Anti-War Kerry Supporters, Watch This...

[kuyu]

I know most everyone here will dispell this as "right-wing propaganda". It is, in part. However, I find it amazing what Kerry will say when it benefits him to do so. After watching this, I think Kerry might come out as "anti-Kerry" so he could capture the Bush votes.

http://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC082304.mov

Watch the whole thing. It gets better at the end. ;)

[Thomas Veil]

Okay, I watched that whole tiring thing, and the best thing I can say about it is that at least there were no new Swift Boat lies.


But the president and his, uh, his advisors did not do almost anything correctly in the walk-up to the war. They were rushed to war, they were intent on going to war, they did not give legitimacy to the inspections... John Kerry, This Week 10/12/03
This is supposedly indicative of Kerry's "flip-flop", but it sounds more like he was just as p.o.'d as the rest of us about being misled by our president's phony "intelligence".


John Kerry voted NAY S. 1689 10/17/03 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction
From Kerry's own web site:
John Kerry DID NOT Vote Against Our Men and Women in the Military; Kerry VOTED Against the FAILED Bush Policy in Iraq: Of course John Kerry supports our troops—it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. John Kerry voted AGAINST the failed Bush policy in Iraq which is still putting US troops in harms way saying: "The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies. I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq."
And, in fact, Bush himself, at the urging of Rumsfeld, was prepared to veto (http://www.democrats.org/milvet/news/200408050005.html) this bill if it Congress did not dump the expanded health benefits for soldiers that it included.


Chris Matthews: "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?"
Kerry: "I am, yes..."
(Theme from Flipper plays)
Hardball, 1/6/04
I've seen this one taken out of context several times already. The full quote is: “I am, yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.”

So again, so what? Kerry voted for the war before he realized that he, like we, were being deceived by so-called "evidence"?

Or to put it in the words of people wiser than me:

Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago. -- Bernard Berenson

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
The theme from Flipper was cute, though. Puerile, but cute.

[kuyu]

Yeah, most of it is "Micheal Moore'd", that is, taken out of context via clever editing. However, the one from 1998 when Kerry makes the case for war with Iraq is the most damning piece. He sounds just like Bush.

And the oreilly factor one: "He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he is engaged in activities that are unacceptable... I think we oughta put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years, uhh, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on no matter what the evidence is about September 11th" This is especially Bush-ish. Sounds like he is saying Saddam IS a terrorist and that he is developing WMD, thus requiring inspections.

[mischief]

Yeah, most of it is "Micheal Moore'd", that is, taken out of context via clever editing. However, the one from 1998 when Kerry makes the case for war with Iraq is the most damning piece. He sounds just like Bush.

(Snip)

Sounds like he is saying Saddam IS a terrorist and that he is developing WMD, thus requiring inspections.

Actually if we're going to be strict about our definitions Dubyaw himself counts as a Terrorist:

Terrorism:
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, most of it is "Micheal Moore'd", that is, taken out of context via clever editing. However, the one from 1998 when Kerry makes the case for war with Iraq is the most damning piece. He sounds just like Bush.

I don't know why you think so. There always was a case to be made for war, but there was also a case for avoiding it, or conducting it on terms that would produce a victory in the war on terror instead of a defeat.

[kuyu]

I don't know why you think so. There always was a case to be made for war, but there was also a case for avoiding it, or conducting it on terms that would produce a victory in the war on terror instead of a defeat.

Very true. However, Kerry clearly made the case "for" war. Only after the beginning of the primary and polls that clearly showed a majority of democrats opposing the war did he begin to advocate "avoidance".

I agree the two are different. However, I think the point of the video is to illustrate that Kerry's positions changed only after he realized the unpopularity of his original contentions. Thus his new position regarding the failures of the Bush camp. By condemning Bush's methods, not actions, he is able to cleverly avoid real confrontation regarding his statements that endorsed such action in the past. Also he is able to carry the anit-war vote while not being anti-war himself.

He didn't make a career of politics by being a dumb politician, that's for sure. ;)

[jelloshotsrule]

what scares me about kerry is the convention. all but a very few speeches (kucinich, sharpton, and maybe a couple others) sounded more like rallying speeches you'd give to your troops before sending them in to kill.

i have a feeling that once the rnc is complete, we'll have seen 2 13+million dollar conventions centered around war and killing.

surprise, surprise.

[IJ Reilly]

Very true. However, Kerry clearly made the case "for" war. Only after the beginning of the primary and polls that clearly showed a majority of democrats opposing the war did he begin to advocate "avoidance".

This is a disingenuous statement. There is no inconsistency whatsoever in the position that a war may be necessary if peaceful means fail.

[kuyu]

This is a disingenuous statement. There is no inconsistency whatsoever in the position that a war may be necessary if peaceful means fail.

I see what you mean, but do you believe that there was zero "reposturing" on Kerry's part during the primaries?

It is my contention that Kerry, because of his openly anti-Saddam/pro-war stance prior to the primaries, knowingly and willingly shifted his message toward the stance of his constituents. Namely, that the war was OK but Bush is handling it incorrectly. Then the war was wrong because we didn't do everything to avoid it.

I stated that Kerry is a brilliant politician because of his ability to do just that. He was, in his eyes, way ahead of Congress in pushing for tougher enforcement of UN resolutions against Saddam and unilateral action if the security council failed. Thus, he can't ever be cornered into one camp or the other. His strategy allowed him to be whatever would get elected, pro or con.

[IJ Reilly]

I see what you mean, but do you believe that there was zero "reposturing" on Kerry's part during the primaries?

It is my contention that Kerry, because of his openly anti-Saddam/pro-war stance prior to the primaries, knowingly and willingly shifted his message toward the stance of his constituents. Namely, that the war was OK but Bush is handling it incorrectly. Then the war was wrong because we didn't do everything to avoid it.

I stated that Kerry is a brilliant politician because of his ability to do just that. He was, in his eyes, way ahead of Congress in pushing for tougher enforcement of UN resolutions against Saddam and unilateral action if the security council failed. Thus, he can't ever be cornered into one camp or the other. His strategy allowed him to be whatever would get elected, pro or con.

Did you ever consider that this position might actually be right? I admit to being not entirely objective about this because it was my position long before I heard John Kerry say it. Again, you seem to be finding fault with the perfectly logical and time-honored position that war is caused by the exhaustion of all alternatives.

I also have to assume from your argument that you never vote.

[kuyu]

Did you ever consider that this position might actually be right? I admit to being not entirely objective about this because it was my position long before I heard John Kerry say it. Again, you seem to be finding fault with the perfectly logical and time-honored position that war is caused by the exhaustion of all alternatives.

I also have to assume from your argument that you never vote.

I vote. Yes, I believe war is just what you stated. A last ditch effort effort when other means have failed.

What I'm talking about is Kerry's throttling back about how "bad" Saddam was. You have to give me that one.

[mactastic]

I vote. Yes, I believe war is just what you stated. A last ditch effort effort when other means have failed.

What I'm talking about is Kerry's throttling back about how "bad" Saddam was. You have to give me that one.

Ok, but you also have to give me that Bush has throttled back on how "bad" Saddam was too. From 'we know where the weapons are' to 'evidence of weapons of mass destruction related program activities'.

[IJ Reilly]

And from Osama "dead or alive" to "I don't care where he is." Now, there's a flip-flop for the ages.

Kuyu, my point here isn't to play a game of political gotcha. The reason I asked you if you ever vote is because you seem to be so down on any politician who has ever shaded anything he or she said. Or maybe that's condemnation you reserve for just a few.

[kuyu]

Mactastic, definately. Bush's message has been changing over time regarding Saddam, Osama, et al.

IJ, I'm not trying to "come down" on Kerry here. I've called him a brilliant politician. That's not a bad thing. The best politicians are boldly vague. For instance, Kerry supported the action in Iraq, just not Bush's method (at least I think that's his stance... see what I mean?).

Again, I believe the point of the movie is to illustrate Kerry's obvious move away from being a "supporter" into being a "critic" and visa versa depending on public sentiment. One could make a similar video about Bush, and I'm sure it's been/being done.

Like any good piece of propaganda it's been edited, taken out of context, and structured to guide people to the author's conclusion. Sort of like that other "documentary".... ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Well I'd have to say you are staking out a few boldly vague positions yourself. You started out by condemning Kerry as being two-faced on the subject of Iraq, but now have shifted to offering some left-handed praise of his political skills. Sorry, but I did notice this tactic -- which to me appears to be a method of avoiding my question to you about whether his position, or even his shaded positions if you insist, was or were in fact the right one(s) or no.

[skunk]

In other words, they are both politicians. Well, I'm glad we've got that sorted out... :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

And once again, for the cheap seats: Before accusing a politician or anyone else of shading or altering their positions, it would do well to figure out whether the positions they took made sense at the time they took them. This kind of analysis is totally absent from the criticism of the Kerry's various statement on Iraq.

[skunk]

And once again, for the cheap seats: Before accusing a politician or anyone else of shading or altering their positions, it would do well to figure out whether the positions they took made sense at the time they took them. This kind of analysis is totally absent from the criticism of the Kerry's various statement on Iraq.
I agree.

But who's in the cheap seats?? :rolleyes:

[kuyu]

That's why I'm going in to politics IJ! ;)

Was Kerry's position right? Before the war, given the intel and Kerry's own admissions that a unilateral regime change in Iraq might be necessary in the future, I'd say that he was right to support the President in Iraq. And in hindsight, knowing the Saddam's WMD programs were either destroyed by the Israelis or covertly smuggled to terrorists with money to spend (see 9/11 Commission Report), I think that Kerry's position of opposition to the President is based solely on political gain with the accomodation of hindsight. If every President knew the course of the next four years before they occured, difficult decisions would be easy. However just like Bush, Senator Kerry needs to stand by his difficult decision to send America to war. This is not Bush's war and this is not Kerry's war. This is America's war.

While I understand Kerry's current opposition to the unilateral action to force regime change, I also understand that his position at present day is based in a need for popularity and a willingness to use hindsight intelligence data to form his "current" opinions.

Was that a good "politicians" answer???
;)

[skunk]

Supporting the principle of going to war may be conditional on not jumping the gun and not making such a bollocks of the whole postwar thing. And the whole decision may be predicated on the truth of what the intelligence reports say - after they have been skewed enough to support the Administration's prejudices. This is a not unreasonable position to take.

[toontra]

And in hindsight, knowing the Saddam's WMD programs were either destroyed by the Israelis or covertly smuggled to terrorists with money to spend (see 9/11 Commission Report
That's an interesting piece of revisionism. As I understand it the best estimation is that the vast bulk of these weapons were destroyed by Saddam himself in the two year period following the first gulf war. LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3556714.stm)


This is not Bush's war and this is not Kerry's war. This is America's war.
Wrong. Without Bush (or someone equally embroiled in the neo-con philosophy) this war would never have taken place. This was Bush's war in almost every sense. C.mon, if you believe it was the right thing to do, you should be eager to give credit where it is due!

[IJ Reilly]

Hearing Iraq called "America's War" gives me a serious case of the yips. If it is in fact "America's War," then this is the most obvious indicator of the errors in diplomacy and judgment made by the Bush administration in its planning and execution.

As far as the argument that Kerry has taken his positions for "political gain," this once again dodges the important question of whether the positions he's taken over the last couple years were in fact the right views to hold at the time they were expressed.

[acdninjapan]

what scares me about kerry is the convention. all but a very few speeches (kucinich, sharpton, and maybe a couple others) sounded more like rallying speeches you'd give to your troops before sending them in to kill.

i have a feeling that once the rnc is complete, we'll have seen 2 13+million dollar conventions centered around war and killing.

surprise, surprise.

I want to see dead burnt bodies and feel veins and bones crunch between my teeth. I want to kill! KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! and began jumping up and down on my seat. Pretty soon the whole convention was jumping up and down on their seats and shouting "KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL!"

GWB and Kerry both came over and patted me on the back and said "that's our boy!"

I think Arlo just had a stroke....

[skunk]

Ah, I remember Alice... ;)

[acdninjapan]

Ah, I remember Alice... ;)

How about David Bromberg's bullfrog?

Have you ever woken up with bullfrogs on your mind?

[themadchemist]

The editors of The New Republic, in its latest issue, expressed disapproval with John Kerry for his stance on the war. As time has passed, he has moved from saying that the troops will come home when they're done to that the troops will come home by the end of his first term to that they will come home by the end of his first year to that they will come home by the end of his first six months. The New Republic is a very intelligent publication and one that is not partial to conservative causes in the least (it probably has somewhat of a liberal slant, if anything). This is the same publication that ran "The July Surprise" discussing the Bush Administration's calling upon Pakistan to catch somebody during the DNC.

So what I'm getting at is that while Kerry is trying to curry favor with the masses, he is disappointing some of us who really believe in the so-called liberal cause and who respected his once-intelligent stance on the war. That he coupled disapproval of the prosecution of the war with the realization that much had to be done was encouraging. However, his overly "optimistic" stance now is disappointing to The New Republic and to me.

However, he is, in any case, better than Bush. Bush's second term would be worse than his first, considering the lack of political punishment that could occur. Therefore, I fear more wars, more backing out of treaties, and more senseless tax cuts. I also fear continued widening of the gap between the rich and poor at an accelerated rate.

First, we need a liberal in the White House. Then, we'll see what happens.

I like Kerry's domestic policy; I think it'll put us on the right track. But his foreign policy, I'm the first to admit, is disheartening in its lack of detail and coherence. Hopefully, the debates will flesh things out.

[IJ Reilly]

I understand this criticism, which is at least partially justifiable. Personally, I think Kerry's statements about Iraq are reasonable and defensible for the most part, but he hasn't done much to explain those positions, which has left him open to the "flip-flop" charge. I suspect he will be only as specific as he needs to be over the next two months, since it's really not possible to say now when the US will be able to withdraw from Iraq. I take on face value the position that we'll be able to exit Iraq only as quickly as we rebuild the international relationships that George Bush has methodically annihilated over the past four years. This is the only real prospect we've got for getting out of there without 1,000 more dead American soldiers and another $100 billion in taxpayer's expense.