John Kerry opens mouth betrays the troops - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-21-2004, 12:36 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:12 AM
One other thing....I have also started a thread that was critical of a Bush ad (using a subliminal airplane) , and I have criticized the administration when I believe they are wrong. That said, I will defend the administration when I see people putting out things that are not correct in my opinion. I guess that must make me look more like a supporter than I really am.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:45 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
On Bill Maher's show the other night he pointed out that the American people always say that they want a truthful candidate, yet when we get a McCain or a Dean to give us the straight talk we always seem to vote for the other guy.
That's because the general public is generally stupid and is easily misled. Why else would countless elections devolve into negative campaigns, if they didn't work?

The American people want a candidate who makes them feel good, no more no less. If the truth doesn't make them feel good, then they'd rather live in a lie.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 01:00 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Melon....I believe that is pretty much hitting the nail on the head.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 02:42 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


That's because the general public is generally stupid and is easily misled. Why else would countless elections devolve into negative campaigns, if they didn't work?

The American people want a candidate who makes them feel good, no more no less. If the truth doesn't make them feel good, then they'd rather live in a lie.

Melon
Unfortunately this is true. I wish it weren't. I wish guys like McCain won elections. Instead they end up making the most insightful observations on campaigns on TV interviews.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 03:27 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I have also said that I enjoy the political process of electing a President tremendously. I spent my senior year in college do a thesis paper on the topic. The process is about getting through the primaries as close to what you believe as you can without selling too much of your soul along the way.

On Bill Mar's (SP) show the other night he pointed out that the American people always say that they want a truthful candidate, yet when we get a McCain or a Dean to give us the straight talk we always seem to vote for the other guy.

Mr. Kerry needs better handlers.

The full story of the ad is interesting and highlights how a candidate get s pushed away from his initial position.

Deep, an argument could be made that he voted yes the first time knowing full well that bill would fail. Just as his advisor said it was a protest vote. I can sit here and think he voted yes the first time to cover his ass.

He said on TV he would vote for it. He did not. He then responded in double speak. The Kerry clip on the end was added to the original ad.

POINT: He needs to get ahold of himself. He does not have the money to recover from mistakes like this. The Bush machine does.


Dread,


I do appreciate your opinions are influenced by living in Mass. where Kerry is your Senator.




Do you REALLY believe if the FINAL vote was going to be 51-49 against funding the troops in Iraq Kerry, Edwards or many if any would leave them to twist in the wind? If we watched the vote on C-Span and their votes come after 51-60 votes in favor. The argument that they were protest votes because they wanted the War at least partially paid today seems valid.


This vote was put up FOUR months before funding ran out.

If the second vote failed. I believe there would have been more votes. Perhaps a push for more international involvement. But Senators would not leave troops overseas unfunded or seek a premature withdrawal with extremists taking over Iraq.



I'll take your word that Kerry has not been as responsive to Teachers as he should have.


But, honestly do you believe a second Bush term with GOP controlling both houses would not further weaken public education.

I think they would like vouchers where their core supporters could used my taxes to support THEIR schools. (Fundamentalist Madrassas).
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 03:41 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Deep,



"Do you REALLY believe if the FINAL vote was going to be 51-49 against funding the troops in Iraq Kerry, Edwards or many if any would leave them to twist in the wind? If we watched the vote on C-Span and their votes come after 51-60 votes in favor. The argument that they were protest votes because they wanted the War at least partially paid today seems valid."


"This vote was put up FOUR months before funding ran out."

"If the second vote failed. I believe there would have been more votes. Perhaps a push for more international involvement. But Senators would not leave troops overseas unfunded or seek a premature withdrawal with extremists taking over Iraq."


I find it appalling that any Senator would hold up funding of troops in the field because of a disagreement over tax cuts. If you don't like the tax cuts introduce a bill to turn them back, but don't link it up with the funding of soldiers in the field and the rebuilding of Iraq.

There are congressman that do not want US troops in Iraq and do not support sending the volume of money in development aid to Iraq. They want US troops withdrawn from Iraq and all the money invested in their pet programs and projects.

Senator Kerry time and again has voted and campaigned against spending on Defense and multiple weapon systems. He voted against the removal of Saddam's forces from Kuwait in 1991 and now has voted against funding the current operation in Iraq. Kerry has a consistent record over the past 20 years of being against multiple weapon systems, funding, and other defense projects vital to the national security of this country.

If you believe the United States should have a strong military and foreign policy, do not vote Kerry in November, because he does not have a record over the past 20 years of creating a strong military and foreign policy.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 04:04 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Elvis


I found that fairly amusing also.
The irony is rich. Dread started a thread about Kerry, and what do we get - criticism of Bush. Very rich irony indeed.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 05:43 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I find it appalling that any Senator would hold up funding of troops in the field because of a disagreement over tax cuts. If you don't like the tax cuts introduce a bill to turn them back, but don't link it up with the funding of soldiers in the field and the rebuilding of Iraq.

I find it appalling that the senators who created this bill would jeapordize the funding of troops by sticking tax cuts in there that have nothing to do with Iraq when they knew it would risk the votes of many democrats.
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 06:06 PM   #39
Creator of the Blue Crack
 
Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,008
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen



I find it appalling that the senators who created this bill would jeapordize the funding of troops by sticking tax cuts in there that have nothing to do with Iraq when they knew it would risk the votes of many democrats.

There are two sides (atleast) to every story.... it's always easier to tell one side of it, when the people being spoken to don't know the other half. Thank you for enlightening some about the other half of the story... the one Bush's campaign fails to mention
__________________
I created this place. I hyped a band.
Now I own an ad agency. We hype brands.
All roads for me lead back to U2. Ain't it grand.
FB me. IG me. Tweet me.
Elvis is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 06:13 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen



I find it appalling that the senators who created this bill would jeapordize the funding of troops by sticking tax cuts in there that have nothing to do with Iraq when they knew it would risk the votes of many democrats.
The Bill was specifically about spending 87 Billon dollars for operation in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as development aid. Senator Kerry wanted an ammendment to the bill that would reverse tax cuts that had already been approved. Kerry's amendment was defeated and Kerry and some other Senators did not vote for the 87 Billion dollars to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some Democrats including Kerry clearly viewed their support for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as conditional and based on reversing tax cuts. When were talking about soldiers in the field and National Security, that is simply inexcusable.

Kerry's priorty here was reversing tax cuts, not the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 06:19 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The Bill was specifically about spending 87 Billon dollars for operation in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as development aid. Senator Kerry wanted an ammendment to the bill that would reverse tax cuts that had already been approved. Kerry's amendment was defeated and Kerry and some other Senators did not vote for the 87 Billion dollars to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some Democrats including Kerry clearly viewed their support for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as conditional and based on reversing tax cuts. When were talking about soldiers in the field and National Security, that is simply inexcusable.

Kerry's priorty here was reversing tax cuts, not the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Please help me out here,..was 42 billion of that 87 billion a loan to Iraq ?
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 06:24 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:12 PM
The 87 Billion dollars was the total figure for aid to Iraq and Afghanistan for developing the countries from both and economic and political standpoint as well as money for continued military operations there in defeating terrorist and protecting the people.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 06:32 PM   #43
Creator of the Blue Crack
 
Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,008
Local Time: 06:12 AM
$87 billion.

That's A LOT of money. I guess that's the price WE pay for helping Bush secure the region so his oil supply doesn't dry up.




One hundred, two hundred...

And I can see those fighter planes
__________________
I created this place. I hyped a band.
Now I own an ad agency. We hype brands.
All roads for me lead back to U2. Ain't it grand.
FB me. IG me. Tweet me.
Elvis is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 06:41 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The Bill was specifically about spending 87 Billon dollars for operation in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as development aid. Senator Kerry wanted an ammendment to the bill that would reverse tax cuts that had already been approved. Kerry's amendment was defeated and Kerry and some other Senators did not vote for the 87 Billion dollars to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some Democrats including Kerry clearly viewed their support for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as conditional and based on reversing tax cuts. When were talking about soldiers in the field and National Security, that is simply inexcusable.

Kerry's priorty here was reversing tax cuts, not the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanks Sting for setting the record straight.

Oh...here we go...it was about the oil.....heard that before. I have yet to see anyone in this forum post a single piece of credible evidence to back statements like that up.

But I suppose that could be another thread.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 07:07 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:12 AM
From Fact Check....which still, in my opinion is un-partisan in their review of this election.
http://factcheck.org/default.aspx


[Q]Summary

Bush-Cheney '04 launched a new attack ad against Kerry in West Virginia on March 16, calling him "wrong on defense" because he voted against last year's $87-billion supplemental appropriation to support military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ad characterizes that as voting "against funding our soldiers." It shows Kerry casting specific "no" votes on body armor for troops, higher combat pay and health-care benefits for reservists, all of which were in fact included in the bill.

But it is also true, as Kerry has been saying, that Bush sent US troops to Iraq with too little of the best-grade body armor to equip all who needed it.

On March 18 the Bush campaign updated their ad to include footage of Kerry saying "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry had co-sponsored an amendment, which was defeated, to pay for the measure by rolling back some of Bush's tax cuts. The Bush campaign said Kerry's words showed him equivocating.


Analysis



The Bush ad says Kerry "voted . . . for military action in Iraq" and then "voted against funding our soldiers." In fact, Kerry did vote October 11, 2002 to grant Bush authority to use military force against Iraq at his discretion, and a year later Kerry also voted against Bush's request for $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush-Cheney '04 Ad

"Troops"

Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Announcer: Few votes in Congress are as important as funding our troops at war. Though John Kerry voted in October of 2002 for military action in Iraq , he later voted against funding our soldiers.

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: Body armor for troops in combat.

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: Higher combat pay.

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: And, better health care for reservists and their families…

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: Wrong on defense.

The ad strains the facts in some places. Granting Bush the authority to use force is not exactly the same thing as favoring its actual use, for one thing (though Kerry had a difficult time convincing many Democratic voters of that.) And Kerry did not cast separate "no" votes on popular items contained in the $87-billion package, as the ad depicts him doing. There was one vote on the entire package.

"No" on Body Armor?

Nevertheless, the bill Kerry opposed did contain $300 million requested by the Pentagon to buy best-grade body armor for all troops in Iraq, and also contained additional combat pay and health benefits for reservists called to active duty.

But it's also true that as many as 40,000 US troops were sent to Iraq without the best-grade body armor. Frontline troops had the new vests, containing ceramic plates that can stop assault-rifle bullets, while others had only older designs that offered protection mainly against shrapnel and lower-velocity projectiles.

At a House Appropritions subcommittee hearing Sept. 24, 2003, Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, did not dispute the estimate that 40,000 troops were without the newer design, and said the $300 million was needed to buy more of the vests.

Abizaid: Now, I can't answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply. But I can tell you that by November, every soldier that's serving in Iraq will have one. It's very important.

Bush campaign aides say their ad is in part a reaction to Kerry's recent criticisms of Bush on that very point. In a radio address on March 7, for example, Kerry said Bush sent troops "into harm's way without enough firepower and support," and the the Pentagon had only recently started making armored door kits to protect Humvee occupants from roadside ambushes.

Kerry: Even more shocking, tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor

In a telephone conference call with reporters March 16, a Bush aide said Kerry is living in a "parallel universe," criticizing the President for failing to provide enough body armor while voting against a bill to provide money to buy more.

On March 15 Kerry gave his most recent explanation of his vote on the $87-billion measure, in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters:

Kerry: And I might add, that vote for the $87 billion, which was was a vote to change our policy and get other nations involved and get other people on the ground and take the target off of American troops by sharing the responsibility, it was also a vote that took place long after they already committed the troops, long after they should have had the equipment that they needed.

For the record, the body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed.


Bush-Cheney '04 Ad

"Troops-Fog"

Bush: I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Announcer: Few votes in Congress are as important as funding our troops at war. Though John Kerry voted in October, 2002 for military action in Iraq , he later voted against funding our soldiers.

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: Body armor and higher combat pay for troops?

Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: Better health care for reservists?

Announcer: Mr. Kerry:

Announcer: No.

Announcer: And what does Kerry say now?

Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

Announcer: Wrong on defense.

March 18 Update:

New Version of Ad Goes National

On March 18 the Bush campaign released a new version of the ad and said they would run it nationally on network cable television, as well as in West Virginia.

The updated version of the ad was nearly identical in wording but added near the end footage of Kerry giving an awkward but widely quoted explanation of his position:

Announcer: And what does Kerry say now?

Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it

Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.

The Bush campaign named the revised ad "Troops-Fog" and issued a news release saying Kerry's stance is part of a pattern of equivocation. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan called the ad misleading and said: "John Kerry opposed a red inked, blank check on Bush’s failed Iraq policy."




Sources



U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session (H.J.Res. 114) Vote #237 11 Oct 2002.

Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session S. 1689 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004) Vote #400 17 Oct. 2003.

Patrick Healy, “In Swipe At Bush, Kerry Says Us Troops In Iraq Ill Prepared” Boston Globe 7 March 2004: A13.

US Congress, House Appropriations Committee; Subcommittee On Foreign Operations, Export Financing And Related Programs, “Hearing On Reconstruction Portion Of Iraq Supplemental,” 24 Sept 2003.

Richard Sisk: “G.I.s Short On Protection Lack New Body Armor To Stop Iraq Sniper Attacks” NY Daily News 28 Sept 2003: A22.

U.S. Senator John Kerry “Remarks At The International Association Of Fire Fighters Conference” Washington DC 15 March 2004.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session: Motion to Table Biden Amdt. No. 1796 Vote #373 2 Oct 2003.
[/Q]
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com