Sen. Kerry Accuses U.S. Troops of 'Terror'

[Island Boy]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/162822.shtml

A full year after losing the presidential election to President George W. Bush, Senator John Kerry still seems to be stuck in duplicitous campaign mode.

Speaking Sunday as a guest on CBS’ Face The Nation program, Kerry tried to have it both ways, again, by saying he supports the U.S. troops in Iraq, but accusing them of doing despicable things.

Said Sen. Kerry in response to a question by host Bob Schieffer about the progress of the war in Iraq:

" ... And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs."

he remark was eerily reminiscent of Kerry’s comments about U.S. troops in 1971 upon his return from duty in Vietnam.

" … They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

As reported by NewsMax during the 2004 presidential election, Kerry’s tendency to bash the troops has a long and not-so-proud history.

This, again, from a Senator who "voted for the war, before I voted against it.”

:doh: What a maroon!!!

[stevenaa]

He is a complete boob.

[nelms]

http://static.flickr.com/2/1931458_077abb3223.jpg
What a disgrace.

[dreamingwolf]

you all must be rednecks, cause kerry is a democrat how can you say such things about him :silly:

[Destino]

Good old newsmax! I opened this thread thinking "how the hell could that fool accuse US soldiers of terrorism?!"....but he didn't, he accused them of scaring kids with night time searches, a entire different world of meaning. Newsmax just pulled a word out many so that they could use that catchy title for their article. My fault for not checking the source before jumping to a conclusion.

It would be nice if Newsmax at least wrote an article that actually covered some news, and took a cheap shot along the way like the liberals do. At least then the damn thing would have some value. But if you notice this article is a cheap shot, there is nothing else there. From the misleading title to the final much used out of context cheap shot - "This, again, from a Senator who "voted for the war, before I voted against it."

I do have a question though - is what Kerry is saying true? Yes or no.

[portisizzle]

Good old newsmax! I opened this thread thinking "how the hell could that fool accuse US soldiers of terrorism?!"....but he didn't, he accused them of scaring kids with night time searches, a entire different world of meaning. Newsmax just pulled a word out many so that they could use that catchy title for their article. My fault for not checking the source before jumping to a conclusion.


You are wrong..... this was on a national show. There must be audio somewhere.....

[PleaseBlitz]

Good old newsmax! I opened this thread thinking "how the hell could that fool accuse US soldiers of terrorism?!"....but he didn't, he accused them of scaring kids with night time searches, a entire different world of meaning. Newsmax just pulled a word out many so that they could use that catchy title for their article. My fault for not checking the source before jumping to a conclusion.


Duly noted. He is still a world-class jackass.

[Destino]

You are wrong..... this was on a national show. There must be audio somewhere.....I am wrong about what?

[Predicto]

Ahh, Newsmax. Always so subtle. Always providing the necessary context.

Here is the actual transcript:

_________________

KERRY: But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you're not saying we should stop fighting these insurgents?

Sen. KERRY: Absolutely not. In fact, in my plan, I have said very specifically that we need to keep Special Forces capacity. We need to have the ability to go after hard intelligence. We need to chase down Zarqawi. But we do not need 160,000 troops running around the country as a whole, exposing themselves as they are, feeding the notion of occupation. Let me just emphasize this.

_________________

Anyone who can read would understand that he is not accusing US troops of terror. He is saying that Iraqis rather than US troops should be doing house to house searches, that our day to day presence in people's homes fuels resentment. Agree or disagree if you like, but don't lie about what he was talking about.

Of course, no one at Newsmax can read. :laugh:

[Island Boy]

When you accuse someone of terrorizing people, they had every right of using the work terror.........terror is not limited to IDIOT suicide bombers.

[Predicto]

You are wrong..... this was on a national show. There must be audio somewhere.....

The transcript is at CBS.com.

[Destino]

When you accuse someone of terrorizing people, they had every right of using the work terror.........terror is not limited to IDIOT suicide bombers.Predicto just owned your thread. Thanks for playing.

[portisizzle]

Ahh, Newsmax. Always so subtle. Always providing the necessary context.

Here is the actual transcript:

_________________

KERRY: But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you're not saying we should stop fighting these insurgents?

Sen. KERRY: Absolutely not. In fact, in my plan, I have said very specifically that we need to keep Special Forces capacity. We need to have the ability to go after hard intelligence. We need to chase down Zarqawi. But we do not need 160,000 troops running around the country as a whole, exposing themselves as they are, feeding the notion of occupation. Let me just emphasize this.

_________________

Anyone who can read would understand that he is not accusing US troops of terror. He is saying that Iraqis rather than US troops should be doing house to house searches, that our day to day presence in people's homes fuels resentment. Agree or disagree if you like, but don't lie about what he was talking about.

Of course, no one at Newsmax can read. :laugh:



You guys are going to look like jackbutts when I find the audio......

He did say exactly what newsmax represents.....

[Predicto]

When you accuse someone of terrorizing people, they had every right of using the work terror.........terror is not limited to IDIOT suicide bombers.


Read the transcript.

[portisizzle]

The transcript is at CBS.com.


Then CBS cut the relevant portion out (suprise, suprise)........ give me time.....

[portisizzle]

I saved myself the time......



KERRY: But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, TERRORIZING KIDS AND CHILDREN, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

[Destino]

Then CBS cut the relevant portion out (suprise, suprise)........ give me time.....
And what exactly did they leave out? (hint, look above what predicto bolded) :)

[Predicto]

Did you even read my post? It contains that passage.

But what about the end of it, where he says: whether you like it or not? What about the entire last paragraph?

Read the whole thing, then come back.

[Island Boy]

Predicto just owned your thread. Thanks for playing.


uummmm why? Just because he can post the rest of the transcript???

[portisizzle]

And what exactly did they leave out? (hint, look above what predicto bolded) :)

mkay,

I highlighted the relevant portion for your useage......

[Destino]

uummmm why? Just because he can post the rest of the transcript???Because Kerry wasn't attacking the troops, he was saying that the dirty work being done by the troops should be done by Iraqi's.

Read that quote as a whole...

KERRY: But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

Newsmax, shockingly, took a quote out of context.

[Predicto]

WTF? Are you still contending that the portion you bolded stands on its own without the rest of the answer?

[portisizzle]

Did you even read my post? It contains that passage.

But what about the end of it, where he says: whether you like it or not? What about the entire last paragraph?

Read the whole thing, then come back.


Hell no, I am not going to pick apart a transcript from a raging lunatic. The fool said what he said. Terrorize the kids and children. And your resolution to this is that he suggests the IRAQIS INSTEAD OF THE US TERRORIZE THE KIDS AND CHILDREN?!?!?!?!

I am quite a reasonable person, but the comments demand a clarification, because any peace loving American can not mean what he said. But again this is John Kerry and he is used to saying these kinds of things for publicity (1971 ahem)



At least he is your fool and not mine.....

[nelms]

Because Kerry wasn't attacking the troops, he was saying that the dirty work being done by the troops should be done by Iraqi's.

Read that quote as a whole...

KERRY: But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

Newsmax, shockingly, took a quote out of context.
I understand what you are saying with having the Iraqis doing the dirty work, but there is still an implication made by Kerry that American soliders are "terrorizing kids and children". I'd like to know what the distinction is between kids and children. :silly:

[Island Boy]

I totally understand your point Destino, but he did say that OUR troops are going in the homes and TERRORIZING children and women. And when you use that word you mean it in a bad way. And im sure our troops are just doing what has to be done for there survival and for the better of the iraqi people. There is no reason to use the word "Terrorizing".

[portisizzle]

There is no reason to use the word "Terrorizing".


Yes there is, for political sensationalism.

I am done with this thread. Kerry need to do the right thing and clarify his position. I do not believe he meant to say what he said.

And for the record, you are not "owned"......

[Island Boy]

Yes their is, for political sensationalism.

I am done with this thread. Kerry need to do the right thing and clarify his position. I do not believe he meant to say what he said.

And for the record, you are not "owned"......

I believe he meant to say it. :D

[nelms]

I believe he meant to say it. :D
You have to wonder. It does score points with his base.

[portisizzle]

You have to wonder. It does score points with his base.

Which is why Joe Lieberman is getting hammered by his party.


Dang, I said I am done with this thread......

[portisizzle]

WTF? Are you still contending that the portion you bolded stands on its own without the rest of the answer?



YOU are owned :laugh:

[PleaseBlitz]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/162822.shtml

" ... And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs."





Sen. KERRY: Absolutely not. In fact, in my plan, I have said very specifically that we need to keep Special Forces capacity. We need to have the ability to go after hard intelligence. We need to chase down Zarqawi.

So we need to chase down terrorists according to his "plan" but do it without entering their houses at night? What should we do, invite Zarqawi over for brunch?

So yes, there is a reason we are breaking into peoples houses, Senator, you dumbass.

[airborneskins]

Last time I checked, we were still at war. And war regardless of what you think is not PC (as some would like it). Hell, what do some want us to do, put out fliers saying "please let us know when to come by and search your house, so we don't offend you"? :doh:

Now, I do not think that Kerry meant it the way that he said it, But, like others have already said Terrorize is a misused word, kind of like WMD..

[portisizzle]

So we need to chase down terrorists according to his "plan" but do it without entering their houses at night? What should we do, invite Zarqawi over for brunch?

So yes, there is a reason we are breaking into peoples houses, Senator, you dumbass.

"I voted for the war before I voted against it......." :doh:

People in Massachussetts vote for a man like this and a murderer? I say we give Mass back to Britain.......IF they would take it back..... :silly:

[Predicto]

Ok, I don't even know how to begin to respond to this circlejerk of insanity.

Kerry was talking about passing police responsibility back to the Iraqis. He was saying that Iraqis troops need to be doing the day to day dirty work of going into Iraqi homes. He was talking about how we are PERCEIVED over there. That is all. The choice of words could have been better, but he was speaking off the cuff in an interview, without a teleprompter.

I understand that you hate Kerry, but I simply cannot believe that you folks really think that he accused our troops of terrorism with this statement.

[portisizzle]

Ok, I don't even know how to begin to respond to this circlejerk of insanity.

Respond? You could join the circlejerk?????? :silly:

[portisizzle]

The choice of words could have been better,
.

Extremeskins understatement of the month. It is early yet, so you may not win the teflon cupcake........

[Predicto]

Extremeskins understatement of the month. It is early yet, so you may not win the teflon cupcake........

Perhaps.

But STILL, if the entire answer is read in context, is Kerry really accusing our troops of terrorism, or is he saying Iraqis should be handing day to day dirty work? Honest response please.

[PleaseBlitz]

Its not just about that one issue, thats just what YOU want to make it about, since THAT issue doesnt make Kerry look like a complete ass. He said a lot of other things in that interview. See contradictory quotes above.

And what? He doesnt have a teleprompter, so he should get a pass? He does have a BRAIN doesnt he? That should suffice.

[Island Boy]

Perhaps.

But STILL, if the entire answer is read in context, is Kerry really accusing our troops of terrorism, or is he saying Iraqis should be handing day to day dirty work? Honest response please.


Honestly I believe both.

[chomerics]

"I voted for the war before I voted against it......." :doh:

People in Massachussetts vote for a man like this and a murderer? I say we give Mass back to Britain.......IF they would take it back..... :silly:

Man, Predicto come in, ownes this thread, tells you EXACTLY what Kerry said, shows you how it was taken out of context, and basically wipes the place clean as any honest person would attest to. . . and you guys think you are right:doh:

Seriously :doh: :stop: :doh:

:laugh: :laugh:

Man, this is just amazing, the real funny part about it all is that you guys don't even realize you're being played :doh:

[Island Boy]

How??? Cause he is repeating what it says on the transcript that we can all read.

[portisizzle]

Perhaps.

But STILL, if the entire answer is read in context, is Kerry really accusing our troops of terrorism, or is he saying Iraqis should be handing day to day dirty work? Honest response please.

What he SAID was instead of the U.S. terrorizing the kids and children that we should instead have the Iraqis terrorize the kids and children.

What he meant to say is anyones guess because I believe his intention was to take a jab at our occupation and our leadership. He and the Democrats are also desperately trying to get out front of this withdraw of troops, that is already in progress so as to look like THEY caused the withdraw for political gain.

What he believes in his heart? Well, I do not think Kerry believes in his heart that we are terrorizing kids and children. Which is why he need to come out and correct the wording of his statement.

[Predicto]

Its not just about that one issue, thats just what YOU want to make it about, since THAT issue doesnt make Kerry look like a complete ass. He said a lot of other things in that interview. See contradictory quotes above.

And what? He doesnt have a teleprompter, so he should get a pass? He does have a BRAIN doesnt he? That should suffice.

He gets a pass because the whole answer shows exactly what he was saying,and quoting four or five words out of context dishonestly represents what he said.

And yes, it IS about this one issue, because this all began with a Newsmax article that said he accused our troops of terrorism. WHich was an out of context falsehood. We are not debating the entire content of the interview, we are debating the one passage that Newsmax emphasized.

[nelms]

Perhaps.

But STILL, if the entire answer is read in context, is Kerry really accusing our troops of terrorism, or is he saying Iraqis should be handing day to day dirty work? Honest response please.
Here's the deal. Kerry has a history of making accusations against our military. At the very least, as a U.S. Senator, he needs to be more careful with his words (teleprompter or not) because of his past. At the worst, his words were carefully thought out. With this guy, who knows. I find the guy kind of strange and creepy.

[Predicto]

What he meant to say is anyones guess...

It is abundantly obvious what he was saying, because he says it in great detail. He was saying Iraqis should be doing the day to day dirty work.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Oh. My. God.

I cannot believe how warped some people's perceptions of reality are here sometimes.

Kerry--who is a total loser, by the way--used the word "terrorize" to mean "scare." He did not use it to mean "commit an act of terrorism." If you read the latter meaning into it, you're nuts.

[Destino]

Ok, I don't even know how to begin to respond to this circlejerk of insanity.

Kerry was talking about passing police responsibility back to the Iraqis. He was saying that Iraqis troops need to be doing the day to day dirty work of going into Iraqi homes. He was talking about how we are PERCEIVED over there. That is all. The choice of words could have been better, but he was speaking off the cuff in an interview, without a teleprompter.

I understand that you hate Kerry, but I simply cannot believe that you folks really think that he accused our troops of terrorism with this statement.
Sometimes all you can do is shake your head and laugh dude. This thread is just plain weird. lol :laugh: :doh:

[Predicto]

I find the guy kind of strange and creepy.

I do too. He is a classic "climber" and I do not think he is very sincere or honest. He is a purely political animal.

That does not change the fact that Newmax is accusing him of something he didn't do last Sunday on Meet the Nation, and people seem to be unable to accept this fact, perhaps because their hatred of Kerry so overwhelms them that they can never accept that any accusation against him is false. I dunno.

All I know is that this here dog won't hunt, and that's a fact.

[portisizzle]

I do too. He is a classic "climber" and I do not think he is very sincere or honest. He is a purely political animal.

That does not change the fact that Newmax is accusing him of something he didn't do last Sunday on Meet the Nation, and people seem to be unable to accept this fact, perhaps because their hatred of Kerry so overwhelms them that they can never accept that any accusation against him is false. I dunno.

All I know is that this here dog won't hunt, and that's a fact.

Would it hunt if Bush, and not Kerry, said it?? As you said earlier, please be honest.

[Predicto]

Oh. My. God.

I cannot believe how warped some people's perceptions of reality are here sometimes.

Kerry--who is a total loser, by the way--used the word "terrorize" to mean "scare." He did not use it to mean "commit an act of terrorism." If you read the latter meaning into it, you're nuts.


Sometimes all you can do is shake your head and laugh dude. This thread is just plain weird. lol


Man, Predicto come in, ownes this thread, tells you EXACTLY what Kerry said, shows you how it was taken out of context, and basically wipes the place clean as any honest person would attest to. . . and you guys think you are right

Seriously

Man, this is just amazing, the real funny part about it all is that you guys don't even realize you're being played

Where the heck have you guys been? I was starting to think I had lost my mind or something. I kept going back to read the transcript to make sure I wasn't missing something.

[portisizzle]

Oh. My. God.

--used the word "terrorize" to mean "scare." He did not use it to mean "commit an act of terrorism." If you read the latter meaning into it, you're nuts.

IF what you mean by "read" is "imply" then I would simply ask you when Al-Jazerra plays this sound bite what do you think THEIR conclusion would be?

Riiigghhhtttt......

So as I was saying, Kerry needs to come out and correct the mistake he made.

[Predicto]

Would it hunt if Bush, and not Kerry, said it?? As you said earlier, please be honest.

There is no way to prove this without doing a long search, but I have long disagreed with the attacks on Bush for misstatements (I have long said that he was not stupid either).

I believe that you must always take what someone says in context to judge it fairly, and that actions speak louder than words.

Unfortunately, they are about to shut down my server, so I have to leave this till tomorrow.

[PleaseBlitz]

OMG :doh:

Ill go slow so you can look back at the article when you need to.

John Kerry, Senator from Mass-a-chu-setts, said, "in my plan, I have said very specifically that we need to keep Special Forces capacity. We need to have the ability to go after hard intelligence. We need to chase down Zarqawi."

This was after he said: "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

So, part of his plan is to keep the special forces capacity to go after hard intelligence and hunt down terrorists, BUT there is no reason for Americans to be going into the homes of Iraqis.

THIS DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE! It doesnt matter if he said these 2 statements in the same interview, different interviews, whatever the context. His "plan" has 2 components that are mutually exclusive.

What really makes me angry is my best friend is a Ranger and is over there right now. So John Kerry basically said my buddy is terrorizing woman and children. Talk about saying things out of context. The correct context would be "Our forces are scaring woman and children in the pursuit of dangerous insurgents in the interest of national security."

Breaking their customs?? Eff off Senator, we are at war and YOU sir are hurting our country.

[airborneskins]

IF what you mean by "read" is "imply" then I would simply ask you when Al-Jazerra plays this sound bite what do you think THEIR conclusion would be?

Riiigghhhtttt......

So as I was saying, Kerry needs to come out and correct the mistake he made.

I am sure that it is all over thier news right now. Sometimes people (in this case Kerry) don't understand that the foreign news watches and leans on our every word. No doubt that if they have already aired it, there will be more attacks on our troops. :doh:

[chomerics]

Where the heck have you guys been? I was starting to think I had lost my mind or something. I kept going back to read the transcript to make sure I wasn't missing something.

:laugh:

Man, I was just laughing at the :chestram: in this thread.

The article was a complete joke, and you wiped the place clean. . . Leave it to the lemmings to tell everyone else their sky is red though ;)

[Island Boy]

I am sure that it is all over thier news right now. Sometimes people (in this case Kerry) don't understand that the foreign news watches and leans on our every word. No doubt that if they have already aired it, there will be more attacks on our troops.

Yea like Mr. Murtha!!!

[nelms]

I do too. He is a classic "climber" and I do not think he is very sincere or honest. He is a purely political animal.

That does not change the fact that Newmax is accusing him of something he didn't do last Sunday on Meet the Nation, and people seem to be unable to accept this fact, perhaps because their hatred of Kerry so overwhelms them that they can never accept that any accusation against him is false. I dunno.

All I know is that this here dog won't hunt, and that's a fact.
Come on, you know that Newsmax does that to grab attention and stir up a debate (it worked here :D ). No different than what the left wing websites do.

You even admit that he's not very sincere or honest and that he is a political animal. So, was that comment about "terrorizing children" just an innocent slip up? Or was it intentional? And if it was intentional, did he really believe it or was it for political purposes to make "Bush's war" look bad again. The fact that he follows up this statement with the need to hand over the dirty work over to the Iraqis does not make that statement any more innocent.

[stevenaa]

I think all of his statements are calculated, teleprompter or not. Cleary he wasn't equating what our military is doing to terrorism. And I don't doubt that Iraqi children, awoken in the middle of the night by a forced military entry would be terrorized. It's only natural. But he choses his words carefully for a measured effect. Unfortunately he just doesn't get that his comments aid the enemy. It reinforces their resolve and gives them sound bites to use to their benefit. Kerry needs to focus on being an Advocate of the United States. His distasteful behavior during and after the Vietnam war is starting surface again. Dean is no better. Moderate Democrats need to reign them in or the party is never going to recover.

[Mad Mike]

" ... And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs."

That's right! We should be setting apointments and calling on them at decent hours when looking for the bad guys!

What a freakin MORON. :doh:

[Predicto]

Come on, you know that Newsmax does that to grab attention and stir up a debate (it worked here :D ). No different than what the left wing websites do.

You even admit that he's not very sincere or honest and that he is a political animal. So, was that comment about "terrorizing children" just an innocent slip up? Or was it intentional? And if it was intentional, did he really believe it or was it for political purposes to make "Bush's war" look bad again. The fact that he follows up this statement with the need to hand over the dirty work over to the Iraqis does not make that statement any more innocent.

1) You are correct, and when people post misleading crap from DailyKos on here, they get called on it.

2) He didn't follow up a random terror comment with some sort of a correcting statement about the need to hand over the dirty work to the Iraqis - the entire statement was about handing things over to the Iraqis, from beginning to end. If it was a calculated effort to make Bush's war look bad, it was an awfully awkward and ineffectual one. Even Kerry is smoother than that.

This really is a tempest in a teapot.

[Predicto]

That's right! We should be setting apointments and calling on them at decent hours when looking for the bad guys!

What a freakin MORON. :doh:


LOL. Do we have to start all over at the beginning again?

[lovellj]

That's right! We should be setting apointments and calling on them at decent hours when looking for the bad guys!

What a freakin MORON. :doh:


While I don't necessarily completely agree with the idea that we shouldn't have any right to barge down doors when we feel we can make significant progress under solid intel, I thought we were trying to create a western style democracy in Iraq where universal human rights are respected. If we can just bust into any house whenever we want regardless of the moral effect on the general populace, we aren't living up to that goal. Yes I agree Iraq is in a period of transition, but the right to privacy has to begin at some point. I guess it kinda goes back to the debate on torture...do the ends justify the means, or is it going overboard to assume that we should reserve that right in all cases?

[Ancalagon the Black]

LOL. Do we have to start all over at the beginning again?

Mad Mike often makes solid, insightful posts. However, there's a simple formula you can apply to his writing.

Let x represent the quality of Mike's best post. Let n equal the number of times he uses the word "moron" in a given post. You can then determine the quality of any of Mike's posts using this simple formula:

x/((n+1)^2)

[Predicto]

Mad Mike often makes solid, insightful posts. However, there's a simple formula you can apply to his writing.

Let x represent the quality of Mike's best post. Let n equal the number of times he uses the word "moron" in a given post. You can then determine the quality of any of Mike's posts using this simple formula:

x/(n^2)


Dammit, I already demonstrated in the pi thread that I don't understand higher math....

[chomerics]

AtB, it's not squared, it's to the fourth power :doh: :laugh:

[SkinsHokieFan]

Look guys its simple, the nuance and wording is key

People went NUTS when Bush used the word "crusade" even though it wasn't in a Christian context

Using the word "terrorize" is going to be replayed over and over just like crusade was replayed over and over

John Kerry should know better because he is the master of "nuance"

[Ancalagon the Black]

Dammit, I already demonstrated in the pi thread that I don't understand higher math....

Obviously I don't either, as my unedited post implied that a post in which Mad Mike didn't use "moron" would have been undefined. Which, come to think of it, isn't that far off from the truth. :)

[chomerics]

John Kerry should know better because he is the master of "nuance"

Kerry's my boy, but even I will say Kerry is no master of nuance :laugh:

[SkinsHokieFan]

Kerry's my boy, but even I will say Kerry is no master of nuance :laugh:


We definitley need a "sarcasm" emoticon

[Destino]

LOL. Do we have to start all over at the beginning again?
This thread continues to stun me. :D

[chomerics]

We definitley need a "sarcasm" emoticon

:laugh: Sorry bout' that, I thought it was strange comeing from you :laugh:

[JimboDaMan]

I can't bring myself to read the entire thread. The entire premise was disproven almost immediately, beyond any rational argument. Yet MANY posters can't actually bring themselves to the altar of honesty. They either don't, won't, or can't read. It explains quite a bit.

[Thiebear]

What Kerry was saying is simple: Going into an Iraqi house at night surprises them as they see Americans and not the Iraqi's of old that they are used too?

To say the Americans are terrorizing kids/children by breaking some custom???? is irresponsible and should demand an explanation as he is the current leader of the democratic party/talking points. AND, his statements of the past.

Don't defend your party members just because, ask for more... (including me :silly: ).

[JimboDaMan]

Lordy, you conservatives are a delicate bunch. Run along now little ones, the bad Kerry won't hurt you any more.

[Island Boy]

Don't defend your party members just because, ask for more...


Exactly!!!! :applause: :applause:

[JimboDaMan]

What Kerry was saying is simple: Going into an Iraqi house at night surprises them as they see Americans and not the Iraqi's of old that they are used too?He didn't say breaking down the door at midnight "surprises" them, he said "terrorizes" them. Hence the bruised conservative feelings and this thread, right? And Kerry made no reference to the Iraqis of old, he said we'd be better off if the current Iraqis handled this job. But you already knew that.

To say the Americans are terrorizing kids/children by breaking some custom???? is irresponsible and should demand an explanation as he is the current leader of the democratic party/talking points. AND, his statements of the past.Actually, he said breaking into their homes in the middle of the night is what terrorizes them. Additionally he says violating their customs and traditions is something else we'd be far better off if were done by Iraqis. But you already knew that.

Don't defend your party members just because, ask for more... (including me :silly: ).So then, I expect you'll be asking why we've been bragging about how many Iraqis we've trained yet we don't have them take care of these tasks guaranteed to breed resentment of Americans? Even if the average Iraqi citizen doesn't care about the nighttime raids, what are all these trainees doing that they can't start shouldering some of this responsibilty?

[Thiebear]

He didn't say breaking down the door at midnight "surprises" them, he said "terrorizes" them. Hence the bruised conservative feelings and this thread, right? And Kerry made no reference to the Iraqis of old, he said we'd be better off if the current Iraqis handled this job. But you already knew that.


Wait a second:

Ahh, Newsmax. Always so subtle. Always providing the necessary context.

Here is the actual transcript:

_________________

KERRY: But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. ,And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you're not saying we should stop fighting these insurgents?

Sen. KERRY: Absolutely not. In fact, in my plan, I have said very specifically that we need to keep Special Forces capacity. We need to have the ability to go after hard intelligence. We need to chase down Zarqawi. But we do not need 160,000 troops running around the country as a whole, exposing themselves as they are, feeding the notion of occupation. Let me just emphasize this.
_______________

Anyone who can read would understand that he is not accusing US troops of terror. He is saying that Iraqis rather than US troops should be doing house to house searches, that our day to day presence in people's homes fuels resentment. Agree or disagree if you like, but don't lie about what he was talking about.

Of course, no one at Newsmax can read. :laugh:




Actually, he said breaking into their homes in the middle of the night is what terrorizes them. Additionally he says violating their customs and traditions is something else we'd be far better off if were done by Iraqis. But you already knew that.


So if referring to history and traditions and I refer back to the Saddam break in days is acceptable RIGHT? Or am I not allowed to have my own opinion of a stuttering and vague reference by Senator Kerry?



So then, I expect you'll be asking why we've been bragging about how many Iraqis we've trained yet we don't have them take care of these tasks guaranteed to breed resentment of Americans? Even if the average Iraqi citizen doesn't care about the nighttime raids, what are all these trainees doing that they can't start shouldering some of this responsibility?

If you look back at some of MY posts I'm the first one to talk about Iraqi troop strengths, which battalions are ready and which are not. Border Security etc... The 1st air force brigade. The different contractors that are using the residents in the town to increase security and the ability to phase out troops this month through the rest of next year and still be able to protect the contractors.. to include Murtha's statement that says more of a special forces size groups mingled in large groups of Iraqi battalions..

See the link below and the posts I've started participated in to see that I don't just post my opinion I try and post it in relation to whats actually going on over there...

O.K. now thats all cleared up, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[JimboDaMan]

Hey, that's wonderful. So this explains why you think John Kerry owes you an explanation. There's a perfectly rational interperatation of a not-very-vague statement. Or there's a way to read his statement so it makes no sense. You choose option B, then squawk that the man owes the country and explanation. :doh: Sheesh. Like I said, no wonder. :rolleyes:

[Prosperity]

WOW

here is my little attempt to bring sanity to this thread:

1. women and children are scared when soldier come to their homes in the middle of the night asking strange questions
2. using the word terrorize is acceptable we are not going to throw out words because politics has given different meanings to them but we (or atleast some of us) are too lazy to understand context
3. Using the word "terrorize" though correct is not politically intelligent, he should have known better. Which proves my point about Kerry's lack of political skill.

More:
#1 is neccessary due to the war (Kerry never disputed that)
#1 could be improved if the Iraqi military can do it themselves because they understand the Iraqis better than we do.

[Thiebear]

Hey, that's wonderful. So this explains why you think John Kerry owes you an explanation. There's a perfectly rational interpretation of a not-very-vague statement. Or there's a way to read his statement so it makes no sense. You choose option B, then squawk that the man owes the country and explanation. :doh: Sheesh. Like I said, no wonder. :rolleyes:

Again: I think Kerry owes the Country an explanation of his vague stuttering reference to terrorizing the kids/children/women based on his status in the DNC and his past statements.
Just because I put forth my opinion of what he meant doesn't make it the right one. (I base it on past statements as that is all I have to go on).

You base it [insert your basis here], on something else.

Hence the explanation needed part. And without the doh/sheesh/rolleyes if he can do it.

[Art Monk Fan]

:laugh:

Man, I was just laughing at the :chestram: in this thread.

The article was a complete joke, and you wiped the place clean. . . Leave it to the lemmings to tell everyone else their sky is red though ;)
Chom,

You have argued with me at length that the "Mission Accomplished" sign behind the President sent a clear message that the war was totally over. You make this argument regardless of the fact that the speech he gave in front of the sign stated in plain English that only the major military operations had ended, that the fight was just beginning and that we still has a long hard road ahead of us. You have argued extensively that the content of Bush's speech has absolutely no effect in providing context for that sign.

Yet here, you argue that Senator Kerry's use of the loaded word "terrorize" is obviously mitigated by the context of the remainder of the interview. :doh:

Once again you prove yourself to be intellectually inconsistent and dishonest.

[Art Monk Fan]

On another note, am I the only one who sees the irony in Kerry's "plan"?

During the election debates, Kerry chastised the President for using limited numbers of Special Forces directing indigenous troops in Afghanistan during the hunt for terrorists. Yet, his "plan" for Iraq is to use small numbers of Special Forces together with indigenous Iraqi units to hunt down terrorists.

WTF?

[nelms]

On another note, am I the only one who sees the irony in Kerry's "plan"?

During the election debates, Kerry chastised the President for using limited numbers of Special Forces directing indigenous troops in Afghanistan during the hunt for terrorists. Yet, his "plan" for Iraq is to use small numbers of Special Forces together with indigenous Iraqi units to hunt down terrorists.

WTF?
Kerry spent a few months in Vietnam (received a few scratches) and for that he thinks he is a military expert. I don't know who is dumber, Kerry or Howard Dean.

[chomerics]

Chom,

You have argued with me at length that the "Mission Accomplished" sign behind the President sent a clear message that the war was totally over. You make this argument regardless of the fact that the speech he gave in front of the sign stated in plain English that only the major military operations had ended, that the fight was just beginning and that we still has a long hard road ahead of us. You have argued extensively that the content of Bush's speech has absolutely no effect in providing context for that sign.

Yet here, you argue that Senator Kerry's use of the loaded word "terrorize" is obviously mitigated by the context of the remainder of the interview. :doh:

Once again you prove yourself to be intellectually inconsistent and dishonest.

Did you listen to the interview, and read the quote from Newsmax? The thread was Exactly what Predicto said it was. If you want to go and completely ignore what was said, that is fine, but Predicto was 100% right, and this complete blind chest thumping is absolutely hillarious.

The context of the sign was EXACTLY what his message was, Mission Accomplished. Again, just because you completely refuse to accept it does not mean you are right, it means you are blinded by your own ideology. You can not accept the entire meaning of the marketing blitz that that press conference was, and what a freakin joke it was in hindsight. . . And to relate the two?

Ummmm, I didn't see a picture of American troops terrorizing Iraqis in the backround, so again, how do you equate the two? If Kerry is quilty of anything it is an improper choice of words, but looking at the ludicrous reactions it illicited, I actually think it was a proper choice of words. It further went to isolate the Bush supporters as completely out of the mainstream.

[nelms]

it means you are blinded by your own ideology.
Pot ... kettle ... black. You are a joke.

[Destino]

Chom,

You have argued with me at length that the "Mission Accomplished" sign behind the President sent a clear message that the war was totally over. You make this argument regardless of the fact that the speech he gave in front of the sign stated in plain English that only the major military operations had ended, that the fight was just beginning and that we still has a long hard road ahead of us. You have argued extensively that the content of Bush's speech has absolutely no effect in providing context for that sign.

Yet here, you argue that Senator Kerry's use of the loaded word "terrorize" is obviously mitigated by the context of the remainder of the interview. :doh:

Once again you prove yourself to be intellectually inconsistent and dishonest.If you want to accuse someone of being intellectually dishonest be sure to note the difference between a single word in an interview and a banner and planned celebration that included the President landing on a carrier in a flight suit.

In fact I find it funny we are even talking about intellectual honesty in a thread started by a misleading article in Newsmax, a consistently dishonest source of information.

[Burgold]

The worst thing about this thread is that it is 6 pages long about word phrasing, while there are substantive issues that are ignored because some find it more comforting to be irrate and say "see, I told you so" and call each other liars. This is a red herring meant to distract from things that matter, things that are being done and aren't being done. This piece is a trojan horse to call people away from all the issues of domestic security and the increasing difficulties encountered over in Iraq.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Seriously next time Bush says something similar to "crusade" and you lefties jump all over him I am going to bring this thread up

I understand the context of it, just like I understood the context of "crusade" when Bush spoke, but its the nuance people, NUANCE! ;)

[chomerics]

Pot ... kettle ... black. You are a joke.

Spoken by the man with a Goldwater quote, who thinks police shouldn't be able to search people :doh:

[Destino]

Spoken by the man with a Goldwater quote, who thinks police shouldn't be able to search people :doh:He's also the guy that wanted to invade Walmart. :)

[Art Monk Fan]

Did you listen to the interview, and read the quote from Newsmax? The thread was Exactly what Predicto said it was. If you want to go and completely ignore what was said, that is fine, but Predicto was 100% right, and this complete blind chest thumping is absolutely hillarious.

The context of the sign was EXACTLY what his message was, Mission Accomplished. Again, just because you completely refuse to accept it does not mean you are right, it means you are blinded by your own ideology. You can not accept the entire meaning of the marketing blitz that that press conference was, and what a freakin joke it was in hindsight. . . And to relate the two?

Ummmm, I didn't see a picture of American troops terrorizing Iraqis in the backround, so again, how do you equate the two? If Kerry is quilty of anything it is an improper choice of words, but looking at the ludicrous reactions it illicited, I actually think it was a proper choice of words. It further went to isolate the Bush supporters as completely out of the mainstream.
I think I'm catching on here, Chom. The sign behind Bush can't be contextualized by the speech he gives in front of it, though his words specifically addressed the meaning intended by the same. Likewise, the actual words spoken by Kerry cannot be used in interpreting what he means in an interview.

In the world according to Chom, it's not the words that come out of their mouths that matter, it's the meaning Chom decides they were really implying. Why does this not surprise me from folks who redfine the meaning of "is" to suit their purposes? :doh:

Th truth here is that Kerry used a very loaded word, terror, in a time when terror is the primary concern of every politcally involved American. If you believe Bush "used" the visual behind him to imply a meaning beyond what he actually said in his speech, then you have to believe that Kerry understood the weight the word terror would carry in his statement, even if he technically didn't call U.S. troops terrorists. You argue for a nuanced understanding of one and not the other, which is where I see dishonesty and inconsistancy.

Either Kerry carefully implied that U.S. forces were terrorists (appeasing the left) while carefully not stating this directly (leaving himself cover), or he's a clumsy ass who put his foot in his mouth. If the latter, do we start up the Kerryisms web site now?

[chomerics]

I think I'm catching on here, Chom. The sign behind Bush can't be contextualized by the speech he gives in front of it, though his words specifically addressed the meaning intended by the same. Likewise, the actual words spoken by Kerry cannot be used in interpreting what he means in an interview.

No, the entire article, which is what prompted this discussion was a complete joke. It took what he said entirely out of context, and made it sound as if he was equating our soldiers to terrorists. It was false, and wrong, but you fell for the gab hook line and sinker.



In the world according to Chom, it's not the words that come out of their mouths that matter, it's the meaning Chom decides they were really implying. Why does this not surprise me from folks who redfine the meaning of "is" to suit their purposes?

Yet again, it is not how I "perceive" the situation, it is examining everything about the interview. Similar as to when there is a sign above Bush's head that syas Mission Accomplished, and he starts a speech by saying that "Major combat operations in Iraq are over", people will perceive it as the mission WAS accomplished. . . taken IN context with his speech.



Th truth here is that Kerry used a very loaded word, terror, in a time when terror is the primary concern of every politcally involved American. If you believe Bush "used" the visual behind him to imply a meaning beyond what he actually said in his speech, then you have to believe that Kerry understood the weight the word terror would carry in his statement, even if he technically didn't call U.S. troops terrorists. You argue for a nuanced understanding of one and not the other, which is where I see dishonesty and inconsistancy.

You see dishonesty because you are TRYING to see it. You are looking for it, instead of looking for truth. The reality of the situation is that you will never agree with the truth, because you believe only what you WANT to believe. I try to take a much more unbiased approach to the situation, and examine it from BOTH sides. . . something I have yet to see you do.


Either Kerry carefully implied that U.S. forces were terrorists (appeasing the left) while carefully not stating this directly (leaving himself cover), or he's a clumsy ass who put his foot in his mouth. If the latter, do we start up the Kerryisms web site now?

You are correct with the latter judgement as both ShF and I have aleady discussed with the word nuance. He has never been known for exquisit language, but he is a powerful speaker. I am damn proud to have him as my senator, and I would vote for him as long as he runs for office. . . he echo's my thoughts almost to a T, and his platform is really close to mine ideologically speaking.

[Art Monk Fan]

You are correct with the latter judgement as both ShF and I have aleady discussed with the word nuance. He has never been known for exquisit language, but he is a powerful speaker.
I do have to admit that his Yale grades put him on even par with the President -- I guess they're both clumsy orators? If so, it was pretty ****ty of Kerry to pick on Bush for it during the campaign. I'm not saying it wasn't fair game, just that it was a crappy thing to do if he suffers from a similar malady.

Regardless, I still think he used the word on purpose and that it was calculated.

[nelms]

Spoken by the man with a Goldwater quote, who thinks police shouldn't be able to search people :doh:
Nope, never said that. Pay attention next time will ya'. I said what the Miami police wanted to do was so random that it was not going to be an effective counter measure against terrorism.

Btw, Goldwater is considered by many to be the father of Libertarianism. But you wouldn't know that because you have an ignorant and incorrect view of Goldwater. Take comfort in the fact that you aren't the only one.

[Prosperity]

Seriously next time Bush says something similar to "crusade" and you lefties jump all over him I am going to bring this thread up

I understand the context of it, just like I understood the context of "crusade" when Bush spoke, but its the nuance people, NUANCE! ;)

Not exactly, context does matter but so does the word choice itself. Kerry used the correct word when he said terrorize, unfortunately he ignored how it might be perceived. Bush used the incorrect word when he used "crusade" crusade is specifically defined as a Christian holy war. So Kerry has the advantage because his word usage was atleast technically correct, while GWB usage was incorrect.

[nelms]

You are correct with the latter judgement as both ShF and I have aleady discussed with the word nuance. He has never been known for exquisit language, but he is a powerful speaker. I am damn proud to have him as my senator, and I would vote for him as long as he runs for office. . . he echo's my thoughts almost to a T, and his platform is really close to mine ideologically speaking.
And you don't consider yourself to be a left wing liberal? :doh:

[Art Monk Fan]

Not exactly, context does matter but so does the word choice itself. Kerry used the correct word when he said terrorize, unfortunately he ignored how it might be perceived. Bush used the incorrect word when he used "crusade" crusade is specifically defined as a Christian holy war. So Kerry has the advantage because his word usage was atleast technically correct, while GWB usage was incorrect.
Actually, "crusade" as a specific reference to the series of European/Christain attempts to gain control of the Holy Land during the middle ages requires capitalization. The common use of the term refers to any concerted effort and doesn't even neccessarily accrue a martial connotation. I don't think the moniker "Caped Crusader" was ever meant to imply Batman was a right-wing fundamentalist Christian. :laugh:

I see what you're going for, but that dog won't hunt. Go ahead and bash GW for his word usage, just be consistent when Kerry does it -- play on.

[Predicto]

Honestly, all I can glean from this thread is that some people will never, ever, ever, ever concede anything to their opponents in a political discussion, no matter how small the point may be.

[China]

Not exactly, context does matter but so does the word choice itself. Kerry used the correct word when he said terrorize, unfortunately he ignored how it might be perceived. Bush used the incorrect word when he used "crusade" crusade is specifically defined as a Christian holy war. So Kerry has the advantage because his word usage was atleast technically correct, while GWB usage was incorrect.

While I agree with your post a page or two back attempting to bring sanity to this thread, I must nit-pick with your defining crusade. Your stated definition of crusade is correct if it is capitalized (i.e., Crusade) whereas uncapitalized it refers to a more general enterpise undertaken with zeal. From Webster's:


1 capitalized : any of the military expeditions undertaken by Christian powers in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to win the Holy Land from the Muslims
2 : a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm

In speech, I'm not sure how you would differentiate whether it was capitalized or not. :whoknows:

[Art Monk Fan]

Honestly, all I can glean from this thread is that some people will never, ever, ever, ever concede anything to their opponents in a political discussion, no matter how small the point may be.
I'd admit that you have a point, but doing so would invildate it, making us both look very silly. :laugh:

[Art Monk Fan]

While I agree with your post a page or two back attempting to bring sanity to this thread,...Thanks! :D

...I must nit-pick with your defining crusade. Your stated definition of crusade is correct if it is capitalized (i.e., Crusade) whereas uncapitalized it refers to a more general enterpise undertaken with zeal. I said that:
Actually, "crusade" as a specific reference to the series of European/Christain attempts to gain control of the Holy Land during the middle ages requires capitalization.

In speech, I'm not sure how you would differentiate whether it was capitalized or not. :whoknows:Benefit of the doubt?

[wskin44]

While you all argue about the meaning of a word while missing the point entirely for seven pages of rant, let me just throw out an observation here that maybe one of our Moslem friends can confirm:

There is a serious problem with a non-Moslem entering a Moslem household. It is a religious thing. There has been discussion that Iraqi troops should be the ones to enter Moslem households so as to not violate religious sensibilities.

More than likely this is what Kerry is referring to, but as usual he is too much of an idiot to express himself clearly.

[Boss_Hogg]

http://static.flickr.com/2/1931458_077abb3223.jpg
What a disgrace.

good pic. :laugh:

[Thiebear]

Honestly, all I can glean from this thread is that some people will never, ever, ever, ever concede anything to their opponents in a political discussion, no matter how small the point may be.

Exactly. :cheers:

[Prosperity]

While I agree with your post a page or two back attempting to bring sanity to this thread, I must nit-pick with your defining crusade. Your stated definition of crusade is correct if it is capitalized (i.e., Crusade) whereas uncapitalized it refers to a more general enterpise undertaken with zeal. From Webster's:



In speech, I'm not sure how you would differentiate whether it was capitalized or not. :whoknows:

you got me there

And even more nit picky:

AMF how do you explain the Crusades that weren't directed at Palestine but instead against Eastern Europe?

[PleaseBlitz]

Honestly, all I can glean from this thread is that some people will never, ever, ever, ever concede anything to their opponents in a political discussion, no matter how small the point may be.

Again, Pot....Kettle....Black. :)

[Art Monk Fan]

you got me there

And even more nit picky:

AMF how do you explain the Crusades that weren't directed at Palestine but instead against Eastern Europe?
Same phenomenon: same historical period and similar motivations (both religious fervor and greed for land, money, etc.).

The semantic point to be made is that the term "crusade" is not reserved exclusively for Christian religous wars. Coincidentally, jihad is a similar term, which currenlty applies almost exclusively to religious warfare, but historically has had a much broader application.

Relating this all back to the thread topic, Kerry either made a stupid word choice, purposely used a loaded term to curry favor with is base, or had one hell of a Freudian slip. And the same three options apply for Bush's use of the term crusade. But it's intellectually dishonest to claim one is obviously malicious and the other obviously innocent, when both are equally ambiguous.

[nelms]

Honestly, all I can glean from this thread is that some people will never, ever, ever, ever concede anything to their opponents in a political discussion, no matter how small the point may be.
"The ironing is delicious" - Bart Simpson

[Mad Mike]

I see we can fit enough clowns in this thread to make a dozen personal attacks on me without a single intelligent comment about what I said. Enjoy your circle jerk boys, I understand how stupidity loves company. And who knows, if enough of you get together you may get your collective IQ somewhere above the level of a child.

[Ancalagon the Black]

I see we can fit enough clowns in this thread to make a dozen personal attacks on me without a single intelligent comment about what I said. Enjoy your circle jerk boys, I understand how stupidity loves company. And who knows, if enough of you get together you may get your collective IQ somewhere above the level of a child.

Jeez, Mike, lighten up and start reading what people are writing. I started out by saying that your posts are often good. My main point was that your posts deteriorate greatly in quality when you start throwing out names. You did that in your first post in this thread, when you obviously posted a knee-jerk reaction without reading the thread (the "intelligent comments" about what you said were posted before you made your throwaway post).

You're continuing to call names without posting anything of substance now.

[Predicto]

I see we can fit enough clowns in this thread to make a dozen personal attacks on me without a single intelligent comment about what I said. Enjoy your circle jerk boys, I understand how stupidity loves company. And who knows, if enough of you get together you may get your collective IQ somewhere above the level of a child.

Dude, you posted without reading the thread. That's all.

[wskin44]

Dude, you posted without reading the thread. That's all.

Mike may not have read the whole thread but I did. My conclusion is that John Kerry is a mealy mouthed idiot who still thinks that he is running for President. He refers to "my plan" as if his platform for Iraq is something anyone cares about. He may be an intelligent man but his mouth and his brain rarely communicate. When he says stupid things like he did the other day it spawns hundreds of other stupid conversations which take away from the real issues that this country is facing. My advice is to just ignore him.

[Predicto]

Mike may not have read the whole thread but I did. My conclusion is that John Kerry is a mealy mouthed idiot who still thinks that he is running for President. He refers to "my plan" as if his platform for Iraq is something anyone cares about. He may be an intelligent man but his mouth and his brain rarely communicate. When he says stupid things like he did the other day it spawns hundreds of other stupid conversations which take away from the real issues that this country is facing. My advice is to just ignore him.

Agreed. You are absolutely right.

He still wasn't calling our troops terrorists.

[nelms]

Agreed. You are absolutely right.

He still wasn't calling our troops terrorists.
I'll give you that, but he accused our soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi women and children. If you watch the video of that interview, there is no doubt that his statement was deliberate and with malice. 100% no doubt.

[Burgold]

Man, Kerry calls soldiers terrorists. Frist is guilty of insider trading. Delay is indicted and loses his leadership position. Libby is indicted for outing CIA agents and hurting US security and resigns. What's his name is indicted for taking bribes and quits. Brown is canned for utterly failing. Kerry sure is the worst of the lot though. Imagine saying that US soldiers breaking into a house at night can be scary.

On top of that, imagine him saying that since we have two hundred thousand Iraqis we've trained some of them should be put to use. Shame on him.

[Air Force Cane]

Don't leave out Defeaticrat Byron Dorgan is under investigation for taking bribes from Indian tribes,

Jim Mcgreevey (Defeaticrat, New Jersey) resigned in disgrace and

Karl Rove is still in the White House planning the next GOP butt kicking exercise...

Oh yeah, Kerry is still a backstabbing lib who will do anything for his own power..

[Burgold]

Be fair Air Force Cane, the last sentence probably applies to every politician on either side of the aisle. Personally, I think a lot of the outrage here is mock. It's a distraction to get people riled up so they don't think about the US getting a failing grade from the 9/11 committee, the increasing violence in Iraq, how little is being done in New Orleans, how SS, and Medicare are still being neglected, and how nearly the entire Republican leadership is under investigation and/or has been indicted...

Honestly, don't you feel that this topic doesn't deserve over 100 posts? Aren't there more deserving, substantive issues? It's as bad as the biggest issue that the Texas repub has in commerse is to fix the BCS.

[wskin44]

I don't know who is worse. Kerry who doesn't seem to know that he isn't the President, or Bush who doesn't seem to know that he is the President. At least Al Gore had the sense to walk away after losing. Bush has walked away after winning by letting Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice & company tell him what to do.