I guess Bush recently challenged Kerry to indicate whether, knowing what we know now, his vote to go to Iraq would have changed -- yes or no. Kerry answered that he still would have voted to go to war, but added that he "would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/index.html[/url]

What exactly was Bush expecting here? Kerry has to say "yes," no matter what. Consider that (and this is obviously generalizing things significantly) there are a few basic camps into which folks that follow and care about such things fall on Iraq:

1. Those that think the war in Iraq was a great idea, and that it's going swimmingly.
2. Those that think the war itself was a good idea regardless of the justification, but think that it's been handled poorly.
3. Those that supported the war to find WMDs, but object to the revisionist justification for the war or wouldn't have supported it just to oust Saddam.
4. Those that would have opposed the war no matter what.

No matter what he says, Kerry isn't going to pick up any votes from group number 1, which I suspect is a fairly small group. Similarly, the folks in group 4 are probably voting Democrat regardless, so Kerry isn't going to lose those votes no matter what.
With regard to groups 2 & 3, "yes, but I would have done it differently" isn't a half-bad answer -- it speaks directly to group number 2's concerns and doesn't do anything to give those folks in group 3 that are leaning Kerry a reason to switch.

On the other hand, if Kerry had said "no," he would reinforce the flip-flop image, introduce a wedge issue that currently doesn't exist (Bush and Kerry's positions on the war are now largely aligned), and run the risk of losing those voters in group 2 that were leaning his way.

Was Bush thinking Kerry would accept his invitation to answer "yes" or "no" and shut up? Kerry can't use 50 words when 500 will do, what made Bush think he would or could follow his rules of engagement?

Dumbass. :lol:

Re: Backfire

[quote=toasty] 3. Those that supported the war to find WMDs, but object to the revisionist justification for the war or wouldn't have supported it just to oust Saddam.

[/quote]

This is where I fit for the most part. Except I know that there were WMD in Iraq, and that they aren't there now. They still exist, and someone still has them somewhere. This is pretty much obvious to me.

Plus, knowing now what I do about the Russian president and his warning, I definetely think we did the right thing. No question in my mind.

i'm in category 2.

i don't believe the 'poor handling' of the iraq war is completely Bush's fault either.

and wow, you've really thought about this number thing. lol.

[quote=Jenks] i don't believe the 'poor handling' of the iraq war is completely Bush's fault either. [/quote]

Perhaps not directly, but as commander-in-chief, he's responsible for the shit that happens on his watch -- if Bush is defeated, the folks that are responsible (e.g., Rumsfeld) are going with him, so getting his ass out of office is the most effective way of dealing with the problem. We can't cast conditional votes, i.e., "I'll vote for you, but only if you'll get rid of Rumsfeld. And Cheney. And that monster Ashcroft."

^I wish we could.

I'd take Bush on a ticket, without Ashcroft, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Gotta love Bush's heart. He really loves America. He's a nit wit, but dammit, i like that guy.

Kerry is a fake. I hate that about him.

[quote=Jenks]^I wish we could.

I'd take Bush on a ticket, without Ashcroft, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Gotta love Bush's heart. He really loves America. He's a nit wit, but dammit, i like that guy.

Kerry is a fake. I hate that about him.[/quote]

Honestly, if it was Bush with a different admin, I would vote and I'd vote for Bush. The most significant reason's for my un-democratic ass not voting, lie in his administration. I feel the same way you do about Kerry, so I can't vote for him especially with a lawyer as his running mate. So if sometime between now and November, Ashcroft gets beaten by Chong or something, and Rumsfeld falls off a cliff. Maybe I'll vote. Make it happen Jenks. :lol:

[quote=Jenks]

Gotta love Bush's heart. He really loves America. He's a nit wit, but dammit, i like that guy.

[/quote]

I suspect that I'd love to get a beer with W. He does seem like a genuinely well-intentioned guy. I have a problem with his policies, not his heart.

[quote=Civic_Zen]I feel the same way you do about Kerry, so I can't vote for him especially with a lawyer as his running mate. [/quote]

Fucking lawyers. :twisted:

[quote=toasty]

Fucking lawyers. :twisted:[/quote]

[img]http://gingergeyer.com/smart_images/pot_kettle.jpg[/img]

Re:: Backfire

Flame me for not being American, but I personally think Bush is a regular cowboy/hick. Kerry on the other had doesn't give me any confidence. He may be a talker rather than a fighter like Bush, but he lacks decisiveness as far as I can judge from what I've heard and read.

I was opposed on the war in Iraq, but I would have supported it if they had given Blix more time. It all seemed like they didn't want him to complete his inspections because that might have revealed that there were no WMD's. That also convinced me that the real reason for the war was NOT WMD's. I think there may be a lot reasons, including ones we, the ordinary people will never know.

But hey...I'm also ashamed of my own government which is led by mister Harry Potter himself who was honoured when he was invited to fly to the other side of the atlantic to lick W's badly wiped ass. Fucking lame ass politicians here...I'm moving out as soon as I finish my study, and believe me, I AM MOTIVATED.

[quote=Jenks] Kerry is a fake. I hate that about him.[/quote]

I don't think it's that he's fake.. he's just not anything. He doesn't have a stand on anything, no one knows what he's all about, he's doesn't really have a personality except for what his campaign people have scriptted for him.

Which is why I always say that you are either going to vote for Bush, or you are going to vote against Bush. No one I know is voting for Kerry because they actually like him. They just hate Bush more.

Re:: Backfire

I think Bush and his supporters were smart to address the war question to Kerry.

If Kerry says no to war in Iraq, then he does look like the flip flopper because he did vote for use of miliatry action in Iraq.

If Kerry says yes which he did then he irritates his own party who are mostly against the war altogether. Now, he alienates the left wing of his party to look more moderate.

Re:: Backfire

[quote=superdave]I think Bush and his supporters were smart to address the war question to Kerry.

...

If Kerry says yes which he did then he irritates his own party who are mostly against the war altogether. Now, he alienates the left wing of his party to look more moderate.[/quote]

True, but those people on the extreme left are going to vote for Kerry no matter what -- so he loses nothing, and may make some gains...

...so the question is, how does Bush advance his position here?

I dont think this was a chess move for Bush, toasty. The fact is that John Kerry gives a very elegant serving of waffle and indecisiveness that Bush is simply exposing Kerry in the eye of the media. A public question like that is sure to get the media coverage that will shine light on Kerrys biggest weakness...which is of course is not knowing his head from his ass. While Bush maintains an aggresive offensive position on terror and is proactive in addressing domestic issues, all we ever get from Kerry is 'I would do it different'??! NEVER ANY ANSWERS FROM THIS CLOWN, ALL RHETORIC.

[quote=neur0t0xin64]I dont think this was a chess move for Bush, toasty. [/quote]

You'll get no argument from me here. Checkers, I might believe, but chess is way outside of Bush's realm. :WinkNSmi:

[quote=neur0t0xin64]... all we ever get from Kerry is 'I would do it different'??! NEVER ANY ANSWERS FROM THIS CLOWN, ALL RHETORIC.[/quote]

I'm not in love with the guy, by any stretch of the imagination. Let's assume for the purpose of argument only that you are 100% right -- for a lot of people (myself included), "I would do it different" is good enough this year. Kerry was winning or close in the polls before a lot of people had even heard him open his mouth. Now that he's begun to be more vocal, his numbers have stayed more or less the same, give or take a point here and there.

And yes, Bush is decisive (although I don't know that he's been overly clear about what he specifically intends to do over the next 4 years -- but I'll grant you that he's been more clear than Kerry), but when most people think that the decisions that he has made (and to which he clings like grim death) have our country on the wrong path, I'm not sure that's really a plus. Particularly on the domestic side of things, shit isn't really clicking right now.

In other words, from a strategy standpoint, Kerry has no incentive to get out there and start making bold proclamations with specifics about his plan for America unless and until he starts dropping in the polls. The election is a zero-sum game for Kerry -- if enough people think that "I would do it different" is good enough for him to win, it makes no difference if he wins by 1 vote or 100 million, so the risk of losing voters outweighs the possibility of picking some up, as long as he is ahead. Right now, his smartest play is to shut the hell up until he's threatened.

Well, that's my theory, anyway... :NotMe:

to be frank ... they are both cock suckers and both evil bastards. not one is fit to run this country and both suck at what they do. it is a terrible choice and it is terrible this nation allows a choice of these two pricks. that is what is wrong with this nation. we get the two same people up there every four years and none give a rat's ass about America. It is a new time in America, and we need new people. Both Repubs and Demogoblins are the exact same fucking thing. The only slight difference is one side goes here and the other does the opposite. It goes back and forth as America suffers and so do the people within it. This whole globalizationasiziases has fuct us as well ...

Fuck you. :wink:

Ok clearly here asdf_admin is either drunk, high, hurt, hungry, or just simply in need of a post...but anyway, cough ...Toasty, that was a good analysis of how Kerry can stay in the race, but listen to what your saying!!

"In other words, from a strategy standpoint, Kerry has no incentive to get out there and start making bold proclamations with specifics about his plan for America unless and until he starts dropping in the polls. The election is a zero-sum game for Kerry -- if enough people think that "I would do it different" is good enough for him to win, it makes no difference if he wins by 1 vote or 100 million, so the risk of losing voters outweighs the possibility of picking some up, as long as he is ahead. Right now, his smartest play is to shut the hell up until he's threatened." -toasty

Is that all it is to you, who has the better campaign speech, say whats safe and makes you more popular!!! Im outraged Toasty because you usually have intelligent insight, but your comments here im shocked. Its undeniable that Americas task is a dynamic one. We have alot of shit going on...people whose only purpose in life is to attack our ideology-and will decapitate us in a heart beat to prove it. People from all over the world trying to come to our country illegally sneaking over our borders...immediate nuclear threats like in N. Korea & Iran, domestic issues like healthcare, education, national defense, poverty, and our growing national debt etc...nobody has all the answers. But its also undeniable that Bush administration has confronted each one of these issues and set policy that just simply makes sense. We're losing jobs because of outsourcing, ok...guess what it started in the last few years of the Clinton administration, and Teresa Heinz deploys 80% of her workforce for Heinz, Inc to China...why because its cheaper and her company makes more money! I dont agree with it. That sucks..but where lies the answer? How in a free trade and capitalist economy can we say"No you as a private corporation cannot let people over there do the job cheaper" this is one example of a dynamic problem that that exists among dozens. Fact is looking back over the last 4 years with what the US had to deal with...9/11, airlines, threat, immigration, economy, etc....things are not that bad...nobody I know is really hurting, to me kerry is not even an option.

i might of been drunk from the baby shower ... maybe ... but i am not sure.

my whole point ... after last nights 6+ hour court hearing in my humble home ... it sucks. they both suck. they both do not deserve the spot light. period.

/wheres my beer ?

Re:: Backfire

I will disagree with most on here and say Bush's public question and Kerry's response were definitely political moves. I see your point Toasty about how Kerry's response could help him and it was a smart response. Only it still upsets the left wing of his party, but as you mentioned they will vote for him no matter what.

I do agree with Asdf that I wish we had a better choice because neither really excites me, but it's the only choice we're given so we have to go with what we think is the best choice. That's the reality of the situation.

As for neutro saying things aren't that bad or people aren't hurting. I would disagree with that. The economy isn't that strong right now, people are dying in Iraq, oil per barrel is at an all time high in years, the rest of the world hates America for acting like cowboys, and there's still an alarming threat of terrorism.

I'm not saying Kerry is the answer, but things aren't certainly better than they were 4 years ago.

^^^ thank you my friend. :wink:

superdave, i never said that were better off now more so than 4 years ago although now that you mention it I can see many ways that we are better off. They waged Jihad on us 30 years ago...it was inevitable, eventually we were going to have to confront that situation, and now we have. But anyway, initially, if you had gotten my point, I said that under the circumstances, like that fact that for the first time in over six decades{yeah thats right superdave right when your grandpappy was just a little boy:}America was attacked by muslim arab terrorists and brought down financial trade centers, which are the beacon of economic strength in our country, and killed 3000 of our citizens. So that, along with major airlines filing bankruptcy shortly after, nobody wanting to travel anywhere except in a car or train(until madrid bombings)then only car, coupled with executive corporate scandals like ENRON and MARTHA STEWART LIVING INC. that completely shatter peoples trust in stocks or stock reports, looking back on just those things to name a few, superdave, with what BUSH had to deal with...is it that you still wont agree that things still arent that bad?

[quote=neur0t0xin64]Ok clearly here asdf_admin is either drunk, high, hurt, hungry, or just simply in need of a post...but anyway, cough ...Toasty, that was a good analysis of how Kerry can stay in the race, but listen to what your saying!!

"In other words, from a strategy standpoint, Kerry has no incentive to get out there and start making bold proclamations with specifics about his plan for America unless and until he starts dropping in the polls. The election is a zero-sum game for Kerry -- if enough people think that "I would do it different" is good enough for him to win, it makes no difference if he wins by 1 vote or 100 million, so the risk of losing voters outweighs the possibility of picking some up, as long as he is ahead. Right now, his smartest play is to shut the hell up until he's threatened." -toasty

Is that all it is to you, who has the better campaign speech, say whats safe and makes you more popular!!! Im outraged Toasty because you usually have intelligent insight, but your comments here im shocked. [/quote]

I guess I ought to clarify. I am watching this election from two vantage points. I watch as an American and voter who cares deeply about the policies our country is pursuing and who wants to ultimately see a result that coincides with my personal worldview. I also watch as a person who just really enjoys watching the spectacle that is election season -- the strategy, watching polls go up and down in response to daily events, etc. This comment happened to come more from the vantage point of the guy that finds all this political wrangling interesting, as opposed to trying to push an ideology.

So would I, as a concerned American, like to know exactly what Kerry has up his sleeve? Of course I would. Realistically, though, I know I'm not going to get that, at least in part for the reasons I noted above. In my mind, if the candidates won't say what's on their mind, we as the electorate can at least try to figure out why they're saying what they are saying, to help make some sense of it that way, or at least keep ourselves entertained in the interim (for those of us that find such things entertaining).

[quote=neur0t0xin64] People from all over the world trying to come to our country illegally sneaking over our borders...immediate nuclear threats like in N. Korea & Iran, domestic issues like healthcare, education, national defense, poverty, and our growing national debt etc...nobody has all the answers. But its also undeniable that Bush administration has confronted each one of these issues and set policy that just simply makes sense. [/quote]

Actually, I'm going to take issue with you here. First, I do support the war on terror, although I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to come up with the "let's go get the guys who killed thousands of our civilians" policy. I also think that Bush's new foreign policy of preemptively striking has some merit, although I would have liked to have seen some more planning going into Iraq. Domestically, though, Bush's adminstration has been a disaster. His education policy, NCLB, is an unfunded mandate that is quite possibly unconstitutional and has already been discarded by at least one state, which has chosen to fend for itself without federal funding rather than participate in NCLB. Other states are struggling to do what they can to keep their federal funding. Bush has created a mammoth deficit with such absurd proposals as spending $1.5B to promote the concept of marriage. Poverty? Healthcare? Unemployment? If all of his policies make sense, you would think that shit would just be humming around here. It ain't. We probably aren't going to see eye to eye on this, but I am just not feelin' ya here on this at all.

Healthcare = pay for it, it's there, we're not here to provide free healthcare to the masses. if you want the best, you have to pay for the best. sucks really, but that's the deal...or go to canada, where it's free, and it's shitty.

the money you pay goes in part for research and development for new drugs, education for doctors, and yes of course, benefits corporations that are the backbone of our economy. doesn't sound bad to me. hey, i'd love to not have to pay my insurance premuim each month, i'd love to not have to pay a lot of money for high bloodpressure medication, i'd love to not have to pay specialists for my fucking allergies...but, hey, i can breathe, my blood pressure is under control, i love my doctors, and i paid for it. worth it at twice the price imo.

Poverty = is always going to exist. some would argue that's the result of capitalism. there are going to be rich, and there are going to be poor, you can't have one without the other. would i as a human being like to see poverty wiped off the face of the earth? yes. at what cost? i don't know. how about at the expense of the war on drugs?

unemployment = i just don't get it. every sunday i open the post dispatch paper and see pages upon pages of companies offering work. whatever the unemployment rate is at this point, i'd say the majority of that percentage is unemployable in the first place, and it's not the governments job to find them work.

^^I grasp what you're saying here, but my point is really that neur0t0xin64 has suggested that "its also undeniable that Bush administration has confronted each one of these issues and set policy that just simply makes sense," and I have to say, I can't really say that I see it. Directed to the poverty/unemployment issue specifically, I don't know that I can really identify in what way Bush has "confronted the issues" or "set up policy that makes sense" -- I'm not sure what he's done on this front, period.

what has any president done on the Poverty, Unemployment, Healthcare front?

My point is, they're all just political buzz words. There is no viable solution to any of those problems, and i question as to wether there is a problem in the first place.

Bush, Kerry, any president in recent memory has taken issue with those three topics, because it's what the American public wants to hear.

Bush hasn't done any better or any worse than any previous administration on those fronts, and Kerry sure as hell isn't going to change any of it for the better.

It's an unwinable fight. Remember Guns V Butter?

^^ agree 100%. I was just hoping someone could fill me in on what it was that Bush had purportedly done on that front, because I missed it. :NotMe:

he did nothing ... as clinton did nothing. it is not Bush's fault because of the dot com bomb. it was over investment into nothing. a hype ... like group boy bands ... the market has a bull and bear ...

next up. al gore invented the internet.

if kerry wins, next up will be "I John Kerry Took a Stand Against Terrorism, and I'm winning!"

btw, i'm quite loving the new Bush radio ads...the "What John Kerry says, and What John Kerry does" ad. :Bingo:

[quote=Jenks]

btw, i'm quite loving the new Bush radio ads...the "What John Kerry says, and What John Kerry does" ad. :Bingo:[/quote]

Me too -- because it signifies that Bush feels threatened! :WinkNSmi:

^pfft, hardly, it signifies that this is a political race and the banter is now going both ways, pre the RNC.

(Bush should feel threatened tho.)

^^I don't know, man -- I've heard a lot more negative campaigning coming out of the Bush camp (excluding activist groups -- speaking only to ads that Bush and Kerry approve) and candidates tend to be apprehensive about running them unless they feel it is necessary b/c voters don't like them.

Of course, W has demonstrated in the past that he doesn't exactly have his thumb firmly on the pulse of the nation. I wouldn't put it past him to run negative ads just because.

negative ads work.

dumb ass americans don't have to think logically about anything, just listen to negative ads, and let that make their decision.

F9/11 was nothing but a long negative ad. That movie alone has swung more people that I know then anything else..

I saw it a few days ago, but I'm highly sceptic about the man. It all sounds pretty logical and stuff, but he's actually just making it sound logically. I think Moore is an artist in turning facts into a story which actually represents his opinion and could easily convince anyone that is not critical enough.

Yao I agree with you 100%, and Civic Zen you too, 9/11 is just a raw dose of rank propaganda. Anyone who believes anything Michael Moore says is naive and really in need of a mentor. He is the master of copy and paste propaganda, and never tells the whole story. Lets not confuse a man eager to sell movies with legitimate political motives. Did you see him with Bill O'Reilly, he embarrassed himself, it was pitiful. This is the reason why most liberals(or anti-administration as I like to put it because they never really know why they are liberal) say the things they say. Its wreckless. People like Moore over run the public with doctrine and propaganda, it undermines a real agenda.

Nicely put Neuro...I especially like the "copy and paste propaganda" phrase, I'm gonna keep that one alive actually.

what ... i thought i was king.

Re: Backfire

[quote=Civic_Zen] Except I know that there were WMD in Iraq, and that they aren't there now. They still exist, and someone still has them somewhere. This is pretty much obvious to me.[/quote]

Hmmm... sometimes I wish I'd found this board [i]before[/i] the war started. I would've been able to show how EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Bush WMD claims were completely discredited before the war had even started. Maybe [i]that's[/i] why the US couldn't get UN approval for the invasion. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose...

?We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since (Operation) Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely,? CIA director Tenet, Congress, 7 Feb, 2001

He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. Colin Powell, 24 February 2001

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. Condoleezza Rice, 29 July 2001

Strange how you're more confident Iraq had WMDs than even they were!!! :lol: