Kerry, Iraq, Saddam & Bin Laden - it's all a mess

[riverflush]

To all my political-minded 2+2'ers...

As a Libertarian I really have no candidate in this November's election (as usual), but I'll struggle with this decision a bit more because my usual boat of issues (taxes, government size and spending, personal and business freedom) is now overflowing with Iraq and terrorism. I loathe the U.S.'s role as the world's police officer - and have been vocal about this subject for years (Lebannon, Honduras, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Iraq, etc. etc.). At the same time, I'm very aware that terrorism is real - and we're now staring down a battle of cultures: Radical Islam vs. the Modern West. I know that's real, and I don't think (even as a Libertarian) we can ignore that and simply go on with things hoping nothing bad will happen.

That said, all this current Democrat vs. Republican fighting over Iraq and Bin Laden has really gotten ugly. People are flat-out misrepresenting facts in order to try and win this election. John Kerry is stumbling all over himself trying to get out from under his previous stances on Iraq...just because his party is ferverently anti-war. The Dean wing of the party truly has wrestled control of this year's issues. People are happily forgetting things that happened just a short few years ago, just so that they can have "anybody but Bush."

The problem I have with it is: can all this election year nonsense actually distract us from a real problem?

I put forth two pieces of video that absolutely changed my mind on Kerry and those ferverent anti-war folks who say that Iraq "had no connection to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda." Now we've got people flat-out ignoring their own statements on the subject...why? Are they betting it all just to win in November? Could these people be this blatantly dishonest with themselves just to get "their guy" in?

Watch these two clips:

ABC News - January 14, 1999 (http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram) (Real Video)


Kerry the hawk on Iraq (http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv ) (Windows Media)

These are both stunning, IMO.

[Utah]

I couldnt watch the first one because I refuse to put evil Real on my computer. However, the second one is awesome.

I would like to see how the democrat and Kerry supporters spin this. It makes Kerry look incredibly bad. I dont have a horse in this race either. However, I do know that I dislike Kerry a lot. Lieberman or Gephardt (sp?) would have been okay because at least they stand for something. Kerry is simply a pure politican from the Clinton mold.

I also do find it amusing that people say Bush lied about WMDs when the previous democrat party in power thought the exact same thing. Its not like Bush all of a sudden made it up.

[riverflush]

The first clip is equally as stunning as the second - so I suggest a download and then uninstall of Real Player (I have everything and I HATE having to clog my puter up with all kinds of stuff, too, so I can relate).


On a similar note...

I probably would be voting for Joe Lieberman if he was running vs. Bush. That would be so controversial amongst my Republican friends but Lieb's is one of the most moderate, well-intentioned Dems that I know of. He's also a very good guy personally. If Evan Bayh had been running on the ticket I'd also consider a vote for him. He's so fiscally conservative, many in the Democratic party consider him Republican-light...which is what you have to be to win as a Dem in Indiana. The only problem I have with those two guys is that they are long-time politicos...which I inherenty have a problem with. Lieb's also is a little too outspoken on violence on tv, etc. He's got a little PC-Dem in him which rubs me the wrong way.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
I also do find it amusing that people say Bush lied about WMDs when the previous democrat party in power thought the exact same thing. Its not like Bush all of a sudden made it up.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's my main point on this whole subject. Everyone who hates Bush for whatever reason (gay marriage, tax cuts, his Christian faith, etc. etc.) is jumping on the "no WMD's, Bush lied!" bandwagon...but they've all got selective amnesia. It's like their memory begins in January 2001.

[Cyrus]

OK for those of us who don't have and won't have the "evil programs" used to download and view 'em, how about a quick rundown, riverman?

[The once and future king]

Yea but when Clinton invaded Iraq on the pretense of WMD's I was equaly upset.

Hang on a minute.......

[riverflush]

That's like 15 minutes total of video...I don't have the time to run down it all right now. If I can get a little help. /images/graemlins/cool.gif..but I will be back later.

[Stu Pidasso]

Heres the down and dirty

One video is a 1999 ABC documentary that details a connection between Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden and how they might help each other obtain WMD. It also shows how Saddam has harbored some of the worst terrorist in the world over the years.

Another is a video that shows Kerry so hawkish against Iraq, it makes Dick Cheney look like a pacifist. Over time Kerry mutates into a Dove in order to keep Dean from getting the nomination.


Stu

[nicky g]

"One video is a 1999 ABC documentary that details a connection between Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden and how they might help each other obtain WMD. "

You may have missed it, but in the five years since that documentary was made, those theories have been totally discredited.

[Cyrus]

"One video is a 1999 ABC documentary that details a connection between Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden and how they might help each other obtain WMD. It also shows how Saddam has harbored some of the worst terrorist in the world over the years."

Ho hum.

This has been known for years. Yes, Saddam has been harboring some pretty wild characters, such as Abu Nidal. Notice, please, that all those characters were acting against Israel and not in any sense against the United States. (If you haven't wised up by now, please realize that the United States, by attacking Iraq, has removed a threat to the national security of Israel ----admittedly a distant one-- and not to America.)

As to Osama bin Laden and the various anti-American terrorist groups, the Congressional 9/11 Committee has all this in its findings and is very explicit: Saddam Hussein cultivated ties with bin Laden's group for some time but when he found out that they were going to engage in terrorist acts against the US, he broke off all contacts. (You can check out the whole Report, in .pdf format, here (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/US/resources/9.11.report/911Report.pdf).)

Saddam was no fool.

"Another is a video that shows Kerry so hawkish against Iraq, it makes Dick Cheney look like a pacifist."

Par for the course for politicians. Thanks for saving me the time.

[Utah]

"Par for the course for politicians. Thanks for saving me the time."

Its worth watching simply because its so funny. I think you could make an interesting one about Bush as well. Start with his debate comments against nation building.

However,I see you are pretty wound up about Bush's supposed lies (which of course are not lies. But we dont need to get in a discussion about the definition of a lie again). However, when Kerry is caught its simply par for the course.

The second one can be watched with media player, so no downloads are needed.

[nicky g]

Who or what is to blame for the dire quality of the two Presidential candidates up for election?

[MMMMMM]

Great choice of words, Nicky..."dire quality"...hehehehehe

[Cyrus]

"I see you are pretty wound up about Bush's supposed lies (which of course are not lies. But we dont need to get in a discussion about the definition of a lie again)."

I recall you didn't accept that Dubya's claims about Saddam's WMDs were lies. However, my post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=934871 &Forum=,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&M ain=934871&Search=true&where=&Name=226&daterange=& newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev =#Post934871) was about the President's lies about taxes! Not about Iraq. Bush has been lying his Texas fried behind about taxes.

"But when Kerry is caught it's simply par for the course."

I can't treat the two players the same way! Kerry is a wannabe, but Bush is a world class player (liar). Gotta give him his dues.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[riverflush]

By the way...I don't really want to sum up the ABC News piece in my words because I really think people need to judge for themselves. It is a 2min 38sec ABC News piece on Bin Laden and Hussein's relationship, WMDs, the Sudan, and political asylum for terrorists.

The Kerry video is an excellent piece of work. It was cut by an RNC contributor, but they did a great job of allowing Kerry's words to speak for themselves...often letting him run long instead of editing out pieces...that way people can't merely scream "THEY'RE TAKING HIM OUT OF CONTEXT!" There is so much context as to be extremely damning of Kerry's previously hawkish positions on Iraq. One thing comes to mind: the truly anti-war left has no candidate in this year's election, despite what Kerry wants them to believe 80 days out from November 2.

[nothumb]

Well. I'm at work so I can't watch either video, and my internet at home is poo-poo right now. But here's my two cents on lying -

1. The ABC piece on Osama and Saddam has long been known to be garbage, as others have said. Bush himself admitted they had no evidence of Saddam being involved in 9/11 or in having given any tangible material aid to Kid Q. All sorts of people could at any time pass off weapons or information to unstable fanatics - hell, we do it often - but fewer are willing to accept the risks. As a more-or-less secular politician interested in maintaining his grip on Iraq and possibly expanding into the rest of the Arab world, Saddam was not going to give serious aid to Osama. That's speculation, but it's backed up by the facts- he had opportunities and didn't take them.

2. I didn't catch the date on the Kerry stance on the war, but he has claimed to have been under the sway of false intelligence at some time or another. That whole thing was going down around January 04 I believe. When are these clips taken from? It's probably in here somewhere but I missed it.

FWIW I think Bush's reversals have been more striking in several cases (which should surprise nobody) but I have already decided not to vote for either candidate this year. I hope Bush loses but I seriously doubt that he will.

NT

[MaxPower]

Well, at least that video shows that Kerry is not soft on national security or on terrorism. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Even though this video makes Kerry look very bad, I still think he has a defensible position. He just needs to articulate it better.

It is true that both Kerry and Bush will stretch the truth and change positions for political gain. I do think however that Bush and those who support him have taken this to a new level. Kerry's supposed flip-flops are no different that you would see from any Senator from either Party.

In general I agree with your original point. All this nonsense about who said what, who voted for what, etc, is just a way of avoiding discussing the really serious issues that face the US. What is the best way to fight terrorism at home and abroad? How do we end the Iraq war and establish a stable govenment there? How do we fix our health care system? They need to avoid it because no one really has the answers to these questions.

[Cyrus]

"What is the best way to fight terrorism at home and abroad?"

Could we all agree that to fight terrorism, one must act, above all else, smartly? Strength and will are no longer enough because, very simply, terrorism is not a geographical entity.

"How do we end the Iraq war and establish a stable govenment there?"

One thousand years of history in the region will tell you that this fantastic amalgam of cultures, religions and ethnicities has been held together through iron rule. This is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East. This is a folding hand. Now comes the hard part : How to walk out of the hand without losing face.

"How do we fix our health care system?"

Look northward. A lot of people are quick to condemn the Canadian system but no one has come up yet with any concrete and substantiated arguments against it. So. Universal health care anyone?

[riverflush]

Good post Cyrus.

I don't want to get into a health care debate (you can do a search and find A LOT of my opinions on Canada's Medicare = quick summary of my feelings: socialized medicine is a sad, sad reality - my dad's side of the family is from Canada and I follow it closely).

On a somewhat related note, I think Kerry may have put the nail in the coffin of his campaign with this move today:

Kerry files FEC legal challenge to SBVT ads (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&u=/afp/20040820/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_kerry_vietnam_040820214246&printer=1)

This is going to do nothing but highlight the Swift Boat issue and most legal experts will agree that the Kerry campaign has no chance to do anything legally about the Swift Boat Vets right to air ads. He is opening a battle he can't win here. (Especially considering that 80% of the "527's" and their attack ads are on his side)

We've got a ways to go, but just from a political science perspective, today's move could doom Kerry. I think it's a poorly calculated move.

[Chris Alger]

So your argument based on the ABC video is that ABC had good evidence three years ago that the Senate Intelligence Committee ("no collaborative relationship") couldn't obtain? This has to be what you're saying, doesn't it? What do you think of the map showing bin Laden shooting off -- well, what, exactly -- from Iraq to all corners of the Middle East, while the voiceover acknowledges that intelligence experts "can only speculate" about the substance of any contact bin Laden had with Saddam? It's hard to imagine anything sillier. Okay, the part about "harboring" the "terrorist" Abu Abbas but failing to mention it was after he was pardoned (and harbored) by Israel, that's sillier.

As for Kerry's waffling, I don't see what why the pro-war people are concerned about this guy. He's never said that the war with Iraq was mistaken or wrong, he's reaffirmed his vote for the war resolution, he insists on maintaining the occupation, and so forth. The only difference I can discern between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry insists he would have used his war-making authority "more effectively," whatever that means.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldnt watch the first one because I refuse to put evil Real on my computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm


There's one for Quicktime too. These use Media Player Classic, and are very, very fast. I even use WMP Classic for AVI's and MPG if I don't need to queue up serveral videos. Flawless Real and Quicktime video, without all the hood ornaments.

Ten

[riverflush]

bump...

I think Kerry's offensive vs. the Swift Boat Vets is going to doom him, he's opening the door to a whole area where he really looks bad, politically:

Why put the spotlight on this:

http://www.truthlaidbear.com/527-large.png


http://www.opensecrets.org/

[riverflush]

And here's why I take the position that Kerry is dooming his campaign with this issue:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5797120/

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040830/opinion/30barone.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040830/opinion/30john.htm

http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=8/23

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/27161.htm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005483


By making it an issue, Kerry is forcing the mainstream media to pick up and run with this story...which I believe would have dismissed and ignored it otherwise. Now, the old footage of Kerry speaking of Vietnam atrocities will be dusted off and shown and the issue will get turned up a notch. If he actually has trumped up his 4 months in battle, it's going to bite him in the ass.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I loathe the U.S.'s role as the world's police officer.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the truth. I couldn't agree with you more.

[nicky g]

The Swift Boat guys have raised all this hooha, paid for all those ads etc with just $160,000?

[riverflush]

nicky g

I've been following all this stuff really closely (The 527's) and soft money...

The Swift Boat Vet's first ad that ran in select U.S. states had an "ad buy" of $550,000. They are currently running a second ad that cost somewhat less to run. Most of their publicity has come via online viewings of the ads.

That $158,000 number was as of 8/23 - however donations to this 527 have skyrocketed in the past 2 weeks. Published reports have estimated that the SBVT have taken in $1,764,000 in the past 2 weeks...so they are on the move.

[riverflush]

Continuing image problems for Kerry:

John Kerry on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (http://slate.msn.com/id/2105618/)

At one point, Stewart asked Kerry straight-up "WERE YOU OR WERE YOU NOT IN CAMBODIA?"

Kerry just ignored the question. Why is it that Jon Stewart is the only person in the major media to even ask this question of Kerry in an interview? In light of Kerry's own words:

http://instapundit.com/images/kerrycambod.jpg

[nicky g]

"That $158,000 number was as of 8/23"

So how did they pay for a $550,000 ad with 1ess than $200,000. Sounds like that figure was wrong when it was posted, and a lot more wrong now.

[cardcounter0]

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the only media with enough balls to ask a candidate a direct question?

Hmmmm... When will some one ask Bush "When exactly did you choose to go AWOL from your National Guard Service"?

Think we should hang around for an answer?

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the only media with enough balls to ask a candidate a direct question?

Hmmmm... When will some one ask Bush "When exactly did you choose to go AWOL from your National Guard Service"?

Think we should hang around for an answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again...that's not the point of my posts. You can't deflect this issue by bringing up some stupid Bush AWOL stuff. That's not what this thread is about . I'm more interested in how Kerry's camp is managing this campaign, and how Kerry is dealing with Vietnam vis-a-vis his positions as a hawk (then dove) on Iraq. It's fascinating to me. I think they've made some HUGE mistakes very recently.

This is more of a political science post than an "argue for your guy" post.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
"That $158,000 number was as of 8/23"

So how did they pay for a $550,000 ad with 1ess than $200,000. Sounds like that figure was wrong when it was posted, and a lot more wrong now.

[/ QUOTE ]

nicky g...

You can buy ads on credit . I run media campaigns for my business 30-45 days out and am subsequently billed on credit at a later date.

Knowing that they'd be able to raise money with publicity (and then run more ads with that money) gained from the first run of ads, they are able to confidently buy on credit. They've reportedly taken in the $1+ million figure from website donations alone.

[nicky g]

OK I see your point. Nevertheless that figure is clearly far wide of the mark now.

[nicky g]

That said, and I am as interested in this from a finance as a political point of view, how does a group with 160,000 bucks get 550,000 dollars in credit?

[cardcounter0]

They use Saudi Prince Bandar as a credit reference, naturally.

[nicky g]

I would have thought they would need some kind of guarantor.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
They use Saudi Prince Bandar as a credit reference, naturally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got a chuckle out of that one cardcounter...

[cardcounter0]

Which is much easier than having to drive by the White House to pick it up.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have thought they would need some kind of guarantor.

[/ QUOTE ]

They might have had some leverage like that, but more likely they saw this Swift Boat Vets group as a sure thing that would drum up controversy and create interest. Since donations to 527's are essentially unlimited and tax-exempt...the money can come from anywhere.

If I'm running a radio station or local tv station, I'm pretty sure that these folks will be able to pay their bill next month, especially since they have a vested interest in running more ads.

People will extend credit on a handshake if the folks involved are known and respected...as a matter of fact, most business was done this way as recently as the 1970s.

[nicky g]

Maybe... I would have thought banks tend to be more conservative than that. Anyway, presumably that will become apparent eventually.

[riverflush]

The tv station (or cable company) itself extends the credit in most of these situations. They bill regular clients post run (meaning the ad runs first).