Ultimate John Kerry ad

Remove all ads!

What can i say, another of those flash websites. Any person who listened/watched this ad will vote for John Kerry, i am sure, any person at all.

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

[ October 12, 2004, 19:45: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Here's a clip from the Daily Show, in a feature called Bush vs. Bush. You need realplayer to see it, but it's worth it.

Bush vs. Bush

Flip-Flop.

 

The John Kerry Ad was so funny! John-Flip-Flop-Kerry is an idiot...surly he knew that people would start noticing that he changes his mind on every topic to please the crowd he's talking to. I would like to get an official record to see what he voted for in congress.

 

Telling bull**** with a confident tone and fancy accent. Much like myself when I get drunk. Only my bull**** is always more consistent than his bull****, no matter how drunk I am (and my accent is sexier). Does that man have a piece of a spine? To me, he seems to have issues. It seems it's natural for him to say whatever the interlocutor wants to hear. It looks so genuine he probably isn't even consciously lying. Guess he would pass lie detector tests as well. Someone had better get him a doctor.

 

Just why it sucks to be forced to choose between the Brainless and the Spineless.

Edit: Just for the sake of clarity, I'm not with the Republicans on this one, neither with the Democrats. But I still resent the idea of referring to anything that exposes Kerry's lack of consistency as dirty tricks. Kerry is not a holy icon defiled with unholy attempts of evil minions who dare accuse him of things he wouldn't do simply because he's the holy John Kerry. The man is invertebrate and the quotes show he has serious troubles with himself. Granted, the selection is "helped" and largely tendentious, but it doesn't change the fact that Kerry is responsible for his internal contradictions. It's no dirty propaganda to point out how he contradicts himself. Just don't infer any warm feelings to Dubya or Dick from what I'm saying about Kerry now. It's good I don't have to vote in American elections.

[ October 12, 2004, 22:40: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Well, both of links are a bit disingenuous, but I have to say that the Jon Stewart link comes off far better. Stewart is merely reminding people of how strongly against nation-building the Repubs were before the last election, and how hard they worked to portray the Democrats as the party that would go after dangerous regimes overseas (after Bosnia, Somalia, etc). Of course, things changed after 9/11, but still, it seems fair game to question Republican claims of monopoly over nation-building.

The johnkerryads link is over the top though, as each of the supposed flip-flops is easily justified by events as they happened. Of course John Kerry, along with many, many other people, supported removing Saddam from power at a time when the entire US intelligence community seemed to be united in saying that Saddam had WMDs. Now that it turns out that the supposed consensus in the intelligence community was the result of aggressive arm-twisting by the Bush administration, it seems like major chutzpah for the Bushies to try to say, "look, Kerry thought Saddam had WMDs too." It's also completely logical to hold at the same time the positions that 1) given this was a manufactured war, Bush should be held accountable for spending moneys in Iraq that could have been spent domestically; and 2) given that the US has already gone into Iraq, more troops should be sent and money should be spent. The position is that 1) the US shouldn't have gone in in the first place, but 2) now that they have, they have no choice but to make it work, as leaving now would mean disaster.

I see neither spinelessness nor flip-flopping in this position.

 

But Bion, it only isn't flip flopping 'IF' you can prove that the Bush administration created the false report on Iraq's WMD - quite an extreme claim, I'd love to see proof.

Kerry's flip-flopping is a good thing but imagine if he was in Bush's situation as president now. He'd probably be saying things like

"Why are you attacking me about the situation in Iraq? I don't even want to go to war!"

"But you did."

"That was based on incorrect information. Now that I find that information is false I do not want to go to war."

"But you found out AFTER we went to war."

"And now I don't want to go to war."

The mind boggles.

 

Extreme claim? I never suggested that the Bush admin created false documents; my charge was simply that the Bush administration had an agenda with Iraq, and that they molded intelligence to fit that agenda by ignoring whatever contradicted it and pumping up whatever went along with it. And it seems to me that this is pretty much common knowledge by now.

And I don't get your imagined dialogue with Kerry at all. While it certainly *would* be mind-boggling if Kerry suggested that we go back in time and not go to war, it would also be mind-boggling if Kerry were to sprout horns and hooves, start running around with a pitchfork, and claim to be the pope. However, returning to reality, the points are:

1) The Bush administration massaged the intelligence to make a war of choice seem like a war of necessity.

2) Many people, including Kerry, supported the war because they thought it was a war of necessity, and not a war of choice.

3) Now that the US has taken out the old Iraqi government, many people who were against the war in the first place think the US has no choice but to stay in Iraq until a new govenment is installed, as no one wants chaos in the middle east.

4) The Bush administration should expect heavy criticism for both gaming pre-war intelligence and screwing up the occupation.

5) It's perfectly reasonable for Kerry to a) have supported the war based on gamed evidence; b) now criticize the Bush administration for gaming that evidence, and hold that he would have acted much differently had the intelligence been different; c) say that we now have an obligation to Iraq: you broke it, you own it; and d) suggest that the Rumsfeld doctrine of private contractors and minimal troop presence was a mistake, and that more troops and money will be necessary.

This makes sense to me. I'm not sure why making up a fantasy scenario is relevant here.

 

How is that a good thing? Saying one thing and doing another tells the truth about someone.

 

Argh, sorry. I was going to get back to that but forgot. I meant to say it is good in some ways in how he can change his mind when presented with new information. However changing your mind about EVERYTHING depending not on new information but on a new question is not good.

 

Mark simone is a local new york radio station guy who made this ad for a laugh, and that's it. There is reason i put this under whatnot not aoda.

 

Bah, how many times have whatnot threads been 'promoted' to AoDA? It's about politics and Tal had the nurve to call anything against Kerry 'propaganda', it's just asking for a AoDAing.