and disgusting intelligence, if intelligence is what it can be called. I learnt a valuable lesson however, which is that I would never put any trust in this current adminstration when they level claims against anyone, they lost that respect from the unfolded events in Iraq.
The Republicans will do well in sticking to fearmongering:nervous: "the terrorists will get you" if you vote for Kerry:rolleyes: Vote Bush he kicks ass, is arrogant, we don't need anyone else, and he will make America stronger this way by ignoring the rest of the world. Its Bush's way or the highway. Even the clueless simpleton would realize that America is better off working with as many nations to tackle terrorism, it only makes sense. Too bad this jackass of an adminstration fails to understand this. Instead they engage in constant terror warnings. When was the last time we heard about Social Security, the Health Care system, Education. What a shame that instead our tax dollars are being pumped into Iraq in the billions. This nation will be in a lot of for years to come if someone doesn't control that maniac Shrub's spending, I hope its not too late. Remember you can be both strong and wise in dealing with others, this administration forgot the wisdom part. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
Well when it comes to the main issue which is the War, Bush has been firm on his stance despite different opinions by many people
The War?
The War will decide who wins this years election.
Who has flipped and flopped on The War Issue more?
Kerry?
Yes.
Does any other issue matter more?
No.
So basically any rebuttals trying to question Bush's stance on the other issues are meaningless when actually questioning Kerry's Stance on the war which of course is more important (strategically)
WHy?
Because like i stated, The war will define the winner this november |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Well when it comes to the main issue which is the War, Bush has been firm on his stance despite different opinions by many people
The War?
The War will decide who wins this years election.
Who has flipped and flopped on The War Issue more?
Kerry?
Yes.
Does any other issue matter more?
No.
So basically any rebuttals trying to question Bush's stance on the other issues are meaningless when actually questioning Kerry's Stance on the war which of course is more important (strategically)
WHy?
Because like i stated, The war will define the winner this november |
Actually, the war is on #3 as most important.... and so far, Polls are slightly on Kerry's side. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Well when it comes to the main issue which is the War, Bush has been firm on his stance despite different opinions by many people
The War?
The War will decide who wins this years election.
Who has flipped and flopped on The War Issue more?
Kerry?
Yes.
Does any other issue matter more?
No.
So basically any rebuttals trying to question Bush's stance on the other issues are meaningless when actually questioning Kerry's Stance on the war which of course is more important (strategically)
WHy?
Because like i stated, The war will define the winner this november |
You cannot seriously be under the impression that a fantastic job has been done in Iraq. I was not one of those individuals to acquiesce to the concept of the ignorance of Americans because I use to think it was simply the world being jealous of America, but the more I examined the events surrounding Iraq it is astounding the level of serious foolhardiness that does indeed exist.
If is is okay to invade and kill the way that we did in Iraq under the circumstances and evidence which took place then shame on us all. Bush talks now about democracy for Iraq, who is he to tell other nations about democracy as though there was some standard form that could be applied to the Mid East. America is reputiated, held in disdain, seen as no better than the moniker of third world dictatorial regimes, lacks credibility in dealing with other nations, i.e. Sudan whose government is all over the Arab world television comparing their relation to the U.S. with Iraq, and Arabs are believing it. Many nations now view the U.S. as no arbitor of human rights, fairness and justice and in a position of moral superiority to lecture others on their wrongs and rights, yet America is better off, right?
I wonder where our nation is heading, you have people questioning the patriotism of Americans who do not support the way this government is conducting itself. What does it say about us if it is war that is the main issue of elections. The Republicans would have it no other way, just make sure you get your duct tape and bottled waters before election day folks:rolleyes: Land of the free and the home of the brave is what I want to see America returned to, not the land of the divided, and the home of the paranoid. Since this administration has come to power they have served well to divide this nation and world at a faster rate than another ideological lot, the terrorists. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| So your telling me, That the further deterioration of the iraq situation will not cause the election for Bush? |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
So your telling me, That the further deterioration of the iraq situation will not cause the election for Bush? |
I would hope seriously that it is not simply the deterioration or the improvement of Iraq that causes the re-election (hopefully not) or lack thereof of Bush, instead it is an encompassing monopoly of failures in Iraq. Failure of intelligence, lack of security, stability and exit strategy. A deep and profound inability to demonstrate the claims that were made about Iraq prior to war, not only on WMDs but the claims of peace and security. Mark my words as long as we live there are elements in Iraq that will never accept America being there, no matter what. The key that you always hear in the voice of Iraqis that is we are glad Saddam is gone, albeit for security we would like the U.S. gone as well.
A valuable lesson has been taught to the Bush administration in the Iraq situation, you cannot force people to conform to your ideas of what their society should be like unless there is broad based, mobile and committed support within that society for your ideas. I believe that many Americans fail to understand the poisonous venom that people now possess towards our nation. Something truly intrinsic to our nation has been lost and that is respect for what America stands for, that is a quality that Bush and neo-conservatism can never regain for our nation for they are the one's who lost it. If we do not want the world telling America how it should behave then we should try doing the same as well instead of constantly sticking our noses in the affairs of other nations, but that's another subject altogether. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
I would hope seriously that it is not simply the deterioration or the improvement of Iraq that causes the re-election (hopefully not) or lack thereof of Bush, instead it is an encompassing monopoly of failures in Iraq. Failure of intelligence, lack of security, stability and exit strategy. A deep and profound inability to demonstrate the claims that were made about Iraq prior to war, not only on WMDs but the claims of peace and security. Mark my words as long as we live there are elements in Iraq that will never accept America being there, no matter what. The key that you always hear in the voice of Iraqis that is we are glad Saddam is gone, albeit for security we would like the U.S. gone as well.
A valuable lesson has been taught to the Bush administration in the Iraq situation, you cannot force people to conform to your ideas of what their society should be like unless there is broad based, mobile and committed support within that society for your ideas. I believe that many Americans fail to understand the poisonous venom that people now possess towards our nation. Something truly intrinsic to our nation has been lost and that is respect for what America stands for, that is a quality that Bush and neo-conservatism can never regain for our nation for they are the one's who lost it. If we do not want the world telling America how it should behave then we should try doing the same as well instead of constantly sticking our noses in the affairs of other nations, but that's another subject altogether. |
And thats the reason the entire nation wants Bush out of the office.
Because of people like you who feel this way.
Wait nvm its a dead heat race.:cool: |
|
|
|
|
