New Bush Campaign Ad Twists Kerry's Words... Again

the fact that Bush and co. is trying to turn this into a referendum on John Kerry rather than preaching the positives of their administration speaks volumes

As true as that might be, I would like to point out that Kerry spends more time attacking Bush during debates than actually addressing his plans. As someone who would like to hear what Kerrys plans actually are I get very irritated when I constantly hear "I have a plan" but then get referred to his website for more information. I would have a lot more respect for Kerry if he would stop attacking Bush and spend his time discussing his plan in more detail. When he does actually move beyond his 'I have a plan' sentence he doesn't give nearly as much information as he could and that makes me wonder if he is hiding something.

Both sides are going to focus on the flaws of the opponent. It's the easiest way to debate but I'm annoyed at BOTH sides for taking the easy way out.

Jemison

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
I'm sorry i dont feel like we can be a little bit more lax on our terrorist policy right now. But if Kerry does get elected and he does loosen it up a bit, you will all be saying "Oh this is what you meant" as you see thousands of people slaughtered AGAIN! For what? Why? Because you wanted to reduce the terrorism policy. Folks, we can't get around it, he DOES want to reduce it, and right away. Im not saying he wants to just forget about it, but he wants to loosen it up a little bit, and that little bit may offer a crack in which the terrorists can attack.

That is absolutely NOT what the NYTimes interview said, what the quote implies, or a correct reflection of Kerry's policy on terrorism--and your comment is the epitome of the effect of the Republican misuse of his words. Kerry's strategy certainly is tough on terrorism--tougher than the strategy that Bush is following of singling out three countries and relying on conventional means to go after terrorists. Bush talks tough on strengthening intelligence capabilities, but three years after 9/11 and the FBI, CIA and NSA are still operating with antiquated systems and are very poorly managed. You can throw money at a situation, but that doesn't solve the problems, which is what Kerry recognizes. Bush won't even admit to making mistakes in these areas, but it is clear that there are still major problems.

Your comments just prove that you didn't read the Times article and just focused on the four words included in the Bush ad and the headlines on the Bush website. If you do actually read and can understand the acticle, there is no way that you could or would accuse Kerry of softening up on terrorists.

This just highlights how the Bush campaign counts on the fact that many Americans don't read. They can get away with misquotes and taking information out of context because people don't read the source information for themselves. It has come to a point where if Kerry says the word "terrorist", the next day the Bush people come out with an ad with Kerry's picture and the word "terrorist" underneath it, with Bush campaign aides are all over the wires calling Kerry a terrorist.

Call me a crybaby, but I take no pleasure in watching the President of the United States personally engage in slander. It does more than cheapen the national debate--it casts a shadow over the legitimacy of his presidency. After four years, the focus of his campaign should be on how the country is better off because of his policies. Instead, the central focus of the Bush campaign is to slander his opponent. That speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
I'm sorry i dont feel like we can be a little bit more lax on our terrorist policy right now. But if Kerry does get elected and he does loosen it up a bit, you will all be saying "Oh this is what you meant" as you see thousands of people slaughtered AGAIN! For what? Why? Because you wanted to reduce the terrorism policy. Folks, we can't get around it, he DOES want to reduce it, and right away. Im not saying he wants to just forget about it, but he wants to loosen it up a little bit, and that little bit may offer a crack in which the terrorists can attack.

NOW ....THAT IS THE MEAT & POTATOs....Lets study on it here...

President George W Bush, ( abbreviated as GWB hereafter)
MOST ASSURIDLY sees terrorism. in all forms by various orgs., as a CANCER...Attacking a person...and the ONLY REMEDY is to engage
the Malignant Invader with a DEADLY CHEMOTHERAPY COUNTERATTACK

GWB tried EXCISING the malignant cancer cells, at Gitmo & campp X-ray,
but that action has been thwarted....

Sen. JF Kerry (JFK) in this most recent speech advocates treating terrorism(CANCER) as a ubiquitous problem, unsolvable, that can ONLY BE MANAGED
...as opposed to cured or excised or in put into remission...(see GWB satrategy)

JFKs plan appears to be;- < like the carrot-on-a-stick, the 'plan' will be revealed upon achieving office,
if you only only trust and believe in him, and vote for JFKs 'vision'

So, what every liberal that posted here is saying that Kerry can be a snake-in-the-grass, commie-loving liar in his campaign and Bush should refrain from using "Kerry's own words" in his?

With all this crying going on now, I can't imagine when November 3, 2004 rolls along, with Bush being re-elected, what it's going to be like!

Get a life!

[edit on 11/10/04 by Intelearthling]