Support NeoGAF

[DonasaurusRex]

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

Its put together by his apponents of course so take it however you want to but theres some pretty disturbing things in the video. Like when in 98 during the clinton administration he sounds alot like bush does now when it comes to saddam hussein and his ties to WMD and terrorism funding.

 

[Belfast]

But, see, if he sounds a lot like Bush does now and whatnot, how does that make Bush a better choice? God, people are stupid.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

I never said that I was just pointing that out because now he is not only making an about face, his tone is making it seem like he was always vehemently against those views. Just has that fence sitting feeling.

 

[cvxfreak]

*I* have two views on Iraq, why can't John Kerry? And I don't mean it in black and white, I mean it other ways.

 

[Gruco]

This is probably the most damning evidence given in the flip flop, and "change opinions based on political tides" argument I've seen.

Geeze, I really like his proposals and still plan on voting for him, but that's pretty bad. I dunno how to defend it.

 

[Ecrofirt]

flip flop, flip to the flippy, to the flip-flip flop

 

[Wolfy]

But, see, if he sounds a lot like Bush does now and whatnot, how does that make Bush a better choice? God, people are stupid.

Dude, he never said Bush was a better choice. God, people are stupid.

 

[Slurpy]

Can someone get me a working file?

 

[Eminem]

Wow, that's pretty bad. Really fucking pretty bad.

 

[ManaByte]

That video needs a big OWNED sign at the end.

 

[Eminem]

lol

this is definitely the most evidence of his flip-flops that i've seen.

 

[Socreges]

This is exactly what I was looking for when I made that thread about Kerry and Iraq.

This quote in particular is completely damning:

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's existing order then he will have invited enforcement even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

He hasn't only "flip-flopped". But he also contradicts himself every time he criticizes Bush about the war.

Of course, I still think he's the lesser of two "evils". But it's pretty clear that he'll jive with whatever he deems most acceptable at the time.

flip flop, flip to the flippy, to the flip-flip flop

flip flop you don't stop flopping to the floppity flippity de flip....

Another one:

"The president always holds the right to act unilaterally to protect the interests of this country."

 

[Dan]

But it's pretty clear that he'll jive with whatever he deems most acceptable at the time.

I'm no Bush supporter, but I find this pretty frightening too. As I mentioned in that other thread, popular voting would be really scary, and second to that would be a president that bends to the whims of the masses.

*sigh* I really don't want to vote for either of these chumps.

 

[Eminem]

*sigh* I really don't want to vote for either of these chumps.

No freakin' joke.

 

[Gruco]

Another note, I can't believe it's taken me this long to see clips like this adjacent to one another.

 

[Malakhov]

One's an hypocrite about it, the other is at least open about it.
This is nothing new though, don't understand how you guys just realised this now.

 

[Catchpenny]

I don't see it as a flip-flop. Kerry's criticism of the war is based on how the President has conducted it, and how misleading the evidence presented was. How was he to know any of that beforehand?

Kerry shouldn't have trusted the administration at face value considering how they've mislead the public on other issues and bungled things in general. That's the difference between Kerry and myself on this issue. I believe there were good reasons to go into Iraq, but would've voted no because it was apparent that the Bush Administration:

-was blowing things out of proportion with the 'imminent threat' crap
-was not putting forth any real effort to give the inspectors a chance or build international support for a war
-had no idea what they would do in a post-war Iraq, other than vague notions of "building a democracy."

 

[3rdman]

In other words, like the other 70 percent of his country, he believed our President. I fail to see whats so damning when the Bush administration lied to everybody including the Senate and was able to mislead them.

 

[btrboyev]

You know..a man is entitled to change his views..his ideas..his political affiliation..his sex...his wife..his hair color..and at the very least his opinions. 1998 was 6 years ago...6 fucking years...

If George Bush actually started to tell the truth, admitted going into Iraq was a ridiculous idea..and apologized for all of his fuck ups... would he be a flip flopper?? Would he be a better person? Or would it be just a fucking last resort to try and make himself be less of a douchebag of which he was born and will always be?

 

[Socreges]

You know..a man is entitled to change his views..his ideas..his political affiliation..his sex...his wife..his hair color..and at the very least his opinions. 1998 was 6 years ago...6 fucking years...

A lot of what he said was from 2002. Even without what Bush had alleged, he impressed that the United States should return to war with Iraq, with or without the UN.

Even if you want to continue thinking of this as a "change in view", you have to admit that the timing is awfully convenient.

I've always been fair to Kerry's position, but I don't see why this should be excused. Vote for the guy. Please. But do your best to understand what he's about and how he may act in the future, rather than try to think favourably of him for all instances just because he's the better man.

One's an hypocrite about it, the other is at least open about it.

Nice euphemism, Malakhov. Kerry panders to what is appropriate. While that is a flaw, and could be damaging for when he has to make decisions, supposed "honesty" from Bush does not place him in a better light.

This is nothing new though, don't understand how you guys just realised this now.

Come on. Though you may, I don't buy whatever I might hear in the media or from the GOP. Kerry's alleged flip-flopper status has always been very weakly supported. Even in that video, nearly the entire 12 minutes was projected as Kerry contradicting himself, while really, only a select few things actually were hypocritical. Unless you've seen a few of those obscure quotes before, which I know you haven't, quit trying to play this off as "obvious".

 

[Ecrofirt]

I'm a registered republican, but I'll tell you right now that I'm not fond of Bush.

I'm certainly not fond of Kerry, either. He comes off as a wishy-washy sleazebag to me.

I have no idea who I'll be supporting with the upcoming election.

 

[fennec fox]

So, all of you have never changed your opinions since 1998, then?

 

[Wolfy]

I don't get it, why is it inconceivable to think that Bush believed the information he was given, just as Kerry blatantly did?

 

[Hitokage]

In 1998 Hussein still had some WMD capability(last I heard), but we airstriked him to a pulp in that year... while many were content to shout "wag the dog".

If Hussein did indeed have active WMD production, storage, and readiness as was purported in 2002... then we may have been justified in going to war. The problem is, the Bush case for war and the "intelligence" supporting it was all a house of cards... and has since tumbled to the ground... although many saw through it as it played out.

Just a little bit of context.

 

[Catchpenny]

Regardless of whether Bush believed the intelligence or not, he and his own cabinet was instrumental in pushing these claims. Yet Bush has held no one responsible in the aftermath of this debacle. Not himself, not Cheney, not anyone in his cabinet, not the CIA. Bush has simply plowed on ahead, giving different reasons as to why he believes the war was justified, and not fully recognizing the mistakes that were made.

That's failed leadership. Bush doesn't have to get on his knees and beg forgiveness, but I'd approve of the guy a little more if he admitted that the war could've been handled better, or that the administration could have been a bit more honest in their reasons for going to war. This would give an indication that future conflicts would be handled differently, and it would allow me to feel a bit more confident in his decision making.

 

[ManaByte]

Regardless of whether Bush believed the intelligence or not, he and his own cabinet was instrumental in pushing these claims. Yet Bush has held no one responsible in the aftermath of this debacle. Not himself, not Cheney, not anyone in his cabinet, not the CIA. Bush has simply plowed on ahead, giving different reasons as to why he believes the war was justified, and not fully recognizing the mistakes that were made.

Uh huh. The person responsible for the incorrect intelligence reports was fired. Of course, it's ok to overlook that in Bush bashing. Carry on.

 

[cvxfreak]

Uh huh. The person responsible for the incorrect intelligence reports was fired. Of course, it's ok to overlook that in Bush bashing. Carry on.

Yeah, that sure did a lot.

 

[ManaByte]

Yeah, that sure did a lot.

I was replying to this statement: "Yet Bush has held no one responsible in the aftermath of this debacle."

 

[Ghost]

A president who can see 2 sides to an argument...

"NEVERS!"

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

VOTE FOR NADER

 

[Diablos]

No, don't vote for Nader or you will no doubt see Bush in office for another four years.

There is no way to defend Kerry, really. For some things, yes. I'm sure he did expect Bush to take things a bit more seriously before deciding to bomb Iraq; just because he voted to give him the authority does not mean he expected Bush to take the brute force approach to the war. Then again, at some points he did sound like he was pretty impatient.

That being said, it still doesn't make up for all of his other contradictions. Should this advertisment ever become popular, this could seriously put an end to Kerry's chance to become President. If this is played at the Republican National Convention, he's really screwed. Understand that people can change their mind; perhaps Kerry did not realize what he was saying until he saw the aftermath, and would hate to admit he made a mistake in judgement (especially BEFORE possibly being accepted into the White House after the election.)

As for things he voted for in the early/mid 90's, that was a TOTALLY different time, and there's no need to hold that against him. In the mid 90's almost everyone thought Iraq and WMD's that Saddam may have are a threat, even the international community. I remember reading a newspaper article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that quoted almost every significant European country saying they'd support Clinton if he decided to go to war with Iraq.

What pisses me off is how the media kind of picked off all of the other candidates and put the spotlight on Kerry, I mean no one else even had a chance after that... really stupid. I agree, he's the lesser of two evils, but this video still proves him to be a contradicting son of a bitch regardless. He's still getting my vote, but I can't say that I 100% trust this man. Of course, I'd still trust him more than I would George Bush, quite possibly one of the biggest liars in the history of United States Presidents.

Interesting, very interesting. Like I said, this video could ruin Kerry.

 

[Belfast]

I never said that I was just pointing that out because now he is not only making an about face, his tone is making it seem like he was always vehemently against those views. Just has that fence sitting feeling.

I posted what I said before I went to bed last night. I just want to clarify that it wasn't aimed at you, rather the people who produce these kinds of videos.

 

[ToyMachine228]

Well I'll tell you what...I didn't like Kerry to begin with. That video sure as hell doesn't make me like him anymore...You know, Bush may not be the best President, but I'd rather have Bush in office than John Kerry, that's for sure.

 

[GodsTyro]

i dont understand the logic here..how does nitpicking at kerry (pertaining to his war opinions) promote bush to any degree? its as if theyre saying "yeah our nominee sux, but yours did too at one point."

 

[Makura]

I've read some the full transcripts from the interviews cited in this video and I think the GOP was pretty unfair in the way they presented some of the quotes. It's not really an accurate portrayal of Kerry's entire position on the war IMO, but it is good for discussion I suppose.

 

[Gruco]

Come on. Though you may, I don't buy whatever I might hear in the media or from the GOP. Kerry's alleged flip-flopper status has always been very weakly supported. Even in that video, nearly the entire 12 minutes was projected as Kerry contradicting himself, while really, only a select few things actually were hypocritical. Unless you've seen a few of those obscure quotes before, which I know you haven't, quit trying to play this off as "obvious".

Yeah, this basically sums up what I think. All the talk about his votes is very weak evidence at best, but better described as completely disingenuous opportunism. These clips haven't been in the news, and should have been. During the Kerry Hypestorm Honeymoon in the primaries that made him last man standing, these clips should have been shown.

Also, talk about "none of you have changed your opinion since 1998" is stupid, because most of this is in the runup to the war in 2002. And the man sounds like a basic drone of the Bush administration. There are still points he can raise given his initial support, such as the incompetence of the execution of the war, or the intelligence culture and due deliberance, but his prewar and primary talking points don't work well together, and leave the bitter impression that each position was the direct result of their popularity a the time.

 

[human5892]

It's rare that you will find a politician who hasn't flip-flopped at some point during his career. Did you ever see The Daily Show episode where they had a debate between Governor Bush and President Bush?

I have no doubt that Kerry has waffled on some issues, and had a geniune change of heart on others. But I don't think he has committed any unusual atrocity -- just politics as usual.

 

[Catchpenny]

Uh huh. The person responsible for the incorrect intelligence reports was fired. Of course, it's ok to overlook that in Bush bashing. Carry on.

Hmmm? If you're referring to former CIA director George Tenet, he resigned. It's debatable whether he was forced out, or just saw where all this was going and decided to get out before things got worse. I wouldn't stick around when the White House is clearly trying to shift blame to the CIA, either.

In any case, Tenet was a Clinton appointee. Bush should hold someone in his inner circle responsible, or take some blame himself. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney are a lot more responsible for the current situation than Tenet.

One of Bush's biggest flaws is that he seems to reward loyalty over honesty and performance. It's why there are such harsh divisions within his own team at times.

 

[SteveMeister]

Meh, Bush has flip-flopped on as many issues as Kerry has in just 4 years as President. The BIG difference is that Bush is the one who actually brought the country to war, not Kerry. I KNOW Bush is bad for the country -- economically, environmentally, and especially with regard to foreign policy. I don't know that Kerry will be, but I find it hard to imagine he could be worse than Bush, or even as bad. And since I feel that way, I can't in good conscience place a vote that'll keep Bush in office. That means voting for Kerry.

 

[AirBrian]

And since I feel that way, I can't in good conscience place a vote that'll keep Bush in office. That means voting for Kerry.

This line of thinking just kills me. I understand why people do not like Bush. He has made several mistakes. However, if there wasn't so much Bush-hate out there, Kerry wouldn't stand a chance. He is the epitome of a politician -- staying on the fence and voting either way to appease his supporters at the time. (Bush does the same thing, just not as much.) Kerry isn't that much different than Bush. People are going to expect our country to magically turn around and that just isn't going to happen.

I'm not voting for either, but I'm sure as hell not voting for Nader. This might be the first year I don't vote. Both parties are pathetic, and I really, really wish we had a legitimate third party. Our country desperately needs one.

 

[Slurpy]

Uh huh. The person responsible for the incorrect intelligence reports was fired. Of course, it's ok to overlook that in Bush bashing. Carry on.

Give me a fucking break. 'Incorrect intelligence' How bad of a memory do people have? Don't you remember how HARD the administration pushed this 'evidence', evidence that looked laughable save for the trust people had in the administration? You would be an idiot not to admit that this evidence was twisted, milked, and pushed for all its worth by the administration.

 

[border]

It seems pretty easy to just take a bunch of out-of-context snippets and string them together to make a guy look bad. This lack of context is exactly what conservatives were whining about with Fahrenheit 9/11, so IMO the video is as much a testament to their own hypocrisy as it is to Kerry's.

As for the shitty war evidence -- Bush is ultimately going to hold more responsibility than Kerry, even if Kerry voted for the war. Bush had the power and resources to be more thorough in his investigation, whereas a senator can't do a lot to make sure that all his ducks are in a row. I think most people understand that and may relate to Kerry's sense of having been duped.

 

[SteveMeister]

This line of thinking just kills me. I understand why people do not like Bush. He has made several mistakes. However, if there wasn't so much Bush-hate out there, Kerry wouldn't stand a chance. He is the epitome of a politician -- staying on the fence and voting either way to appease his supporters at the time. (Bush does the same thing, just not as much.) Kerry isn't that much different than Bush. People are going to expect our country to magically turn around and that just isn't going to happen.

I'm not voting for either, but I'm sure as hell not voting for Nader. This might be the first year I don't vote. Both parties are pathetic, and I really, really wish we had a legitimate third party. Our country desperately needs one.

Well, let's break it down then:
- I don't like Bush's environmental policies.
- I don't like Bush's economic policies.
- I REALLY don't like Bush's wish to amend the constitution to PRECLUDE rights to certain people.
- I don't like the direction Bush has taken the US with regard to foreign policy.

Now, given all that, why SHOULD I vote for Bush? How could I vote for him?

 

[human5892]

This line of thinking just kills me. I understand why people do not like Bush. He has made several mistakes. However, if there wasn't so much Bush-hate out there, Kerry wouldn't stand a chance. He is the epitome of a politician -- staying on the fence and voting either way to appease his supporters at the time. (Bush does the same thing, just not as much.) Kerry isn't that much different than Bush. People are going to expect our country to magically turn around and that just isn't going to happen.

I'm not voting for either, but I'm sure as hell not voting for Nader. This might be the first year I don't vote. Both parties are pathetic, and I really, really wish we had a legitimate third party. Our country desperately needs one.

I agree about the third-party, and for the record, I'm not one who thinks that getting Bush out of office will be some kind of magical cure-all...but if you can see what's wrong with Bush and why people dislike him, why can't you understand the line of thinking that says any opposer could potentially be better than him? We've tried Bush, we've seen what he did -- now let's have a go with someone different. I don't think there's any shame in voting for John Kerry just because he isn't Bush, so long as a) you are aware of your motivations behind wanting Bush out, and b) you realize that John Kerry (or anyone, for that matter) is not going to serve as some kind of giant Band-Aid for America.

 

[AirBrian]

Well, let's break it down then:
- I don't like Bush's environmental policies.
- I don't like Bush's economic policies.
- I REALLY don't like Bush's wish to amend the constitution to PRECLUDE rights to certain people.
- I don't like the direction Bush has taken the US with regard to foreign policy.

Now, given all that, why SHOULD I vote for Bush? How could I vote for him?

Just to clarify, my post wasn't directed at you and that's why I took your name out of the quote. But, the line of thinking where you vote for another person just because you don't like the current person is what I'm talking about. There are some, like yourself from the sounds of it, who are educated enough to have other reasons for not voting for Bush -- and that's fine. I'm talking about the people who blindly accept Kerry because he isn't Bush. That I don't understand. But then again, I'm in the school of thought that believes most people shouldn't vote because they are completely uneducated about the issues at hand.

 

[AirBrian]

I don't think there's any shame in voting for John Kerry just because he isn't Bush, so long as a) you are aware of your motivations behind wanting Bush out, and b) you realize that John Kerry (or anyone, for that matter) is not going to serve as some kind of giant Band-Aid for America.

Exactly.

 

[Dilbert]

Initial response: The phrase "flip flop" makes me want to beat people into a motherfucking pulp. I suppose I ought to attempt a more rational response, though.

First, addressing the specifics of these claims against Kerry: Saying that "we retain the right to act unilaterally" is NOT the same as "I think we should act unilaterally." The former is a statement of ability, and the latter is a statement of opinion. There is NO contradiction between asserting that our nation has the ability to act unilaterally if necessary, and also asserting that this particular act of aggression against Iraq was not necessary.

Second, the notion that a politician should not change his or her opinion over time is patently ridiculous. The nation's political climate changes over time, as does our economy and our position in the global community -- why WOULDN'T a leader adapt to those changing conditions? Quite frankly, a "leader" who is incapable of doing anything but spouting a particular kind of dogmatic response to a problem is useless.

Third, because of the nature of our political system (single member district polarity), there is an ambiguity about the relationship of a Senator to his/her constituents. On one hand, we expect that our elected leaders will be independent thinkers who can react to situations and make decisions -- the so-called "trustee" role. On the other hand, we also expect that he/she will represent the narrow interests of his/her constituency to the larger body -- the "representative" role. Since we elect leaders based on districts, the representative role has historically dominated decision-making -- if you don't do what your constituents want, you don't get reelected.

So, consider the context carefully: In 2002, the American public -- fed by a steady stream of misinformation and rhetoric from the Bush Administration -- had fallen for the claim that Iraq was somehow a threat to the United States and supported the idea of war. What else is Kerry going to do BUT vote for a resolution giving the President power to make that choice? It's what the voters in his district wanted. It doesn't mean that he had to agree with the choice, and it certainly doesn't mean that he is just as responsible as Bush for what happened. Bush made the choice, and Bush is responsible for the consequences.

The bottom line is that the "flip flop" attack on Kerry is a load of ad hominem crap which has utterly no relevance to his ability to lead the country. I've pretty much reached my snapping point with respect to this kind of dumb shit, because I'm sick of the terms of debate being dictated by who can throw up the biggest smokescreen.

 

[Hitokage]

-jinx-: BTW, see today's daily howler?

 

[Diablos]

Fuck Kerry, vote Jinx for President 2004.

 

[border]

A vote for Jinx is a vote for Bush!