John Kerry opens mouth betrays the troops

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]?Reckless? and ?Irresponsible??
2003 Tape Shows Kerry Seemingly Backing $87 Billion in Iraq Funding He Voted Against

By Jake Tapper

March 19 ? In an interview several weeks before he voted against $87 billion in funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., seemed to argue that such a vote would be reckless, irresponsible, and tantamount to abandoning U.S. troops.

On the Sept. 14, 2003, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Kerry spoke at length about an amendment he and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were offering which would have paid for the $87 billion by delaying some of the recent tax cuts.

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." [/Q]

Then the VOTE and reaction from his own party:

[Q]Kerry was one of the 12 who voted against the funding. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., also voted against the funding. Dean at the time seemed to support the Kerry approach, saying "if the president doesn't have a sufficient commitment to this operation to get rid of the $87 billion in tax cuts then we should vote no."

But Senate Democrats overwhelmingly took the other side of the issue. Biden, the co-sponsor of Kerry's amendment and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voted for the funding, saying, "the cost of failure in Iraq would far exceed the price of peace." In a Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who also voted for the funding, said, "I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they supported the war but then opposed the funding for the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized." [/Q]


and John Kerry's explination:

[Q] "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."[/Q]


Hello.....Who is coaching this guy? Can we say flip flop? Can we say tell the truth?

Just explain to the people you wanted the nomination so BADLY that you sold out the troops so that the Democrats voting in the primary would see you as more in line with Dean. Tell the truth!!!!! The nomination was more important to you than giving troops the equiptment they needed.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Politics/tapper_kerry_040319-2.html

Oh...here is the BUSH AD. If Kerry wants to win the nomination, he had better start figuring out how to explain himself. Watch the AD..........the last line is politicaly priceless. DOUBLETALK.

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=753&T=2
 
Last edited:
Dukakis_tank.jpg
 
The first bill FOR funding supported by Kerry failed.



Second bill for funding PASSED. Was the second bill inferior?


I am sure if it FAILED like the FIRST bill there would have been a THIRD bill, perhaps a superior bill for FUNDING.



Recently there was a NRA sponsored bill that the maker of the bill and many Republicans voted AGAINST. The bill had been modified as to be unacceptable to them.



So the GOP has flip-flopped on the 2nd amendment.

Bill making is political, there are many versions of bills.


Often Senators and Congressmen vote for and against different versions of the same bills.


This misleading tactic is often used against McCain to say he does not support the Military or Veterans. It is beneath contempt and is a dishonest tactic devised for partisans. Some people can be easily manipulated because they do not take the time to investigate the facts.
 
Yah.... watch this one...

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=743&T=2

Hey... I know what this country needs to do too! LOTS of people do.... unfortunately... that doesn't mean they should be President.

Knowing what needs to be done, and getting it done are two different things.

If you think I'm siding with Kerry, you're wrong... I dont really like any of the potential candidates -- they are all playing politics.

Can someone please show me evidence that the economy has grown under the Bush administration?

"I'm president bush and I approve of this message"

LOL, I sure as hell hope he does.. it was himself and his wife speaking.
 
deep said:
Some people can be easily manipulated because they do not take the time to investigate the facts.

Do you mean like how the majority of Americans were manipulated by the BUSH administration to believe that we needed to invade a country which was a clear and immediate danger to our "homeland" because it possessed WMDs? ;)
 
I'd like to add one more lil note....

Watch: http://www.georgewbush.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=749&T=2

Says that raising taxes is a bad thing.... funny... BUSH's fellow republican Governor ARRRRRRNOLD ;) in California is doing exactly that... working on raising taxes because there is NO other way to get the state out of debt and back on track. The amazing thing is, everyone I've spoke to about the issue seems ok with it.. most responses go something like this: "Well, we've got to do what we've got to do, there isnt any other way around it."

I love how Bush simplifies everything to the point where he can manipulate the uneducated, uninformed, and ignorant.... and it seems intentional. Wouldn't it be better to EDUCATE the citizens of this country on the realities of the issues? I guess not according to Bush.
 
Elvis said:


If you think I'm siding with Kerry, you're wrong... I dont really like any of the potential candidates -- they are all playing politics.




unfortunately we only have TWO viable choices.


Bush

or


Kerry



many may want to vote for Nader or some other candidate.


I think they believe that if Nader gets a decent showing and when BUSH/ CHENEY run the country straight to HELL.

The Progressives will become a viable second party.


I don't want to live in HELL on a hope and a wish.


Throw BUSH/ Cheney on the dung heap of time. That may be too good for them.



VOTE KERRY.


BUSH WILL not flip/ flop

He will keep selling America and what it stands for down the drain for CORPORATE GREED.
 
Elvis said:


Do you mean like how the majority of Americans were manipulated by the BUSH administration to believe that we needed to invade a country which was a clear and immediate danger to our "homeland" because it possessed WMDs? ;)


That is one example.


This whole Troops funding bill is just partisan bullshit.



The link in the first post opens on page 2



this quote is from page 1


Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."

At the time of the October 2003 vote, "The nation had four months before funds were needed but Republicans were hell-bent on moving this bill through as quickly as possible, before the tough questions could be asked and the president's failures would be discovered," Cutter said.

Cutter went on to say the Bush White House had threatened to veto the entire $87



So Kerry was for the bill and wanted it paid for now instead of dumping it on future generations , the school children, no child left behind, they will ALL pay for the sins of their fathers.


The President would have vetoed the the FUNDS for troops if billionaires could not have tax cuts.
 
It still amazes me that the Republican party tried getting clinton impeached for conduct/lying about sex... .. but when it comes to lying about reasons for going to war (not to mention other issues), it's "A OK".
 
"The impeachment of Bill Clinton made me embarrassed to be a Republican."


Who said that?













































Arnold Swartznegger.



The Partisan GOP power brokers in CA want to change the constitution so Arnold can be President.
Their internal polling says he can win hands down. The same group in 99/ 2000 found that W fared best against Gore because of name recognition (His fathers) and the bad taste left in peoples mouth by Clinton scandal.

That is why Bush 2000 only stump speech was ?I will restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse.?
He campaigned against Clinton and was an empty cipher for machine that has taken over the GOP.
 
I do not think Kerry is anything like a "knight in shining armor" either. He's not above playing politics. But I'll take him over Bush. I don't think Nader will be a factor as his ballot access campaign is already running into problems due to a lack of interest. The press is more interested in his campaign than the electorate is.
 
Deep,

There was only one vote for a bill. Kerry wanted an amendment and it was shot down. When the bill came to a vote, Kerry voted against it.
 
Last edited:
deep said:



Will GOP related groups offer an assist here?

They might like to. But the Nader campaign tried to raise $30,000 for ballot access campaigns in North Carolina and Oklahoma, two of the hardest states to get ballot status for an independent candidate. They only raised $15,000. If you can't start a campaign to get a candidate on the f:censored:g ballot, it's a lost cause. Ballot access is incredibly difficult for independents and generally takes a party apparatus, at the very least.
 
Elvis said:
I love how Bush simplifies everything to the point where he can manipulate the uneducated, uninformed, and ignorant
so many opportunities for a funny post on this one

but I still like to believe that Bush has surrounded himself with brighter men than he is himself
 
Last edited:
Salome said:
so many opportunities for a funny post on this one

but I still like to believe that Bush has surrounded himself with brighter men than he is himself


.... and when I do refer to "Bush" ... I also mean those behind the 'man'. It's fairly obvious that the person 'Bush' is no more intelligent than a bush, and has people making his administration what it is (which is not implying it's anything good). ;)
 
deep said:
Some people can be easily manipulated because they do not take the time to investigate the facts.


Some people can be manipulated by ignoring the facts.
 
deep said:
The link in the first post opens on page 2



this quote is from page 1



And I quoted from page one in my post....and then moved to page two.

It is really not that hard to move back....you obviously were able to.

And the quote from the staffer is a joke.

He voted against it to appear more Deanlike in the primary when he was forced to the left because it looked like he was going to lose it.

Nothing more.
 
Elvis said:
I love how Bush simplifies everything to the point where he can manipulate the uneducated, uninformed, and ignorant.... and it seems intentional. Wouldn't it be better to EDUCATE the citizens of this country on the realities of the issues? I guess not according to Bush.

I guess that based on this statement above, we can conclude that you feel anyone who supports Bush is undeucated and easily manipulated?

I have not yet decided where my vote is going. I have written in McCain the last three times I have voted.

My vote really does not count living here in Kerry's home state, unless he pulls a Gore and loses MA.
 
Dreadsox said:


I guess that based on this statement above, we can conclude that you feel anyone who supports Bush is undeucated and easily manipulated?

I did not say or imply that ANYONE who supports bush is uneducated and easily manipulated.

I made a statement about how he does tend to easily manipulate those that are uneducated, etc.

That is also not stating anything about who or how Kerry may or may not manipulate.

Please, don't flip flop my words.
 
Whoa, I thought I walked into an anti-GOP cliche fest.

Worried about corporate greed? Find out how many millions the Kerry family has invested in big corporations, like Walmart.
 
It's funny that criticism of Bush is responded to by criticising Kerry. Particularly when people in this thread have made it clear they're neither Bush nor Kerry supporters.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
It's funny that criticism of Bush is responded to by criticising Kerry. Particularly when people in this thread have made it clear they're neither Bush nor Kerry supporters.

I found that fairly amusing also.
 
nbcrusader said:
Whoa, I thought I walked into an anti-GOP cliche fest.

Worried about corporate greed? Find out how many millions the Kerry family has invested in big corporations, like Walmart.

:ohmy:
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
It's funny that criticism of Bush is responded to by criticising Kerry. Particularly when people in this thread have made it clear they're neither Bush nor Kerry supporters.

[Q]I found that fairly amusing also.[/Q]


In case you both missed it. Senator Kerry is my Senator. I made it clear in the primaries that I did not want him to win the nomination. My candidate would have been Lieberman if I could have picked him myself. Then I was rooting for Edwards.

I have had first hand experience with Mr. Kerry's office. I watched over 200 reservists get ignored by his office after Desert Storm. At least Senator Kennedy tried to help us out, and I give him credit for this. I have also heard from NUMEROUS teachers that I work with that over the years, there has been very POOR response from his office.

I have said on these boards that I was very open to another person but unfortunately, Kerry, due to my experiences is not exactly the guy I am willing to vote for. Maybe that will change. A lot can happen between now and November.


My initial comments in the thread were a observation about Kerry not following through. He did it for political reasons as did Edwards. They were forced to the left as George Bush was forced to the right in 2000. That is what happens in the primaries.
 
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.
 
Of course it is best not to make mistakes. I think this has alot to do with why he's taking a vacation. Now, that is not a mistake. We do have seven months of the campaign to go. We have the conventions, the debates, etc, etc, and I think the conventions are going to be particularly important. I also think John McCain's observation that so far both campaigns are too negative and too partisan is right on. The campaign that is *perceived* to be closest to the center will carry the day. People want a campaign not a war. Based on what we've seen so far we're in for a depressing campaign. While the American people do not expect campaigns to be tea parties they tend to be turned off by too much negativity. I'm afraid this stuff could be bad for the unity of our country.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom