Bush, Kerry have both flip flopped

[ratdog]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=9&u=/ap/flipping_and_flopping

On the whole, I see this story as a negative for Bush as he was the one who tried to portray Kerry as the "flip floppper" and it's boomeranged back on him as his own numerous flip flops have been exposed. Of course, bush can be excused for that somewhat as what else was he gonna do - run on his record as President? BWA hahahahahaha! Oh, that's a funny idea.

[Yankee_Blue]

On the whole, I see this story as a negative for Bush

imagine that... crap guaranteed to follow...

as he was the one who tried to portray Kerry as the "flip floppper" and it's boomeranged back on him as his own numerous flip flops have been exposed. Of course, bush can be excused for that somewhat as what else was he gonna do - run on his record as President? BWA hahahahahaha! Oh, that's a funny idea.

Told ya.

Funnier still is Kerry running on his record of selling the military up the river.

[phats_away]

Funnier still is Kerry running on his record of selling the military up the river.

2 defense budgets, that cheney also disagreed with, do not a military make

no matter how hard you try

[ratdog]

imagine that...

Imagine this: a conservative who won't address the substance of either the article or my comments on it.

http://www.vincasa.com/ROUNDUP.JPG

I'm shocked; shocked that a conservative would deliberately dodge the point in favor of a singularly poor attempt at being witty.

[ratdog]

Funnier still is Kerry running on his record of selling the military up the river.

Attention Garcia.

As a point of order from our other discussion, the above quote is a perfect example of the "posting known falsehoods" violation of TOS that superdave and I and others have been trying to point out to you. I know that YB has seen the threads in which this nonsense was refuted with objective, verifiable facts about not only what Kerry objected to but also the objective, verifiable fact that Cheney and several Reeps have also objected to certain military programs and spending in the past. Therefore, YB knows that his assertion is BS. So the fact that he comes in here and tried to pass this off as a fact should be considered a violation of TOS.

At some point this "flat earther/holocaust denier"-level of dishonesty has to be stopped because it is exactly this kind of thing that triggers personal attacks from exasperated legitimate posters who are trying to have a serious, if occasionally spirited, debate.

[Garcia]

Can't there be spin in the politics forum?

I mean, that seems to be the whole point of politics of the day. Point out the flaws of others while neglecting to give the whole story. I mean, so what? He points out what Kerry did do, but doesn't offer you the pleasure of telling you what his guy also did. That is where you do your homework and inform him, which you did. Case closed.

The thread is about Kerry and Bush. You started it, so you shouldn't try to and then move the goalposts. He pointed out what Kerry did do and Bush (who was not in a position to do) did not do. All that as stated is in fact, not false, but true. Quite simple, no?

I may not be here, but if you care to expand your case, I don't see why we all couldn't come to some agreement with Dante.

[Attacking Minded]

Attention Garcia.

As a point of order from our other discussion, the above quote is a perfect example of the "posting known falsehoods" violation of TOS that superdave and I and others have been trying to point out to you. I know that YB has seen the threads in which this nonsense was refuted with objective, verifiable facts about not only what Kerry objected to but also the objective, verifiable fact that Cheney and several Reeps have also objected to certain military programs and spending in the past. Therefore, YB knows that his assertion is BS. So the fact that he comes in here and tried to pass this off as a fact should be considered a violation of TOS.

At some point this "flat earther/holocaust denier"-level of dishonesty has to be stopped because it is exactly this kind of thing that triggers personal attacks from exasperated legitimate posters who are trying to have a serious, if occasionally spirited, debate.

That's a bunch of crap and you know it. Kerry has always been one of the leaders of the doves in the Senate.

I can't believe anyone serious would ever try to argue that Cheney and Kerry are equivalent on spending for national defense.

352klr posted a link on this a few days ago. I bet the post hasn’t even left the first page.

[ratdog]

Can't there be spin in the politics forum?


Yes, when the objective, verifiable facts are inconclusive and lead to multiple reasonable interperetations.

What is also true is that sometimes the facts are such that trying to argue for an unreasonable interperetation is simply dishonest and should be recognized as such. I'll give you an "anti-liberal" example. We all laughed when Clinton tried to "spin" his extramarital activity with Monica as "not having sex". I mean, come on! That wasn't "spin". It was a weasely lie the same as YB's attempt to portray Kerry as uniquely "anti-military" by lying about Kerry's voting record.

And how many times does one have to "educate" someone about the same facts before their repeating the opposite of the truth is considered lying? Twice? Four times? 1,000,000,000,000 times? It is exactly when someone has already been exposed to the truth but keeps on with his previous inaccuracy in spite of being corrected that is perhaps the strongest clue to deliberate prevarication. It's also what provokes otherwise reasonable people to get legitimately exasperated and post a personal attack on the serial liar.

Let me ask you this, Garcia: Do you believe in the concept of "dishonesty"? If I tell you that I'm the King of the United States, are you going to start sending me money for the Royal Tax rightfully due me as the KOTUS? If not, why not? I mean, I could actually believe myself to be the KOTUS which means I'm not lying. For your convenience, I accept Royal Tax payments via Paypal.

Look, I'm not asking for YB to be banned or anything like that. I don't expect you to do anything at all. I just wanted to point out to you an example of what we were on about as you seemed to not be aware of such things going on here. I'd also like you and the other mods to take it into consideration the next time anyone ponders getting all hardass about certain TOS violations. That's all.

-----

As for being on topic... The topic is actually flip flopping and how the article I linked to might impact the election. It is not "who hates the military". At best, YB is guilty of trying of threadjacking by latching on only to one tangential portion of my post because he can't speak to the substance of my post without agreeing with me or making his boy look bad. Not that threadjackings or topic drift are necessarily always bad things. I suppose I should be grateful for YB's indirect support of my thesis, but he could have expressed his support without also lying about Kerry's voting record.

-----

Now, hopefully we can get back to relevant commentary on the article and its implications for the election.

[Attacking Minded]

On flip-flopping, I find it funny for one politician to accuse another of flip-flopping. We all flip-flop and anyone who doesn't is just being stuborn. Bush has flipped several times and I think we'd all like to see him be a bit more flexible in his thinking.

The only time I can tell Kerry has flip-flopped on his dovish record is his vote for the Iraq war resolution. It doesn't jive with the rest of his record.

[Attacking Minded]

Yes, when the objective, verifiable facts are inconclusive and lead to multiple reasonable interperetations.

What is also true is that sometimes the facts are such that trying to argue for an unreasonable interperetation is simply dishonest and should be recognized as such. I'll give you an "anti-liberal" example. We all laughed when Clinton tried to "spin" his extramarital activity with Monica as "not having sex". I mean, come on! That wasn't "spin". It was a weasely lie the same as YB's attempt to portray Kerry as uniquely "anti-military" by lying about Kerry's voting record.

And how many times does one have to "educate" someone about the same facts before their repeating the opposite of the truth is considered lying? Twice? Four times? 1,000,000,000,000 times? It is exactly when someone has already been exposed to the truth but keeps on with his previous inaccuracy in spite of being corrected that is perhaps the strongest clue to deliberate prevarication. It's also what provokes otherwise reasonable people to get legitimately exasperated and post a personal attack on the serial liar.

Let me ask you this, Garcia: Do you believe in the concept of "dishonesty"? If I tell you that I'm the King of the United States, are you going to start sending me money for the Royal Tax rightfully due me as the KOTUS? If not, why not? I mean, I could actually believe myself to be the KOTUS which means I'm not lying. For your convenience, I accept Royal Tax payments via Paypal.

Look, I'm not asking for YB to be banned or anything like that. I don't expect you to do anything at all. I just wanted to point out to you an example of what we were on about as you seemed to not be aware of such things going on here. I'd also like you and the other mods to take it into consideration the next time anyone ponders getting all hardass about certain TOS violations. That's all.

-----

As for being on topic... The topic is actually flip flopping and how the article I linked to might impact the election. It is not "who hates the military". At best, YB is guilty of trying of threadjacking by latching on only to one tangential portion of my post because he can't speak to the substance of my post without agreeing with me or making his boy look bad. Not that threadjackings or topic drift are necessarily always bad things. I suppose I should be grateful for YB's indirect support of my thesis, but he could have expressed his support without also lying about Kerry's voting record.

-----

Now, hopefully we can get back to relevant commentary on the article and its implications for the election.

I cannot see how an honest person who has given more than an hour of his time to looking through the internet can argue that Kerry has not been a leader for cutting defense.

[Benito]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=9&u=/ap/flipping_and_flopping

On the whole, I see this story as a negative for Bush as he was the one who tried to portray Kerry as the "flip floppper" and it's boomeranged back on him as his own numerous flip flops have been exposed. Of course, bush can be excused for that somewhat as what else was he gonna do - run on his record as President? BWA hahahahahaha! Oh, that's a funny idea.

It is easy to portray Kerry as a flipflopper because he is one. Can you trust anyone who is and wants to be associated with Ted Kennedy?

[phats_away]

I cannot see how an honest person who has given more than an hour of his time to looking through the internet can argue that Kerry has not been a leader for cutting defense.
because the cold war ended and the budget was in deficit

and again, these are the positions that cheney also supported.

[Attacking Minded]

Kerry supported cuts long before the cold war ended. 352klr posted this just a day or two ago:

John Kerry
U.S. Senate



JOHN KERRY ON THE DEFENSE BUDGET

“We are continuing a defense buildup that is consuming our resources with weapons systems that we don’t need and can’t use.”

The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our military. Instead, It acts on misinformed assumptions about the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed “window of vulnerability”, which we now know not to exist.

And Congress, rather than having the moral courage to challenge the Reagan Administration, has given Ronald Reagan almost every military request he has made, no matter how wasteful, no matter how useless, no matter how dangerous.

The biggest defense buildup since World War II has not given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by the prospect of war, not less so. And our national priorities become more and more distorted as the share of our country’s resources devoted to human needs diminishes.

JOHN KERRY HAS A DIFFERENT APPROACH

John Kerry believes that the time has come to take a close look at what our defense needs are and to plan for them rather than to assume we must spend indiscriminately on new weapons systems.

John Kerry believes that we can cut from $45 to $53 billion from the Reagan Defense budget this year. Some of these cuts include:

MAJOR NUCLEAR PROGRAMS

* MX Missile --- Cancel --- $5.0 billion

* B-1 Bomber --- Cancel --- $8.0 billion

* Anti-satellite system --- Cancel --- $ 99 million

* Star Wars --- Cancel --- $1.3 billion

* Tomahawk Missile --- Reduce by 50 per cent --- $294 million

LAND FORCES

(unreadable)

* AH-64 Helicopters --- Cancel --- $1.4 billion

* Division Air Defense Gun (DIVAD) --- Cancel --- $638 million

* Patriot Air Defense Missile --- Cancel --- $1.3 billion

NAVAL FORCES

* Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser --- Cancel --- $800 million

* Battleship Reactivation --- Cancel --- $453 million

AIRCRAFT

* AV-8B Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft --- Cancel --- $1.0 billion

* F-15 Fighter Aircraft --- Cancel --- $2.3 billion

* F-14A Fighter Aircraft --- Cancel --- $1.0 billion

* F-14D Fighter Aircraft --- Cancel --- $286 million

* Phoenix Air-to-Air Missile --- Cancel --- $432 million

* Sparrow Air-to-Air Missile --- Cancel --- $264 million


http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/att...p?postid=464083

http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/att...p?postid=464084


In addition, acquisition of equipment and supplies should depend on real defense needs, not inter-service rivalries. “National security” is no excuse for bad management practices. The Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office agree that an additional $8 billion can be saved by implementing the recommendations of the President’s own Grace Commission Report.

“I will never forget that the Defense Budget is not an employment program, but a tool to provide the nation with a strong, lean and stabilizing defense posture.”

Finally, John thinks it’s time for a Senator who will stand up for what’s right and not go along with what’s expedient.

“If we don’t need the MX, the B-1, or these other weapons systems (unreadable) them. There’s no excuse for casting even one vote for unnecessary weapons of destruction and as your Senator, I will never do so.”

At this point I have to believe that you and ratdog are being deliberately ignorant.

[phats_away]

*yawn*
Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

[Garcia]

I guess Joe may be lying because Kerry has voted much for the past two years. You can't judge a flip-flop if one doesn't vote. You know, his main job. ;) But, every other time Kerry opens his mouth...

[Attacking Minded]

*yawn*
As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

No he really did run as an advocate of the Nuclear Freeze movement, his campaing liturature really did say he wanted to cut those weapons (unless CBS came up with the flyers), the first bill he introduced in the Senate really was the nuclear freeze bill S 1500, he really was the leader of the doves in the senate (behind, maybe, Harkin).

That really is his record.

[phats_away]

oh and if you look at bill s. 3189 it includes the following
DDG-51 destroyer program, $3,113,003,000;

LHD-1 amphibious assault ship program, $959,800,000;

LSD-41 dock landing ship cargo variant program, $240,000,000;

AOE combat support ship program, $398,200,000;

LCAC landing craft air cushion program, $267,900,000;

Oceanographic ship program, $43,100,000;

Sealift ship program, $1,000,000,000;

For craft, outfitting, post delivery, and ship special support equipment, $465,400,000;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101qVR3Rj:e19564:

[Garcia]

What?

No $10,000 toilet seats or $5,000 hammers? :p

[Attacking Minded]

We can have dueling links,

In his zeal to keep pace with Shannon's leftward drift on disarmament, Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.

These weapons became conversation topics at American dinner tables during the Iraq war, but candidate Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel many of them -- the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.

He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet.

In retrospect, Kerry said some of his positions in those days were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then."

But he defended his opposition at the time to the MX missile, the "Star Wars" strategic defense initiative, and some other programs.

"Some of this stuff was ahead of its time. Some was not as well thought out as it might be," Kerry said of his campaign posture then. "I'm not ashamed of that. I was [40] years old, running for the United States Senate for the first time . . . and I'm sure that some of it was driven at the time by the nature of the beast I was fighting politically.

"I mean, you learn as you go in life," said Kerry. He characterized as "pretty responsible" his subsequent Senate voting record on defense.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903.shtml


ill-advised and stupid . . . . . . even Kerry doesn't defend it. Why should BS posters?

[superdave]

How many of those items listed in your article were actually used against Iraq? If we could have taken all that money and put it into a few months more of insepctions, then we'd know there were no WMDs there, and have over 1000 soldiers still alive.