"Bush campaign ads using team"

[gekko]

Cliky

An interesting little article, just full of a few surprises. I found it interesting (though hardly surprising) that Bush would attempt to use the Iraqi soccer team in such a way, considering the general global sentiments his administration (and, let's be honest, the man himself) have stirred up in the last few years.

What I really found interesting, though, was this:

In fact, Manajid says, if he were not playing soccer he would "for sure" be fighting as part of the resistance.

Let me get this straight. I feel so strongly for this cause, I would gladly be fighting and dying to combat the evil americans -- if only these silly olympics and this damned soccer tournament weren't at the same time.

gekko

[Guest]

I bet he's scared :unsure: <joke> I would be too if I was facing an army that like captures you and takes pictures of you in homoerotic poses? You Americans are gross </joke>

[Griselda]

Avoid hotbutton issues.
Basically put, there are some issues and topics that are useless to debate on an Internet forum. You'll never be able to change people's minds on hotbutton political issues such as abortion or gun control. Yet, various people always try to do just that on every forum out there. Here's the deal: many posters try to make a name for themselves by starting a thread on just such an issue just so they can have a special thrill over watching a hundred posts spring up from their inciting topic. They'll then feed the conversation along by constantly nibbling at other posters' arguments. Once the topic has dried up, they'll move on to the next one, and keep doing it for weeks, causing gargantuan threads over and over. This is known as trolling, and the moderators WILL put a stop to you if they catch you in the act.

There's a way to discuss topics like this without trolling wildly for responses like you're doing. Cut it out.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I have a feeling you did not bother to wach the add and I highly doubt anyone bothered to show it to the Iraqis they interviewed either. Nowhere in the add is the soccer team shown or mentioned. All it shows is a swimmer while talking about democracy. The closest it gets to the Iraqi soccer team is when it shows the Afgan and Iraq flags and says "And this olympics there will be 2 more free nations, and 2 fewer terroist ones." blahblahblah. It's very cheesy, but to say it is using the soccer team is a half truth at best.

[Jim]

Hi

OUR Children are Dying over there as I type this. Now this Soccer player can return to Iraq and NOT have his finger nails removed, if the team loses. :angry:

On eve of Olympics, Iraq reveals how Uday got results:

Uday, the head of the Iraqi Olympic committee during his father's regime, forced under-performing sportsmen to wear a suffocating steel mask. He also set up a torture chamber in the committee headquarters.

On eve of Olympics, Iraq reveals how Uday got results

"Twenty-five million people in Iraq are free as a result of the actions of the coalition."

To a man, members of the Iraqi Olympic delegation say they are glad that former Olympic committee head Uday Hussein, who was responsible for the serial torture of Iraqi athletes and was killed four months after the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003, is no longer in power.

Olympic committee head Uday Hussein

[Jim]

I bet he's scared&nbsp; :unsure: <joke> I would be too if I was facing an army that like captures you and takes pictures of you in homoerotic poses? You Americans are gross </joke>

Hi

unrealshadow13...<joke> & j/k does not work, once you say it you have to live with it...Think before you Speak.

[Assur]

Think before you Speak.

Do you really think that will work?

[Swiss Mercenary]

I, myself, think that it is very, very low for Bush to use that in his campaign. Very low.

[kandrathe]

nt = not tracking

[Munkay]

Thinking :lol:

[Swiss Mercenary]

The use of the entire "Look at how great we've made Iraq", when the players (Or, at leat the ones who aired their greviances) themselves are against Bush using them for his campaign, and the occupation in itself.

[Occhidiangela]

If the shoe fits, wear it.

There is a lot of bad news coming out of Iraq, a place that the US broke by creating a power vacuum in the belief (right or wrong) that changing the cycle of dictators there would improve the Mid East, and any number of other reasons that have been beaten into the dust.

The US incurred an obligation to do some repair. That is a work in progress which is not being helped by any number of players, both indigenous and from beyond Iraq's borders, who have decided to take their chances at using the slowness of "re pressurizing" Iraq to "full up" status for their own ends. No surprise there. Jackals always come to a wounded beast for a feed. The nations of Europe drooled all over the Ottoman Empire for a few decades before carving it up after W.W. I.

But I digress. If all of the news is bad, or a lot of the news that gets reported casts the efforts at "nation building" in a poor light, as much of it does, it is only natural to counter with such good news stories as are available. Given how Saddam's son abused the Iraqi Olympic sports program, see the links from King Jim, also see the reasonably well researched Sports Illustrated article written before the war, it is good news, if only modestly, that Iraq is restroing some of the "being a normal place" features after a war. I personally was pleased as punch that Iraq bet Portugal 4-2 in the Olympic soccer match. Those folks have had to chew the turd for far too long. A little "Yay us!" can't hurt. It's good news, in the information age, news that is of course sucked into the information glut and what has been a fifteen year information war: global, ever since the Wall came down.

Information warfare has been with us since about . . . The Crimean War, and most Europeans STILL DON'T GET IT. Even fewer Americans get it, in my opinion. (I am sure someone will want to go back to the invention of writing, but I'm trying to limit this in scope.)

It never ends.

The attempts to influence others via means of information, disinformation, spin and and outright lies is continuous on all sides. Varying agendas, and ideas publicly batted around (cloning? genetically engineered grain?) continually compete for dominance. Play is continuous. There is no end to ANYTHING in geopolitics. Ever. Got it?

Is it any surprise that a goodly number of people in Iraq would like the US to just leave, and how about last week?

Heck no, the Americans are foreigners, and the average car mechanic in Mosul would be just as happy to be quit of foreigners. What he does not realize, as the average car mechanic in America probably does not realize, is that The World Won't Let You Alone, particularly if you live in Iraq, a place that for the past 3 generations has been big in global oil, and for the past 4 Millenia has been a battle ground, where the Tides of War constantly run in and out.

What you don't see, and probably don't bother to read, is the various efforts that continue on beyond Mr Bremmer's departure aimed at doing two things.

1) Maintain a certain level of stability which would allegedly allow Iraq's economy to restore itself. War and civil unrest are bad for an economy, ask any Serb, ask any Israeli.
2) Enable a secure and viable election cycle that is bought into by the various factions who live in Iraq. <= You have absolutely no clue how hard that is to do, and I for one am not even sure it is possible.

On that last, what ever meets the "good enough" standard will still leave some folks grumbling. We have grumblers aplenty in the reasonably stable nation of the U.S. The screeching baboons in the cheap seats, such as yourself, will gaze through a soda straw and seek fault and imperfection, broadcast to you via sattelite every hour of the day.

The issue is not whether the US have gone in, at this point. For better and for worse, the US and its allies did. In doing so, the team incurred an obligation to help put the broken pieces back together and get things moving forward, forward into a future that is uncertain no matter how you hope it turns out. It's hard, maybe even impossible (by that I mean to keep Iraq from breaking along some natural social fault lines) and it may turn into an even bigger mess in the next five months, given the forces that are trying to pull the coutry of Iraq apart.

And you sit there whinging about someone pointing out a tidbit of good news.

Have you any idea how pathetic that makes you look? Petty?

Get some perspective, man.

In election season, the hot air density increases exponentially. Hmmm, looks like it has done so in this post as well. :( I'd rather see little bits of good news tossed out than yet another attack on __________ (<- Your choice of attackee here)

[Taem]

Get some perspective, man.&nbsp;

In election season, the hot air density increases exponentially.&nbsp; Hmmm, looks like it has done so in this post as well.&nbsp; :(&nbsp; I'd rather see little bits of good news tossed out than yet another attack on __________ (<- Your choice of attackee here)

What about need-to-know bad news? I just had to throw my 2-cents @ that comment, and it fits so well in this topic too. Apparently Bush Jr. has people running ads against Kerry (which I have not seen) claiming he did poor in Vietnam and was a child murderer. Bush tried to pretend this group did this on their own omission, but the money trail leads back to his office. These people speaking out against Kerry said he was a great leader and did a fantastic job in Vietnam in previous interviews, but they did not agree with his anti-war speech after the war, however once Bush reached into his pockets, their tune changed! What I find most amusing is not these underhanded tactics, but that the lies these Vietnam vets are spreading have been categorically dispelled by almost all other Vietnam vets, most of which are high ranking, amongst a slew of others. I knew bush was a liar already, but this is low... real low!

Wish I could think more clearly too add to this or make it more coherent/factual, but I'm just too tired and FINALLY got ZoneAlarm to stop blocking my internet after a botched uninstall. Anyways, here’s the article at the L.A. Times. The article I read in the paper was brimming with facts. This article just touches the surface:

Kerry Urges Bush to Demand Attacks Stop&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AP Headlines&nbsp; &nbsp;
Kerry Urges Bush to Demand Attacks Stop

&nbsp;
By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer


EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. — Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Saturday night urged President Bush to "stand up and stop" what he called personal attacks on him over his combat record in Vietnam.

At a fund-raiser attended by about 750 people, Kerry said the attacks by a group of Vietnam veterans and former Swift Boat commanders have intensified "because in the last months they have seen me climbing in America's understanding that I know how to fight a smarter and more effective war" against terrorists.

&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;
"That's why they're attacking my credibility. That's why they've personally gone after me. The president needs to stand up and stop that. The president needs to have the courage to talk about it."

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group funded in part by a top GOP donor in Texas, has been running ads featuring veterans who served in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry and question his wartime record.

The White House and the Bush campaign have denied any direct connection with the Swift Boat group. "The president has made it repeatedly clear that he wants to see an end to all" advertising from outside groups, said Brian Jones, a Bush campaign spokesman.

But on Saturday, a former POW, retired Col. Ken Cordier, resigned as a volunteer from the Bush campaign's veterans' steering committee after it was learned that he participated in an anti-Kerry ad sponsored by the Swift Boat group. The ad criticizes Kerry's congressional anti-war testimony in the 1970s alleging U.S. troops engaged in atrocities in Vietnam.

"Col. Cordier did not inform the campaign of his involvement in the advertisement," the Bush campaign said in a statement. "Because of his involvement (with the group) Col. Cordier will no longer participate as a volunteer for Bush-Cheney '04."

Earlier on Saturday, Kerry's campaign released a video comparing the controversy over Kerry's Vietnam service to attacks on John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries.

The video, sent via e-mail to supporters, says, "George Bush is up to his old tricks" and shows then-Texas Gov. Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain at a debate in February 2000.

McCain, sitting next to Bush, says that when "fringe veterans groups" attacked him at a Bush campaign function, Bush stood by and didn't say a word. McCain says a group of senators wrote Bush a letter that said: "Apologize. You should be ashamed."

McCain, also a Vietnam veteran, says Bush "really went over the line."

"I don't know how you can understand this, George, but that really hurts," McCain says.

The Swift Boat group also was being challenged by a Chicago Tribune editor who was on the Feb. 28, 1969, mission for which Kerry received the Silver Star. William Rood, 61, said he decided to break his silence about the mission because recent reports of Kerry's actions in that battle are incorrect and darken the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in Sunday's edition of the Tribune. "It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there."

Rood said the allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were overblown are untrue and that Kerry came up with an attack strategy that was praised by their superiors. According to the Tribune, Rood's recollection of what happened that day in South Vietnam was backed by military documents.

Rood wrote that Kerry recently contacted him and other crew members, requesting that they go public with their accounts of what happened.

"I can't pretend those calls (from Kerry) had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this," Rood said. "What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it."

Kerry also picked up support from Wayne D. Langhofer, who told The Washington Post he was manning a machine gun in a boat behind Kerry's and saw firing from both banks of a river as Kerry dived in to rescue Special Forces soldier James Rassmann, the basis for Kerry's Bronze Star.

Until now, the Post noted on its Web site, Kerry's version of acting under fire had come from crewmen on his own boat. It quoted Langhofer as saying he was approached by leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth several months ago but declined to join them in speaking against Kerry.

In Roanoke, Va., on Saturday, Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards also called on Bush to end the Swift Boat Veterans ads.

"This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush," Edwards said at a Democratic rally. "We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is. ... We want to hear three words: Stop these ads."

* __

On the Web:

Kerry/Edwards campaign: http://www.johnkerry.com

Bush/Cheney campaign: http://www.georgewbush.com/

[klaptonic]

The screeching baboons in the cheap seats, such as yourself,

Have you any idea how pathetic that makes you look?

ouch

[Occhidiangela]

EDIT: Oops, I forgot to answer your other question. "The need to know bad news." Ever make an omlette? You break some eggs, you add some milk, baking powder, and then you beat the bejesus out of it with a fork or an egg beater. In that state it is a bit of a mess. You then put it on a warm griddle or pan, and add a few things that will improve its flavor and appeal. Hmmm, avocados, finely chopped onions, minced tomatoes, cheese, a bit of crumbled bacon . . . yummy. It still looks sorta funny. You then spend some time and effort and eventually, you roll it over, lightly brown it, and then slide it onto a plate. The "Iraq omlette" seems to me to be somewhere just past beat the dickens out of the eggs and the add some yummies stages, though the griddle in Iraq is plenty hot for the cooking.

Now, if my son were to walk into the kitchen of such an omlette, he'd not be ready to eat that. Of course, if I had promised him breakfast by 0800, and he wandered down a 0805 and saw the omlette still in that state . . . I'd have to accept the critique of "that doesn't look like much to eat!" :lol: Some of the criticisms are based on inflated expectations, which the pre war rhetoric certainly must take the blame for, some on a morbid fascination with imperfection and error.

But on to the ads:

When President Clinton was first elected, a steady stream of people who did not care for him made it their business to criticize him, his character, and pretty much everything about him for the next 8 years. Rush Limbaugh comes to mind, but the list is long.

When President Bush, the current, was elected, a steady stream of people, with some vigor, spent day and night finding reasons to criticize him and to call into question just about everything about him.

We have a pattern here, eh?

Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards have certainly filled a great deal of their rhetoric with a similar theme, attacks on the incumbent that complain but offer only fuzzy "I can do better" solutions. However, that sort of stuff is the coin of the realm in a presidential campaign.

For Senator Edwards to insist the the opposition stop with attack ads is ludicrous: free speech. If the attacks are vile enough, they will backfire on the attackers. If they are based on truth -- and whose version of "the truth" is more believable -- then the Kerry and Edwards campaign has some months to craft a solid counter message, one that takes the attack, rolls it up, and pokes it in the eye of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Senator Edwards would impress us all and score MUCHO POINTS for his team if he expended the energy to craft a smart, incisive and even witty counter. He's a trial lawyer, eh? I'd guess he is sharp enough. (Hmmm, see Belosi on the alleged sharpness of many lawyers. Outrage) "He can't say that" is a weak counter to a verbal sally in a society based on free speech. How about a counter from a slightly higher angle, Senator? We know you have it in you.

Having people question you and your family's worth comes with the badge when running for president. The badgering that Senator Kerry is undergoing is the same sort of bullsh-- storm that Ross Perot was unwilling to weather. Perot dropped out for a few months in 1992, showing a lack of resolve that killed the chance of his grass roots campaign getting the big mo. I had moments where I really was ready for a third party man. He ended up a spoiler.

The attacks on Senator Kerry's military service strike me as wasted energy. I am biased, I swore the same oath of office about 10 years after he did, in the same service. The only logic that I can find in giving him grief about the details is that some folks have used his military service as part of the picture of his strength of character. Why not? He went where the hot lead was flying, some of it hit him. Next question? Bill Clinton wandered off to do the Rhodes Scholar thing, and he got elected. He claimed he did not inhale pot (even AL Gore admitted that he had tried it) and he still got elected.

That anyone working on the Bush campaign, or the President himself if the assertions that he is behind them are true, would waste their time on that angle (glass houses and throwing stones???) when the opportunity to use whatever public record material is available on the Senatorial record, and a dozen of other far more recent things that may or may not shed favorable light on Senator Kerry 's suitability to be President, strikes me as a missed chance to take the moral high ground.

Pres Bush's detractors have been shrill and insulting from the get go. To get into the mud and wrestle with pigs is no way to establish a "this guy is a better man than the other man" message. Nope, Nope, Nope. Maybe entropy is to blame.

Neither party is doing anything to impress me in the public discussion. The matter of dealing with facts, plans, visions, details and issues seems to be as foreign to both campaigns as shopping lists written in Sanskrit. It's a finger pointing match, at present. *barf*

It's a warm summer, it's gonna be a warmer fall, thanks to all the hot air.

Occhi

[Minionman]

cheese,Hmmm, avocados, finely chopped onions, minced tomatoes, cheese,

Bleh

For Senator Edwards to insist the the opposition stop with attack ads is ludicrous: free speech. If the attacks are vile enough, they will backfire on the attackers. If they are based on truth -- and whose version of "the truth" is more believable -- then the Kerry and Edwards campaign has some months to craft a solid counter message, one that takes the attack, rolls it up, and pokes it in the eye of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Senator Edwards would impress us all and score MUCHO POINTS for his team if he expended the energy to craft a smart, incisive and even witty counter. He's a trial lawyer, eh? I'd guess he is sharp enough. (Hmmm, see Belosi on the alleged sharpness of many lawyers. Outrage) "He can't say that" is a weak counter to a verbal sally in a society based on free speech. How about a counter from a slightly higher angle, Senator? We know you have it in you.

The campaign probably won't wait a few months because that would be seen by some people as them accepting the ads, so Edwards says his bit to show that they don't. This response does that, whether there's a smarter comeback he could have used is something I don't know.

The matter of dealing with facts, plans, visions, details and issues seems to be as foreign to both campaigns as shopping lists written in Sanskrit. It's a finger pointing match, at present. *barf*

No kidding.

[Taem]

Occhidiangela:&nbsp; Pres Bush's detractors have been shrill and insulting from the get go. To get into the mud and wrestle with pigs is no way to establish a "this guy is a better man than the other man" message. Nope, Nope, Nope. Maybe entropy is to blame.

It is true that at times I have had a negative outlook on the bush cabinet, however I was not trying to promote Kerry in any way. By posting about the "bashing", I wasn't favoring one side over the other nor was I trying to insult either cabinet - I didn't say anything insulting, just factual. But your right in that to me, as an anti-bush supporter, news like this is important to me, but is that selfish of me to share my thoughts? Here I am defending myself but I honestly don't feel I'm focusing on all the negative aspects of the Bush campaign, just one thing that struck me as god-awful to do to another human being and if the Kerry campaign had done it, I would of posted about them also. I'm an advocate for morality, not back-handed lies.

I see what you’re saying thou about all the negativity in the air. We should focus on the positive since the negative is so exploited by the media that I'm sure everyone has already heard about these ads. I will try to find the good in the news more often - thanks for the suggestion :D .

[Crusader]

Well, from an outsider's point of view (me) the constant US propaganda/patriotism stream is an unending stream of amusement. Doesn't matter what it comes from. I especially like the Bush vs Kerry mudslinging. Brilliant comedy. And then the speeches. Lovely. If a politician tried one of those here he would get laughed at square in the face and be null and void in the next elections.

I don't live in the US, so I can't say how people react to the propaganda besides from what I see on tv, but if I look at CNN I can only shiver. Is CNN government controlled or something? I never looked into that.

[kandrathe]

At least those athletes don't have to return to Uday's tortures if they don't please their keepers. I believe we will have mostly pulled out of Iraq by the next Olympics.

[Taem]

ouch

I like your “quotes” and I do see where your coming from, but I disagree not only with your ‘jump-on-the-bandwagon’ approach, but with your context. If Kerry was the person bashing on Bushes Vietnam experience... (here’s what separates normal bantering and ‘bashing’ from slander and defamation) with OUTRIGHT LIES, then I would condemn him also. There is something morally wrong about this and it needs to be told! I won’t let you condemn me from behind your “oh, your just a bush basher” façade because personally I don’t care too much for either candidate and this isn’t a matter of simple bashing for me, but I question the ethics of someone who does these things rather they be republican, democrat, liberal, Bush, Kerry, I don’t care! I think it’s very important to acknowledge what is taking place and disregard the concepts of party lines here. Can we do that? Just for a moment?

Obviously your next course of action will be to convince me that they have both done and will do political actions that boarder on the corrupt. This is undeniably true in the world of politics, but when your hand is caught paying the vultures to spread your lies and then you deny responsibility even with a paper trail a mile long… I’m sorry, but you have got to be either coincidently naive (as in this wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened) or morally corrupt. For me, moral corruption is a serious fallacy of any leader, but I don’t know how you feel about it.

I feel I have much more to say, but the words I hold within support or denounce either candidate and I’m trying to be deferential in a nonjudgmental way. I hope you don’t take this post in the wrong light because I mean no insult to you, but rather simply want to provide clarity to my previous post as I feel you misunderstood it.