The Ultimate Kerry Ad

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO\";p=\"45004)</div>

The scary thing is how he decided he had a mandate from the people when he won the Electoral College vote the last time. Fewer than half the people who voted, voted for him yet instead of realizing he doesn't even have a majorty he thinks he can do whatever he wants and we all will be happy. Imagine if he were to get a 2nd term.

Can't disagree with that.

 

Mr. KMO:

I read the articles you linked to. There is a great deal of exaggeration and many misleading statements from both campaigns.

Political ads are more vitriolic now than in previous years. It's troubling that politicians feel that they must give up the moral high ground and conduct negative campaigns loaded with distortions in order to win. I think this reflects a general decline in civility. The level of civility maintained on this site reflects well on Prius enthusiasts. Although I am a member of a very small conservative minority in this forum, so far I haven't been called anything worse than a "dupe."

J.K. Galbraith is certainly well-known, but outside (in the left direction) of the mainstream. Not that I really know anything about economics.

Anyway, thanks for the links.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"45446)</div>

For which we have Lee Atwater and Bush 41 to thank for. Remember Willie Horton. They started the trend and it was very effective.

 

KMO:

re Bush making the world less safe:

Was 9-11 caused by Bush’s policies? No. He'd been in office less than a year. Islamic terrorists will attack us no matter who is in the white house. In his video statements and interviews before and after the attack, Bin Laden seems almost as aggrieved by the crusades and the reconquista as by anything that occurred in the modern era. Memories are long in the middle east. Of course the main current complaints are the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia and US support for Israel. We are withdrawing from Saudi, but remain commited to Israel. We will continue to do so under a Kerry administration, if he is elected, so in any case, we will remain a target.

I think that the United States is making the world safer in what’s probably the only way possible – by introducing representative government into the political wasteland that is middle-east. This is a long term, costly, and risky undertaking, and may well fail, though it seems to be off to a good start in Afghanistan. It remains to be seen if the scheduled January elections will come off in Iraq, but interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi (helpfully referred to as "a puppet of the United States" by senior Kerry advisor Joe Lockhardt, and, almost certainly, by senior Al Quaida leadership as well,) seems to be a good man for the job. The alternative to the Bush plan will be a return to the policies of the 1990’s: weak responses to terrorist attacks, self-blame, and the treatment of each attack as an isolated law enforcement issue, as a "nuisance," rather than as a battle in a larger war.

I have to disagree with your statement that deadly terrorist attacks require large groups of like minded people. I think we will likely see more attacks, some quite deadly, from smaller groups in the future, even from psychopathic individuals (as the anthrax attacks after 9-11 may have been.) Technology marches on. Recommended reading: Our Final Century by Sir Martin Rees

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(10132003\";p=\"45447)</div>

For which we have Lee Atwater and Bush 41 to thank for. Remember Willie Horton. They started the trend and it was very effective.
[/b][/quote]

The revolving door and Willie Horton ads were very effective. They galvanized the American people and are responsible, to some extent, for the tougher crime policies of the 1990's and for the lower rate of violent crime we enjoy in 2004 as compared to the 70's 80's and early 90's. I was a victim of a violent crime (attempted mugging at knifepoint) in Mass. in '81.
I think of those ads as public service announcements. As far as I know, there was nothing untrue about them.

 

Unfortunately, there is more Anti-American setiment now than there was before Iraq.

Had the invasion been a worldwide effort, rather than unilateral, it wouldn't have happened to that degree. Others countries would share the negative feedback. But instead, it is all directed at America.

 

Perfect Kerry ad?

Kerry running after a severely wounded, retreating enemy soldier and killing him.

Followed by his personally torching a village and burning it to the ground.

Those were his self confessed war crimes.

Dean was a vastly better candidate.

 

"The scary thing is how he decided he had a mandate from the people when he won the Electoral College vote the last time. Fewer than half the people who voted, voted for him yet instead of realizing he doesn't even have a majorty he thinks he can do whatever he wants and we all will be happy."

Gee, could apply either to:

election of 1992
election of 1996
election of 2000

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"45731)</div>

Get your facts right.

More people voted for Gore than voted for Bush in 2000. In both 1992 and 1996, Clinton received more votes than any other candidate on the ballot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"45730)</div>

More Republican lies. Here is the proper context, according to the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania:

There is some missing context. What's missing from the ad is that Kerry was relating what he had heard at an an event in Detroit a few weeks earlier sponsored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and was not claiming to have witnessed those atrocities personally.

Out of Context

 

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages.

From
Audiotape, April 18, 1971

nterview with:
MR. CROSBY NOYES Washington Evening Star

Actual Navy report written by Kerry:
http://www.newscentral.tv/thepoint/attachm...attachments.htm

relevant extract:

PCF 94 beached in center of ambush in front of small path when Viet Cong sprung up from bunker 10 feet from unit. Man ran with weapon towards hootch. Forward M-60 machine gunner wounded man in leg. OINC [officer-in-charge] jumped ashore and gave pursuit while other units saturated area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore. OINC of PCF 94 chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled

So, the "I am a war criminal too" stuff comes from Kerry's own mouth, on audiotape, from a 1971 interview. I have seen no Republican ads on this subject, I am relying upon Kerry's own words and his written report.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxygene\";p=\"45721)</div>

Agreed.

Agreed. And yes, you may have pulled out of Saudi Arabia, but you've just moved your permanent bases to Iraq. Not much of an improvement. And yes, your policies against Palestine, which leave you and Israel pretty much isolated in the world, will continue to haunt you. Kerry seems ridiculously weak on this point, and seems to be so much in the pocket of the Zionist lobby that he can't bring himself to differ from Bush. Sigh.

We'd take the US's policies a bit more seriously if they actually stopped trying to thrust their CIA operatives into the job and let the Iraqis decide for themselves. I think it's rather iffy that Hamid Karzai, the appointed interim PM of Afghanistan was allowed to continue and stand for election. That didn't strike me as a particularly fair race. Likewise if Allawi is allowed to stand. The appointed interim PM should have been a technocrat, civil servant type.

This pair of paragraphs doesn't make sense to me. If, as you say, the biggest danger is from rogue individuals with big weapons, then what should this form of "larger war" be? What we're doing now? This is vastly multiplying the number of individuals with motivation, and is doing nothing to stop development of the big weapons. While killing thousands of innocent civilians. This is totally counterproductive, even before you start worrying about the morality.

Bush's cabal has no effective policies, apart from trying to extract as much power and money out of the system as possible. Sorry to be so boring, but an effective "war" against terrorism won't involve huge explosions in foreign lands, framed within the exciting stars-and-stripes graphics of a Fox news report. It'll be intelligence, law enforcement, and most importantly enforcing the treaties to remove nukes from circulation. Unfortunately, big flashy explosions are what appeals more to the mass of the American populace, it seems.

Oh, and on the Kerry/Vietnam war crimes stuff. Again, I don't understand the mentality of those attacking him. Obviously, almost all soldiers in a war end up being guilty of pre-meditated mass murder. That's why it's rather a good idea not to start them in the first place. But Robert Taylor, and others, are saying that Kerry is somehow reprehensible for feeling guilt and wanting to do something about it???? :roll:

Personally, I think Kerry's at fault for being too limp-wristed and not standing up against the right-wing nutjobs here. He should not be afraid to say that Vietnam was wrong. Pandering to those who believe that somehow any action by America, however misguided, is sanctified by the spilt blood of American soldiers is just stupid. His militaristic "war hero" persona in the Democratic convention was pretty appalling. Or that's what I thought until I saw the horror of the Republican National Convention. From over here, that looked only a couple of years away from a Nazi or North Korean rally. Flag-waving, whooping delegates cheering the videos of their military hardware, and booing the United Nations. Creepy. And it's sad that the Democrats feel they have to imitate it. There's something rotten in the USA at the moment.

 

There isn't a dime's worth of difference between what Kerry says he will do in Iraq and what Bush says he will do.

And Kerry promises to "kill all the terrorists", anywhere in the world, before they can strike the USA. It is a perfect restatement of the Bush policy of preemption.

In fact, an aroused Kerry may well use highly disproportionate violence in response to an attack.

Kerry is running to the RIGHT of Bush, bigger Army, etc.

 

You folks here obviously like to write. Have some fun .. go through all your saved writings, pick phrases out of context, and see if you can show yourself as a good person, a bad person, a traitor, a patriot, etc. Try it. You can do it .. you can do it just like the ad at the beginning of this string does it.

Bush / Cheney / Rove are running the country / campaign on the slogan, "the end justifies the means". Lies and distortions are okay as long as, "the right thing" comes as a result (taking us to war, winning the election, etc.).

I've voted Republican since Eisenhower was president, but this s--t is unlike anything I've ever seen.

Were the lies that took us to war told because the administration was afraid the people / congress might not go along if the real reason was given?

Are these very distorted ads being presented because 'winning is everything'?

Is ethics a word that that is being discarded by the Republican Party?

I was in the military during the Viet Nam era. I felt at the time the people like John Kerry were traitorous. But over the years I've come to realize that the people like John Kerry were just doing everything they knew how to shorten that awful war, unfortunately too late to save an awful lot of kids including wife's younger brother.

'The end justifies the means - whatever the means taken' just doesn't sit well with me. Truth sits well with me. Ethical living, governing, and campaigning sits well with me. Thus the Bush / Cheney / Rove team don't sit well with me.

There are negative ads on both sides, information is taken out of context on both sides, but so far, I haven't seen anything from the the Democrat side that comes anywhere near what the Republicans have done in leaving ethics as a totally forgotten commodity.

By the way, this Republican, just this morning, voted for the Kerry / Edwards team. Why? The war, that's why! That and 'the ends justifies the means - no matter what' culture displayed by the current administration.

Note: If you get a little time, read the very long article in the N.Y. Times on those anodized aluminum tubes that the CIA, and later, the administration, claimed could only be used for refining Uranium. By the way, the Energy Department, those who make nuclear weapons, well before we entered Iraq, told the administration that those tubes, the same size as Iraqi rocket launchers, would be totally unfit for refining Uranium. Someone said that maybe they could be modified for nuclear use .. The answer was (paraphrased), Yes, just as a Yugo could be modified to become a Cadilac.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ken Cooper\";p=\"45871)</div>

If you're looking for the truth, then you shouldn't vote for either, because neither one tells the truth as the facts really are. They both spin the facts to suit their needs...they both distort/expand the fact to tell "their" side of the story. Anyone can take a speech, a statement, and "cut and paste" it to tell the people what you want them to hear. It boils down to which set of spin do you believe to be the closest to your belief of the truth. Then you go to the polls and make what you feel is the best choice. I don't think either campaign has been ethical, nor has either candidate taken the "high road" with the other. I'm not sure I've ever seen more mud-slinging in an election year between two presidential candidates.

"The truth shall set you free....."