Gop To Launch 'white Flag' Dem Attack

[aREDSKIN]

This should be fun.


GOP TO LAUNCH 'WHITE FLAG' DEM ATTACK

EXCLUSIVE: GOP TO LAUNCH 'WHITE FLAG' DEM ATTACK
Thu Dec 08 2005 18:02:44 ET

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from a top GOP operative that the Republican National Committee will provide state parties with a web video prior to release tomorrow afternoon that shows a white flag waving over images of Democrat leaders making anti-war remarks.

The ad is in response to the controversial comments Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry made earlier in the week.

A Democratic strategist who had the web ad described to her said, “This is way over the top but we have no one to blame but Dean, Kerry and others who continue to pander to the anti-war activists within our party.”

The web video advances the Republican contention that the Democrats only have a “retreat and defeat” message on the war in Iraq.

The video highlights the effect Democrats can have on the morale of U.S. soldiers.

One Republican strategist familiar with the ad said, “The Democrats, especially Howard Dean have a way of trying to turn the tables and say ‘that’s not what I meant’ – its just those ‘evil Republicans’ This video will make them crazy – it reinforces what they really believe with what they actually said – and that is devastating for the Democratic Party.”

Developing...


http://www.drudgereport.com/hdean.JPG


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

[Thiebear]

idiots... better to let them stutter and change the meanings of their words.
Pull out immediately changed to "redeployment" to parts unknown...
We can't win to We have to win...

When asked about Dean.. Just say, "Who, ohh he's on my ignore list...."

[JimboDaMan]

idiots... better to let them stutter and change the meanings of their words.
Pull out immediately changed to "redeployment" to parts unknown...
We can't win to We have to win...

When asked about Dean.. Just say, "Who, ohh he's on my ignore list...."
I agree that they'd be better off taking the high road. I've not favored the war, and I believe there are some questionable motives behind much of the past and current war policy, but at bottom I've always believed the administration is acting in what they feel is the country's best interests. My reaction to this kind of approach is, "They are sending our guys over to die so they can score political points".

[portisizzle]

My reaction to this kind of approach is, "They are sending our guys over to die so they can score political points".

I would get a permanent IP ban from this web site if I said what I am thinking about you right now after that lame ass statement.

[JimboDaMan]

I would get a permanent IP ban from this web site if I said what I am thinking about you right now after that lame ass statement.
Then I guess you should congratulate yourself for your self restraint.

[Chopper Dave]

Another classless move by the Republicans.

That's fine, though. They'll be waving the white flag in 2008 (and hopefully 2006, too) if they keep going like this. More and more people are realizing every day the kind of *******s the Republican leader**** consists of.

[heyholetsgogrant]

Dont worry we can fire back with ad campaign that shows the lies and distortions...oh I dunno show every clip of the Adminstration talking about the WMD, and the "Mushroom Clouds"

-Grant

[Burgold]

Whew, for a second I thought they would put an x for one/fifteenth of a second underneath a democrat. I mean that would really say something. Not that anyone could ever see it... but that would be vicious.

If they do this, we need the liberal media to quickly photoshop the colors the Republicans simply forgot. I mean they have been straying from the values and constitution for so long that they simply misremember and we could add the red or blue to their white flag.

[portisizzle]

Dont worry we can fire back with ad campaign that shows the lies and distortions...oh I dunno show every clip of the Adminstration talking about the WMD, and the "Mushroom Clouds"

-Grant

Not worried. The Democrats have been trying this for a few years now to no avail.

-Chris

[Kilmer17]

Those evil Republicans. How DARE they use actual quotes from Dems.

[portisizzle]

Another classless move by the Republicans.

And calling our military terrorists was not classless.

And saying we can not win the war while we are in the middle of the war was not classless.

You are numb to reality. The Democrats have not been in full "power" since Jimmy Carter, and to a lesser extent, the first two years of the Clinton Presidency. That is full generation ago. Now the Democrats have lost the SCOTUS, both houses of Congress, and are counting on Hillary to win the White House in 08. And to add insult to injury Kerry and Dean have come out with Vietnam style rhetoric that will devastate the Democrats for another decade. And for the short term thoroughly defeating any chance the Dems had in picking up ANY seats in the Senate or HofR let alone gain control of either.

My suggestion to you? If you like Deomcratic style Socialism, you might want to consider a move to Europe in the near future. Because your party is blowed up bumble bee busted. The America you think you want is an America you will never see.

[Destino]

I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. The GOP has nothing but a macho image left.

Abortion? Still legal.
Government Spending? All time high, most of it for pork. No vetos from the President.
Immigration? Border still not secure and WH plan smells of amnesty.
Osama? No sign of him.
Social security? Still a mess.
Health Care? Much talked about during the campaign...the GOP has done zip nada NOTHING about it.

Without the war, they've got nothing to hang their hat on. Their major domesitc policy so far has been extending the less then popular patriot act. This is why Dean has proven to be such a friggin idiot. The only thing the dems have to do to defeate the GOP is oppose the Administration handeling of the war but acknowledge victory is possible and that we will achieve it by standing our ground.

[Prosperity]

And calling our military terrorists was not classless.




Liar

[portisizzle]

Liar

Liar pants on fire..... :doh:

[Prosperity]

He didn't call American troops terrorists, you are a liar

[portisizzle]

He didn't call American troops terrorists, you are a liar

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.


nanny, nanny boo boo stick your head in doo doo.

[Kilmer17]

He didn't call American troops terrorists, you are a liar


And Bush never said Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from Niger.

[Chopper Dave]

And Bush never said Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from Niger.

I don't think that Liberty is arguing that, and it really has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

In other words, typical conservative MO.

[portisizzle]

I don't think that Liberty is arguing that, and it really has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

In other words, typical conservative MO.


What exactly IS Liberty "arguing"? Sounds like a bunch of sissy playground talk to me.

Your a liar. Waaaaaa. I'm telling mommy.....

How about he stand up and say Kerry was classless in his comments.

Otherwise he is a hack and incapable of carrying an objective opinion beyond what Democratic Underground says he must believe.

[Kilmer17]

I don't think that Liberty is arguing that, and it really has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

In other words, typical conservative MO.


Liberty is attempting to say that Kerry never said that our troups were terrorists. He is correct. Kerry said that our troups were terrorizing kids. In comparison, the left (Liberty included) likes to drone on and on and on that Bush said Iraq treid to buy Yellowcake from Niger. He never said that.

[Destino]

What exactly IS Liberty "arguing"? Sounds like a bunch of sissy playground talk to me.

Your a liar. Waaaaaa. I'm telling mommy.....

How about he stand up and say Kerry was classless in his comments.

Otherwise he is a hack and incapable of carrying an objective opinion beyond what Democratic Underground says he must believe.He directly confronted you for lying. That isn't sissy playground talk friend. Your response however has been pretty weak though. You know you are lying, do it anyway, and then you accuse others of lacking objectivity? LAME.

[Prosperity]

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.


nanny, nanny boo boo stick your head in doo doo.
3 entries found for terrorize.
ter·ror·ize Audio pronunciation of "terrorize" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rz)
tr.v. ter·ror·ized, ter·ror·iz·ing, ter·ror·iz·es

1. To fill or overpower with terror; terrify.
2. To coerce by intimidation or fear. See Synonyms at frighten.


I terrorized my brother when I threw water on him to wake him up, oddly enough the office of Homeland security hasn't sent me to Gitmo yet, could it be that no one could consider it terrorism?


3 entries found for terrorism.
ter·ror·ism Audio pronunciation of "terrorism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


(I don't really like that definition but my own definition wouldn't help out your case at all anyway)

So in conclusion, one can terrorize without being a terrorist. Or did you think that John Kerry wants the Iraqis to turn into terrorists?

If you want to continue your losing debate then reopen the other thread about this subject. Otherwise I will leave it here unless there is something new you want to offer.

[portisizzle]

Liberty is attempting to say that Kerry never said that our troups were terrorists. He is correct. Kerry said that our troups were terrorizing kids. In comparison, the left (Liberty included) likes to drone on and on and on that Bush said Iraq treid to buy Yellowcake from Niger. He never said that.


Actually what Kerry said needs no further clarification. It was one sentence and he said exactly.....

"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"


American Soldier = Noun
terrorizing = verb
kids and children = subject

Kerry = classless

[Prosperity]

And Bush never said Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from Niger.

Find a post of mine saying that, I honestly don't think I ever addressed that incident.

[Kilmer17]

Actually what Kerry said needs no further clarification. It was one sentence and he said exactly.....

"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"


American Soldier = Noun
terrorizing = verb
kids and children = subject

Kerry = classless


While you are correct, that's not the same thing as saying that our soldiers are terrorists.

I terrorize my dog if the Redskins are losing. That doesnt make me a terrorist. That also doesnt excuse Kerry for saying our soldiers were terrorizing kids. That's a horrible thing to say. It's just not the same as calling them terrorists.

[portisizzle]

He directly confronted you for lying. That isn't sissy playground talk friend. Your response however has been pretty weak though. You know you are lying, do it anyway, and then you accuse others of lacking objectivity? LAME.


Calling me a liar does little to address the fact that Kerry was classless. He said what he said.

People who support him have to deal with it. Because you might like to live in a world where Kerry didn't say what he said.

Most American who WILL hear this message will vote accordingly.

[Destino]

Actually what Kerry said needs no further clarification. It was one sentence and he said exactly.....

"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"


American Soldier = Noun
terrorizing = verb
kids and children = subject

Kerry = classless
It's not shocking that you need to focus on one sentence. Becuase it's only without context that you can even begin to try to pretend Kerry said what you are claiming.

If you add honesty/integrity into the mix and view the statment correctly as a whole, it's plain to see that what you are claiming is completely untrue. Thus making you, as previously stated, a liar.

[Kilmer17]

Find a post of mine saying that, I honestly don't think I ever addressed that incident.

okay. Not you specifically. But would you agree that that charge is thrown out on this board frequently?

[portisizzle]

While you are correct, that's not the same thing as saying that our soldiers are terrorists.

I terrorize my dog if the Redskins are losing. That doesnt make me a terrorist. That also doesnt excuse Kerry for saying our soldiers were terrorizing kids. That's a horrible thing to say. It's just not the same as calling them terrorists.


Kilmer,

Kerry did not mean what he said. I am not arguing that. Go back to the original thread. All Kerry needs to do is amend his stupid, idiotic, and CLASSLESS statement he made.

[Destino]

okay. Not you specifically. But would you agree that that charge is thrown out on this board frequently?
:laugh: :laugh:

HAHAHA!! OWNED

[portisizzle]

It's not shocking that you need to focus on one sentence. Becuase it's only without context that you can even begin to try to pretend Kerry said what you are claiming.

If you add honesty/integrity into the mix and view the statment correctly as a whole, it's plain to see you are a liar.

It's not shocking that you ignor the one sentence that is creating all the uproar.

Why not enlighten me and tell me he was inferring when he said terrorize kids and children since we can not beleive what he actually says.

[Prosperity]

Calling me a liar does little to address the fact that Kerry was classless. He said what he said.



No you are right it doesn't. It addresses the point of you being a liar. Or did you miss that?

I don't want people to post clear cut lies as propaganda.

[Kilmer17]

:laugh: :laugh:

HAHAHA!! OWNED


How so? My initial post didnt refer to Liberty specifically, and my intent was not to say that HE made that claim, but rather the broad scope of the lefts argument about how Bush lied is based on facts similar to the claims made by sizzle regarding Kerrys comments.

[iheartskins]

Keep it civil or this one's closed.

[Chopper Dave]

okay. Not you specifically. But would you agree that that charge is thrown out on this board frequently?

It doesn't matter. You're using the typical strategy of diversion. It's bull****. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. He doesn't have to agree or disagree. That'd just be perpetuating the believe that the crap you all try to pull is legitimate debate strategy.

[Kilmer17]

It doesn't matter. You're using the typical strategy of diversion. It's bull****. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. He doesn't have to agree or disagree. That'd just be perpetuating the believe that the crap you all try to pull is legitimate debate strategy.


Good for the goose.............
So let's get back on the topic.

The GOP is using Dems ACTUAL quotes to show how weak the Dems are in the war. There is an easy way for the Dems to stop them.


Dont say stupid things like "we cant win in Iraq" Or describe our soldiers actions as terrorizing kids.

An even better idea would be to draft a strategy (whether it's withdrawl, appeasement, more troops, less troops) and stick by it. Stand up and argue your side. It's not a shock that people see the Dems as weak when they have to retract statements every other day.

[Prosperity]

okay. Not you specifically. But would you agree that that charge is thrown out on this board frequently?

I don't know it might, I haven't seen it here in a while, but I have seen it before.

[Chopper Dave]

Good for the goose.............

Colloquialisms won't dig you out of this one. You're pulling stuff out of your ass and you know it.

[portisizzle]

No you are right it doesn't. It addresses the point of you being a liar. Or did you miss that?

I don't want people to post clear cut lies as propaganda.


Liberty,

The only thing I missed was you debating the point that it is Kerry/Dean and not the Republican party who is classless.

You calling me a liar does nothing to change what Kerry said.



"I don't wanna...." :laugh:

[Prosperity]

How so? My initial post didnt refer to Liberty specifically, and my intent was not to say that HE made that claim, but rather the broad scope of the lefts argument about how Bush lied is based on facts similar to the claims made by sizzle regarding Kerrys comments.


is attempting to say that Kerry never said that our troups were terrorists. He is correct. Kerry said that our troups were terrorizing kids. In comparison, the left (Liberty included) likes to drone on and on and on that Bush said Iraq treid to buy Yellowcake from Niger . He never said that.

It wasn't your initial post, but the other one could certainly be interpretted that way (probably the best way and the way most people would interpret it)

[Chopper Dave]

Liberty,

The only thing I missed was you debating the point that it is Kerry/Dean and not the Republican party who is classless.

You calling me a liar does nothing to change what Kerry said.



"I don't wanna...." :laugh:

OK. The Republican party is classless because they're putting together a lying, bitter ad like this. Dean/Kerry aren't because they're telling the truth, and unfortunately it may hurt you to hear such nasty things about your political demigods and the pawns they're using in their grand scheme, but that doesn't make them untrue.

[portisizzle]

Keep it civil or this one's closed.

That is no lie.

[Prosperity]

Liberty,

The only thing I missed was you debating the point that it is Kerry/Dean and not the Republican party who is classless.

You calling me a liar does nothing to change what Kerry said.



"I don't wanna...." :laugh:

His statement was a bad idea, but he did not go nearly as far as to say US soldiers are terrorists.

I don't have a problem with you calling him classless (provided you have a reason), but if you try to use deception to make him worse than he is thenwe have problems.

[Kilmer17]

Colloquialisms won't dig you out of this one. You're pulling stuff out of your ass and you know it.


Not really, but the truth seems to bother you a bunch.

[portisizzle]

. Dean/Kerry aren't because they're telling the truth, .


Liar.

[Chopper Dave]

Not really, but the truth seems to bother you a bunch.

Well then, I see that this discussion will get nowhere. You see, I view the truth as what's actually happening, and you view it as what's spewed to you by the GOP.

[Kilmer17]

OK. The Republican party is classless because they're putting together a lying, bitter ad like this. Dean/Kerry aren't because they're telling the truth, and unfortunately it may hurt you to hear such nasty things about your political demigods and the pawns they're using in their grand scheme, but that doesn't make them untrue.

So let me make sure I understand this.

Kerry and Dean are telling the truth (even though both are flipflopping on their original statements). But the GOP is lying becasue they are using the ACTUAL quotes instead of the desperate spin attempt issued days later?

Is that your argument?

[Chopper Dave]

Liar.

Liar? Care to back that up? Because, you know, generally when you call someone a liar, you have to provide a lie that they have told as evidence. Then again, typical conservative MO.

[Kilmer17]

Well then, I see that this discussion will get nowhere. You see, I view the truth as what's actually happening, and you view it as what's spewed to you by the GOP.


You view the truth based on the spoonfed propoganda of the leftwing media and websites.

The truth is that Dean and Kerry said what they said. And the GOP is using it.

[Chopper Dave]

So let me make sure I understand this.

Kerry and Dean are telling the truth (even though both are flipflopping on their original statements). But the GOP is lying becasue they are using the ACTUAL quotes instead of the desperate spin attempt issued days later?

Is that your argument?

If you want to interpret it that way, which, of course, you do, because it's good for your opinion, then yes.

What you guys can't seem to grasp, first of all, is that people are allowed to and should be allowed to change their minds.

Secondly, the GOP is lying in this ad by portraying the Democrats as just wanting to tuck and run, i.e. waving the white flag. That's a lie. The democrats want some kind of plan to eventually get us out.

[Zguy28]

His statement was a bad idea, but he did not go nearly as far as to say US soldiers are terrorists.

I don't have a problem with you calling him classless (provided you have a reason), but if you try to use deception to make him worse than he is thenwe have problems.

You want to see how classless he is? Check out this: http://www.newsfly.org/kerryoniraq.htm

[portisizzle]

His statement was a bad idea, but he did not go nearly as far as to say US soldiers are terrorists.

I don't have a problem with you calling him classless (provided you have a reason), but if you try to use deception to make him worse than he is thenwe have problems.


All you have to tell me is waht did he mean by terrorizing kids and children. and if he was really against this "terrorism", why did he just a few sentences later say it is the job of the Iraqis to terrorize the kids and children. Here, read again....


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.



"Whether you like it or not..Iraqis should be doing that.


Iraqis should be doing WHAT??


Dude, stop trying to make this comment by Kerry something that is eloquent and well worded. It was not. He could not have meant what he said. And I still propose to you that Al-Jazzera is running this statement throughout the Muslim world.

And Al-Jazerra is not taking the term terrorize to mean "bothering" children. People read this in the middle east and they see what he said. Context or not.

Kerry = Classless

[Chopper Dave]

You view the truth based on the spoonfed propoganda of the leftwing media and websites.

The truth is that Dean and Kerry said what they said. And the GOP is using it.

That's funny, considering I get most of my information on this breeding ground of republican propaganda. I don't watch CNN, and I don't read the NY Times. Again, you're portraying me as misinformed when in reality I took the same information as you and processed it in a different way, one much more logical to me.

But again, typical consevative MO. If someone thinks different then they're lying, brainwashed, and evil.

[Kilmer17]

If you want to interpret it that way, which, of course, you do, because it's good for your opinion, then yes.

What you guys can't seem to grasp, first of all, is that people are allowed to and should be allowed to change their minds.

Secondly, the GOP is lying in this ad by portraying the Democrats as just wanting to tuck and run, i.e. waving the white flag. That's a lie. The democrats want some kind of plan to eventually get us out.

Yes they should be allowed to change their minds. But they should be asked why they did so. Dean/Kerry/Pelosi et al are changing their minds and words daily depending on the direction of the political polls.

Their is a plan (has been from day one) to get out. It has never changed. The only people saying their isnt/hasnt been one are the left, probably because they THEMSELVES have never offered one of their own.

[portisizzle]

Liar? Care to back that up? Because, you know, generally when you call someone a liar, you have to provide a lie that they have told as evidence. Then again, typical conservative MO.


The fact that Dean has backpedaled from his original comment?

The fact that Kerry's comments are being broadcasted worldwide as a commentary of our military being terrorist?

Then you have the audacity to say they were honest? Liar

[zoony]

. You see, I view the truth as what's actually happening, .


Spare us. :rolleyes:

[Zguy28]

That's funny, considering I get most of my information on this breeding ground of republican propaganda. I don't watch CNN, and I don't read the NY Times. Again, you're portraying me as misinformed when in reality I took the same information as you and processed it in a different way, one much more logical to me.

But again, typical consevative MO. If someone thinks different then they're lying, brainwashed, and evil.

Definition of Typical conservative MO: To use Common Sense

[portisizzle]

If someone thinks different then they're lying, brainwashed, and evil.

Pot - Kettle

[Kilmer17]

That's funny, considering I get most of my information on this breeding ground of republican propaganda. I don't watch CNN, and I don't read the NY Times. Again, you're portraying me as misinformed when in reality I took the same information as you and processed it in a different way, one much more logical to me.

But again, typical consevative MO. If someone thinks different then they're lying, brainwashed, and evil.


LOL, your last comment is perfect. I dont think youre lying. I dont think your brainwashed or evil. But the only way you can attempt to win now is to claim I think that way, then disprove it. It's a classic straw man/ad hominem attack. And easily exposed.

[Chopper Dave]

Yes they should be allowed to change their minds. But they should be asked why they did so. Dean/Kerry/Pelosi et al are changing their minds and words daily depending on the direction of the political polls.

Their is a plan (has been from day one) to get out. It has never changed. The only people saying their isnt/hasnt been one are the left, probably because they THEMSELVES have never offered one of their own.

Please. There wasn't even an inkling of a plan until people who are responsible stood up and demanded one. And as far as the rest of what you said, it doesn't matter. We disagree. We could go through all the quotes, articles, etc., but I'm far too tired and honestly, you're hopeless at this point. You're going to believe what you're going to believe.

[Destino]

How so? My initial post didnt refer to Liberty specifically, and my intent was not to say that HE made that claim, but rather the broad scope of the lefts argument about how Bush lied is based on facts similar to the claims made by sizzle regarding Kerrys comments.
You initial post doesn't matter. You wrote

"In comparison, the left (Liberty included) likes to drone on and on and on that Bush said Iraq treid to buy Yellowcake from Niger. He never said that."

Now why is this "ownage"? Because you are using the "he didn't say exactly that" tactic and you ended up accusing someone of something they never said. Then were forced to admit: "okay. Not you specifically."

In a war of hinted intent - you picked the one guy that hadn't done so. haha!

[Chopper Dave]

The fact that Dean has backpedaled from his original comment?

The fact that Kerry's comments are being broadcasted worldwide as a commentary of our military being terrorist?

Then you have the audacity to say they were honest? Liar

People can backpedal. And Al-Jazeera is going to do what they're going to do. That doesn't make them (Kerry and Dean, not Al-Jazeera, to clarify) wrong, and the doesn't make either of them, or myself, a liar.

And honestly, the conservatives trying to pin the "classless liar" label on the liberals is just comical. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[portisizzle]

Please. There wasn't even an inkling of a plan until people who are responsible stood up and demanded one. And as far as the rest of what you said, it doesn't matter. We disagree. We could go through all the quotes, articles, etc., but I'm far too tired and honestly, you're hopeless at this point. You're going to believe what you're going to believe.

No war is planned to perfection. Unless of course you are a Democrat who is looking for the political angle.

Then, and only then, are war plans to be perfectly laid out.

"There wasn't even an inkling of a plan unitl people who are responsible stood up and demanded one." Again, liar.

[Kilmer17]

Please. There wasn't even an inkling of a plan until people who are responsible stood up and demanded one. And as far as the rest of what you said, it doesn't matter. We disagree. We could go through all the quotes, articles, etc., but I'm far too tired and honestly, you're hopeless at this point. You're going to believe what you're going to believe.


Head in the sand much?

From DAY ONE, Bush has stated we will begin leaving when Iraqi forces are up to speed.

It's convenient for people who hate Bush to simply ignore what he says. It's the only way their own lack of ideas and plan can be hidden.

Most on the board realize that their has been a plan, and argue the strengths or weaknesses of it. But say their hasnt been on e at all? Good grief man. Even the wackjobs on the Sunday shows have been arguing about how many Iraqi forces are up to speed for over a year now.

[portisizzle]

And honestly, the conservatives trying to pin the "classless liar" label on the liberals is just comical. .

You pinning classless on Republican for using Democratic statements is just comical.

[Prosperity]

Dude, stop trying to make this comment by Kerry something that is eloquent and well worded. It was not. He could not have meant what he said. And I still propose to you that Al-Jazzera is running this statement throughout the Muslim world.

And Al-Jazerra is not taking the term terrorize to mean "bothering" children. People read this in the middle east and they see what he said. Context or not.

Kerry = Classless

Damnit I said it was poorly worded and it was a mistake. As for everything else, go to the other thread on this topic, all your questions have been answered.

[Chopper Dave]

No war is planned to perfection. Unless of course you are a Democrat who is looking for the political angle.

Then, and only then, are war plans to be perfectly laid out.

"There wasn't even an inkling of a plan unitl people who are responsible stood up and demanded one." Again, liar.

Shut your trap already. You obviously don't know what a liar is. Lemme give you a hint: it's not someone who disagrees with you. Then again, typical conservative MO.

BTW, there wasn't an exit strategy. And that's not "not being planned to perfection." That's stupid as hell.

And again, Democrats playing the political angle? The pot calling the kettle even blacker.

[Kilmer17]

You initial post doesn't matter. You wrote

"In comparison, the left (Liberty included) likes to drone on and on and on that Bush said Iraq treid to buy Yellowcake from Niger. He never said that."

Now why is this "ownage"? Because you are using the "he didn't say exactly that" tactic and you ended up accusing someone of something they never said. Then were forced to admit: "okay. Not you specifically."

In a war of hinted intent - you picked the one guy that hadn't done so. haha!


That was the second part when I was asked why I posted my initial claim responding to Liberty.

If that get's your rocks off, so be it. Doesnt change the intent or prove it wrong.

[Kilmer17]

Damnit I said it was poorly worded and it was a mistake. As for everything else, go to the other thread on this topic, all your questions have been answered.


Seriously sizzle, Liberty is correct. Everyone agrees that it was the wrong thing to say, why the need to argue about who dislikes it the most?

[Chopper Dave]

Head in the sand much?

From DAY ONE, Bush has stated we will begin leaving when Iraqi forces are up to speed.

It's convenient for people who hate Bush to simply ignore what he says. It's the only way their own lack of ideas and plan can be hidden.

Most on the board realize that their has been a plan, and argue the strengths or weaknesses of it. But say their hasnt been on e at all? Good grief man. Even the wackjobs on the Sunday shows have been arguing about how many Iraqi forces are up to speed for over a year now.

That's not a plan dude, all he was saying is that it wasn't going to be the next Saudi Arabia. If you really think... you know what? Never mind. You don't think. You believe what the party tells you to. Forget it. I'm far too tired to deal with this ****.

[Brown 43]

Chopper Dave, why are you such and angry person?

[Chopper Dave]

You pinning classless on Republican for using Democratic statements is just comical.

Trust me, that's a very small part of what make the Repubs classless.

[zoony]

Shut your trap already. You obviously don't know what a liar is. Lemme give you a hint: it's not someone who disagrees with you. Then again, typical conservative MO.

BTW, there wasn't an exit strategy. And that's not "not being planned to perfection." That's stupid as hell.

And again, Democrats playing the political angle? The pot calling the kettle even blacker.


And here we go. This is the part where CD stamps his feet and starts to pout.

Maybe Nelms can come in here and start hurling insults and talk about the coming civil war against the UN so we get the full effect :doh:

........

[Kilmer17]

That's not a plan dude, all he was saying is that it wasn't going to be the next Saudi Arabia. If you really think... you know what? Never mind. You don't think. You believe what the party tells you to. Forget it. I'm far too tired to deal with this ****.



Of course it's a plan. What else is it? A grapefruit?

What plan does your side offer?

[Chopper Dave]

Chopper Dave, why are you such and angry person?

Because people are dumb. :D

[zoony]

Never mind. You don't think. You believe what the party tells you to.


:rotflmao:

that is rich :laugh:

[Chopper Dave]

And here we go. This is the part where CD stamps his feet and starts to pout.

Maybe Nelms can come in here and start hurling insults and talk about the coming civil war against the UN so we get the full effect :doh:

........

Oh please. Like you're any better. You just come in at the end and make sure that anyone who wasn't pissed off before is now.

[portisizzle]

Shut your trap already. You obviously don't know what a liar is. Lemme give you a hint: it's not someone who disagrees with you. Then again, typical conservative MO.

BTW, there wasn't an exit strategy. And that's not "not being planned to perfection." That's stupid as hell.

And again, Democrats playing the political angle? The pot calling the kettle even blacker.


"BTW, there wasn't an exit strategy." Liar


That is three lies you have told on this thread. How about you back up what you lied about instead of getting all pissy.

Lie #1 - There wasn't and exit strategy

Lie #2 - "There wasn't even an inkling of a plan unitl people who are responsible stood up and demanded one."

Lie #3 - Kerry/Dean were honest in their remarks


Have fun, Chops

[portisizzle]

Trust me, that's a very small part of what make the Repubs classless.

But it is a very big part of what makes you comical.

[Chopper Dave]

Of course it's a plan. What else is it? A grapefruit?

What plan does your side offer?

I don't have a side. I'm certainly not a democrat.

And for the record, I don't think this would be such a big goddamned deal if Bush was just forthright about his plans. Then again, that's a major problem I have with the administration in general.

[Zguy28]

And here we go. This is the part where CD stamps his feet and starts to pout.

Maybe Nelms can come in here and start hurling insults and talk about the coming civil war against the UN so we get the full effect :doh:

........

Priceless!!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[nelms]

The fact that Dean has backpedaled from his original comment?

The fact that Kerry's comments are being broadcasted worldwide as a commentary of our military being terrorist?

Then you have the audacity to say they were honest? Liar
I stated this before in another thread, but I think it's worth mentioning again. When I first READ the transcript of the interview, I knew if was a bad choice of words by Kerry, but I couldn't really tell if his statement was truly "intentional". Especially after reading his follow-up comment stating that we needed to hand over the dirty work to the Iraqis.

But, after seeing the interview, it is 100% clear that his "terrorizing Iraqi kids and women" comment was deliberate and with an intent to demonize our soldiers. Watch the video and you'll see what I'm talking about. I believe the Senate should take steps to censure Kerry.

[portisizzle]

And for the record, I don't think this would be such a big goddamned deal if Bush was just forthright about his plans. Then again, that's a major problem I have with the administration in general.

Lie #5 - No administration lays its war plan out on the table for all to see, Chops.


You are not in Political Science are you? Frankly you scare the **** out of me sometimes.

[Chopper Dave]

"BTW, there wasn't an exit strategy." Liar


That is three lies you have told on this thread. How about you back up what you lied about instead of getting all pissy.

Lie #1 - There wasn't and exit strategy

Lie #2 - "There wasn't even an inkling of a plan unitl people who are responsible stood up and demanded one."

Lie #3 - Kerry/Dean were honest in their remarks


Have fun, Chops

Back to you old tricks again, huh? And if you're wondering why I'm getting "all pissy", it's because when someone calls you a liar, they better be able to back it up. You don't just throw that word around.

Truth #1- There wasn't an exit strategy, until pressed incredibly hard for one, only a declaration that we would eventually exit. That's not enough.

Truth #2 - I don't really understand how that differs from #1.

3 - The burden of proof is on you. How weren't they? Did they not mean what they said? And additionally, do you really think your side always means what they say?

[Kilmer17]

I don't have a side. I'm certainly not a democrat.

And for the record, I don't think this would be such a big goddamned deal if Bush was just forthright about his plans. Then again, that's a major problem I have with the administration in general.


tiny sliver of agreement. I too wish he would go in front of the cameras weekly and say" Okay folks, this is what happened this week, and here's what we are looking at next week. 5 minutes. Around 655 in the PM.

The problem Bush has is that he hasnt been vocal enough about his plans. They've been there from the beginning. But he should have been screaming it every time Howard Dean et al said there wasnt a plan.

[Zguy28]

I don't have a side. I'm certainly not a democrat.

And for the record, I don't think this would be such a big goddamned deal if Bush was just forthright about his plans. Then again, that's a major problem I have with the administration in general.

Please. If anything the President tends to give people an straight answer. He almost always sticks to his guns. He doesn't use smoke and mirrors and flip flop like a jumping bean!

[Chopper Dave]

Lie #5 - No administration lays its war plan out on the table for all to see, Chops.


You are not in Political Science are you? Frankly you scare the **** out of me sometimes.

Please, I'd be infinitely better in Washington than you. At least I'd last long without the urge to blow some foreign country up.

And Jesus Christ, how long are you willing to give them before they lay out a timetable for withdrawl? Apparently too long.

[Chopper Dave]

tiny sliver of agreement. I too wish he would go in front of the cameras weekly and say" Okay folks, this is what happened this week, and here's what we are looking at next week. 5 minutes. Around 655 in the PM.

The problem Bush has is that he hasnt been vocal enough about his plans. They've been there from the beginning. But he should have been screaming it every time Howard Dean et al said there wasnt a plan.


Fair enough. But he didn't.

[nelms]

And here we go. This is the part where CD stamps his feet and starts to pout.

Maybe Nelms can come in here and start hurling insults and talk about the coming civil war against the UN so we get the full effect :doh:

........
:laugh: Nah, I'm trying to be civil this morning. I'm in a pretty good mood for a change. :D

[Chopper Dave]

:laugh: Nah, I'm trying to be civil this morning. I'm in a pretty good mood for a change. :D

Might wanna stay out of my way. These guys are pissing me off, I've been up all night, I have finals coming up, and I think I might be getting mono.

Explains alot, don't it. :D

[portisizzle]

Back to you old tricks again, huh? And if you're wondering why I'm getting "all pissy", it's because when someone calls you a liar, they better be able to back it up. You don't just throw that word around.

Truth #1- There wasn't an exit strategy, until pressed incredibly hard for one, only a declaration that we would eventually exit. That's not enough.

Truth #2 - I don't really understand how that differs from #1.

3 - The burden of proof is on you. How weren't they? Did they not mean what they said? And additionally, do you really think your side always means what they say?


I am not going to substantiate your lies. They are apparent. You however, are in a corner and instead of backing up what you SAID you take the cheap way out.

You would believe that we had "not an inkling of a plan", that an "exit strategy was never an exit strategy, and "Kerry/Dean were honest in their remarks".

The truth is self evident. You want me and others to believe something else then you need to put up or shut up.

Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

[zoony]

:laugh: Nah, I'm trying to be civil this morning. I'm in a pretty good mood for a change. :D


Good... that means the Wal Mart greeter can relax ;)

.......

[SkinsHokieFan]

Am I the only one who wants a continuing American prescence in the middle east? :whoknows:

[Chopper Dave]

I am not going to substantiate your lies. They are apparent. You however, are in a corner and instead of backing up what you SAID you take the cheap way out.

You would believe that we had "not an inkling of a plan", that an "exit strategy was never an exit strategy, and "Kerry/Dean were honest in their remarks".

The truth is self evident. You want me and others to believe something else then you need to put up or shut up.

Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you hear about a REAL exit strategy until very recently? Do you have any proof whatsoever that these "lies" are actually lies? No. Or at least you haven't presented it.

Regardless, you all are going to believe what you want to believe, as will I. Time will tell who's right. This stupid bickering won't. It's not worth my time.

[portisizzle]

Please, I'd be infinitely better in Washington than you. At least I'd last long without the urge to blow some foreign country up.

And Jesus Christ, how long are you willing to give them before they lay out a timetable for withdrawl? Apparently too long.


The fact that we are already turning over control to the Iraqi military escapes you? And if we set a timetable would that not embolden the terrorists in holding out until the day we leave?

Chops, what you miss is Diplomacy ONLY works if you have the balls to back up your demands. You would prefer tea and crumpets with Sadaam hoping he plays nice.

[iheartskins]

Am I the only one who wants a continuing American prescence in the middle east? :whoknows:

I'd rather it be international, if such a consortium were possible and had legitimacy. But I'm not against the US presence in the middle east.

[portisizzle]

Regardless, you all are going to believe what you want to believe, as will I. Time will tell who's right. This stupid bickering won't. It's not worth my time.

You are right time will tell.

And I can understand when put to the test of backing up what you say, that it is not worth your time. Because frankly you do not have enough time to back up your lies.

[portisizzle]

Am I the only one who wants a continuing American prescence in the middle east? :whoknows:

No, you are not.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I'd rather it be international, if such a consortium were possible and had legitimacy. But I'm not against the US presence in the middle east.


You see, I am not sure if any international group could be or would be effective

The words "UN peacekeepers" scare the hell out of me

[iheartskins]

You see, I am not sure if any international group could be or would be effective

The words "UN peacekeepers" scare the hell out of me

I totally agree. If it were legitimate and they actually had power, then I'd prefer it to be an internationally based plan such that we could rely on other countries to bear the manpower and expense of such a presence. I, like you, don't think that's possible at this point.

[TODD]

You see, I am not sure if any international group could be or would be effective

The words "UN peacekeepers" scare the hell out of me

Just because it's international doesn't mean it has to be under the guidance of an IGO.

It could, and should, just be a coalition of Western forces.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I totally agree. If it were legitimate and they actually had power, then I'd prefer it to be an internationally based plan such that we could rely on other countries to bear the manpower and expense of such a presence. I, like you, don't think that's possible at this point.


That is a good point, because there is no way politically we can keep 150,000 soldiers in the middle east for much longer, and cost wise and politically wise it would be the smart thing to do to have an international group of soldiers there

This is of course the "in theory" part of the argument, in action we have seen what a failure peacekeepers have been in places like Somalia and Bosnia before we intervened

[Art Monk Fan]

Just because it's international doesn't mean it has to be under the guidance of an IGO.

It could, and should, just be a coalition of Western forces.
NATO comes to mind. Germany has been making up with the U.S. for the last two years and France doesn't get to vote on military matters, so it should be do-able. Now, if we could jsut get Turkey into NATO, then we'd even have a muslim nation in the mix for added legitimacy.

[SkinsOrlando]

That is a good point, because there is no way politically we can keep 150,000 soldiers in the middle east for much longer, and cost wise and politically wise it would be the smart thing to do to have an international group of soldiers there

This is of course the "in theory" part of the argument, in action we have seen what a failure peacekeepers have been in places like Somalia and Bosnia before we intervened


Is it really a theory(which could be true) or a fairy tale?

[Art Monk Fan]

What the hell are you talking about? Did you hear about a REAL exit strategy until very recently? Do you have any proof whatsoever that these "lies" are actually lies? No. Or at least you haven't presented it.
CD, there has been a clear operational plan in place for quite some time. The plan doesn't set dates, it is keyed to specific benchmarks instead.

The details of this plan were kept quiet for the same reason that time table was not used -- both a time table and a published list of goals would give the insurgents a target on which to concentrate. I have friends in Iraq, so I'd just assume we not tip off the terrorists, if you don't mind.

Parts of the operational plan have recently been declassified and were released to coincide with the President's recent speech. Just becuase the Joint Cheifs and the President don't tell me and you the details of their plans, doesn't mean they don't have one.

I think everyone would like more information faster, and I concede the adminstration is slower than I'd like in deciding to release info, and not just in this case. But I can understand their caution given the stakes.

No battle plan ever survives the first shot, it's a fact of war. Experts said we couldn't take Afghanistan using special forces and indiginous militia, but we did. Experts said we couldn't take Iraq without protracted house-to-house fighting in the cities, but we did. This administration has been pretty good at planning military operations, but no one is perfect.

The truth about Iraq is that we took the country faster than the military planners thought and with less fighting. We found ourselves in complete control of the country before we had the support forces in place and it caused many problems. The military reacted and adapted and moved forward.

We had a plan to win the war and a plan to win the peace. Our war plan went better than expected and it complicated our peace plan. We're on the verge of turning the corner on this thing, with elections about to happen. Now is the absolute worst time to "go wobbly."

[Predicto]

Actually what Kerry said needs no further clarification. It was one sentence and he said exactly.....

"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"


American Soldier = Noun
terrorizing = verb
kids and children = subject

Kerry = classless

This is dishonest, and you know it.

[nelms]

This is dishonest, and you know it.
Why? Name one thing in his post that is dishonest?

I believe I asked you in another thread, but I'm not sure if I ever got a response? Have you actually seen the Kerry interview on Face the Nation?

[Predicto]

Why? Name one thing in his post that is dishonest?

I believe I asked you in another thread, but I'm not sure if I ever got a response? Have you actually seen the Kerry interview on Face the Nation?

Nelms - Please read this whole post before you reply. Thanks.

_______________

No I have not seen the tape. I have only read the transcript, which no one claims is not word-for-word accurate. But really, I don't care if Kerry was bright red in the face, blowing smoke out of his ears and waving both arms over his head the whole time - he did not say or imply that our troops were terrorists. He said that the terror inducing job of searching Iraqi homes should be done by Iraqi soldiers, not American soldiers. Context matters. The whole question and the whole answer matters.

Call it the attorney in me. When I read a brief and some guy quotes half a sentence from some case to support his point, I always go back and read the rest of the paragraph, or the whole case. When I see that the guy has taken the language out of context for a point that it does not stand for, it makes me really mad, and it affects the recommendations I make to my judges.

Dammit, I don't like Kerry, I never have, and you do not see me defend him on this board very often. Frankly, I haven't even decided what I think we should be doing in Iraq now - I am not sure whether our troops staying there are making things better or worse in the long run. I'm trying to keep an open mind and hoping it all turns out well. I would love to see the Middle East start undergoing a long needed transformation.

But it really pisses me off when I see red herrings like this one thrown out there by responsible people who should know better. Kerry did not call out troops terrorists. In his usual stuttering, ineffectual manner he made a point which many agree with and many disagree with, but no one seems to want to debate. Ken Mehlman and the GOP are more concerned with having a GOTCHA! on Kerry than with the issues.

Yes, yes, I know Democrats do it too. Yellowcake might be a good example, or the Mission Accomplished thing. But that is not what we are talking about now. We are talking about Kerry, and what he said. And in context, he did not call our troops terrorists, or imply that they are evil, or anything of the sort. I can't believe that anyone here really disagrees. I just can't. I think you guys must be pulling my chain.

I'm so tired of this. I think I need a break from the Tailgate. This stuff is starting to bother me way too much.

[Predicto]

bumping for Nelms.

[nelms]

Nelms - Please read this whole post before you reply. Thanks.

_______________

No I have not seen the tape. I have only read the transcript, which no one claims is not word-for-word accurate. But really, I don't care if Kerry was bright red in the face, blowing smoke out of his ears and waving both arms over his head the whole time - he did not say or imply that our troops were terrorists.He said that the terror inducing job of searching Iraqi homes should be done by Iraqi soldiers, not American soldiers. Context matters. The whole question and the whole answer matters.

Call it the attorney in me. When I read a brief and some guy quotes half a sentence from some case to support his point, I always go back and read the rest of the paragraph, or the whole case. When I see that the guy has taken the language out of context for a point that it does not stand for, it makes me really mad, and it affects the recommendations I make to my judges.

Dammit, I don't like Kerry, I never have, and you do not see me defend him on this board very often. Frankly, I haven't even decided what I think we should be doing in Iraq now - I am not sure whether our troops staying there are making things better or worse in the long run. I'm trying to keep an open mind and hoping it all turns out well. I would love to see the Middle East start undergoing a long needed transformation.

But it really pisses me off when I see red herrings like this one thrown out there by responsible people who should know better. Kerry did not call out troops terrorists. In his usual stuttering, ineffectual manner he made a point which many agree with and many disagree with, but no one seems to want to debate. Ken Mehlman and the GOP are more concerned with having a GOTCHA! on Kerry than with the issues.

Yes, yes, I know Democrats do it too. Yellowcake might be a good example, or the Mission Accomplished thing. But that is not what we are talking about now. We are talking about Kerry, and what he said. And in context, he did not call our troops terrorists, or imply that they are evil, or anything of the sort. I can't believe that anyone here really disagrees. I just can't. I think you guys must be pulling my chain.

I'm so tired of this. I think I need a break from the Tailgate. This stuff is starting to bother me way too much.
I'll agree that it is a stretch to say Kerry called our soldiers "terrorists". I said so in another thread.

But, I bolded a statement by you that is exactly what you are accusing others of doing: "He said that the terror inducing job of searching Iraqi homes should be done by Iraqi soldiers, not American soldiers. Context matters."

He DID NOT say this. You just put your own spin and interpretation on what Kerry actaully said. That is being totally dishonest. His exact words were: "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." The fact that he then says that we should turn the dirty work over to the Iraqis does not discount that first statment. To also minimize the importance of actually seeing the video is wrong. Kerry said it with determination and with malice towards our soldiers. After watching that video, there is no doubt in my mind that he was taking a swipe at our military.

[Predicto]

I'll agree that it is a stretch to say Kerry called our soldiers "terrorists". I said so in another thread.

But, I bolded a statement by you that is exactly what you are accusing others of doing: "He said that the terror inducing job of searching Iraqi homes should be done by Iraqi soldiers, not American soldiers. Context matters."

He DID NOT say this. You just put your own spin and interpretation on what Kerry actaully said. That is being totally dishonest. His exact words were: "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." The fact that he then says that we should turn the dirty work over to the Iraqis does not discount that first statment. To also minimize the importance of actually seeing the video is wrong. Kerry said it with determination and with malice towards our soldiers. After watching that video, there is no doubt in my mind that he was taking a swipe at our military.

Ok I will make an effort to find the clip and watch it before I respond. Reading the words alone, I can not imagine that the point he is making is anything but: Where home invasions must be done we should be smart enough to have it done by Iraqis, not our troops.

[SkinsHokieFan]

This is dishonest, and you know it.


The dishonest part about portisizzle's post is the phrase "kids and children" is not the subject, but rather the direct object of the gerrund :laugh:

(trying to lighten up the mood here fellas)

[Predicto]

He DID NOT say this. You just put your own spin and interpretation on what Kerry actaully said. That is being totally dishonest. His exact words were: "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." The fact that he then says that we should turn the dirty work over to the Iraqis does not discount that first statment.

Perhaps it does not "discount" that first statement if you assume that two separate points are being made. However, maybe the second part clarifies and completes the first part, if you assume that only one statement is being made. Perhaps the disconnect between us lies there. I do not think I was being dishonest or spinning at all.

By any chance do you have a link to the video?

[Predicto]

Nevermind. I just found it on a conservative website.

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/12/05/johnkerrysaidwhat/

Ok, I watched it twice. I cannot agree with you Nelms, not at all. This long winded and boring answer is, from the very beginning, all about "setting benchmarks" for the Iraqis to take over control of their country. His "terrorizing" words about our soldiers cannot be separated from his mention of religion, hisotrical custom, and "Like it or not, Iraqis should be doing this." The emphasis in this answer is that Iraqis should be doing this, there is no reason that our troops should do this.

I'm looking and I just can't see it any other way. I can't. Rush, Hannity, Mehlman and the rest are making a huge issue out of nothing.

I'll go watch it again.

[nelms]

Nevermind. I just found it on a conservative website.

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/12/05/johnkerrysaidwhat/

Ok, I watched it twice. I cannot agree with you Nelms, not at all. This long winded and boring answer is, from the very beginning, all about "setting benchmarks" for the Iraqis to take over control of their country. His "terrorizing" words about our soldiers cannot be separated from his mention of religion, hisotrical custom, and "Like it or not, Iraqis should be doing this." The emphasis in this answer is that Iraqis should be doing this, there is no reason that our troops should do this.

I'm looking and I just can't see it any other way. I can't. Rush, Hannity, Mehlman and the rest are making a huge issue out of nothing.

I'll go watch it again.
PoliticalTeen.net? They start young now. :laugh: Nice find though.

Ok, I'll have to admit that after watching that video a few more times, I can at least see how it can be interpreted as you interpret it. But, I'm still sold on the fact that his intentions were more devious. How could you not after his history of making accusations against our military? At a minimum, he was really, really stupid to use those words.

[Air Force Cane]

Barbara Boxer, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, John France Kerry:
has there ever been a bigger collection of surrender monkeys in the last 150 years?

http://www.juntosociety.com/guest/alverez/MONKEY.jpg

[Joe Sick]

We have been in Germany and Japan since the 1940's and the post war casualties there significantly dwarf Iraq's. There were people still being shot in the 80s and 90's trying to jump the wall.

I never knew they had it so rough.

Geez, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and people were still getting shot in the 90s?

What exactly were they "jumping" in the 90s?

----

As to this thread's topic, it's good to see Republicans going back to what they know best: attacking others and running election campaigns.

We have seen they have no grasp of economic / military matters in running a country, so it's good to see them get one right in their wheelhouse.

I wonder who will be on the Swift Boat 501 this time?

[Predicto]

PoliticalTeen.net? They start young now. :laugh: Nice find though.

Ok, I'll have to admit that after watching that video a few more times, I can at least see how it can be interpreted as you interpret it. But, I'm still sold on the fact that his intentions were more devious. How could you not after his history of making accusations against our military? At a minimum, he was really, really stupid to use those words.


I totally agree with your last sentence. Otherwise we wouldn't be having the sh*tstorm that we are all having with it! :laugh:

If he is being devious, then it is a really really lame kind of devious, because it accomplished nothing except get him in trouble. But you are right, given his history, he would be very careful about his choice of words.

As a personal aside, thank you for looking at it again and keeping your mind open, whaever you conclude. We need more of that around here...

[aREDSKIN]

Ok I will make an effort to find the clip and watch it before I respond. Reading the words alone, I can not imagine that the point he is making is anything but: Where home invasions must be done we should be smart enough to have it done by Iraqis, not our troops.


I think when you do see the actual video you will not conclude this. That is if your not partisian about it. The transcript does not do the quote justice you have to see the video.

[Gichin13]

Boy, thread imploded.

I for one have written often that I think this administration has shown true skill at bungling diplomacy.

I also think the dems are blowing it with their rhetoric lately. There is no coherent message on the other side, and Dean and Pelosi pushing to pull out is a certain way for the Dems to lose all the political momentum they have gained. Is anyone really suprised the Repubs will take advantage and stuff that in their face? I am not.

[Predicto]

I think when you do see the actual video you will not conclude this. That is if your not partisian about it. The transcript does not do the quote justice you have to see the video.


I put a link to the video just above. I watched it several times.

How does the clip start? Kerry dodges talking about Lieberman, and instead gives a long winded answer about passing over responsibility to the Iraqis. Then he says: why are our boys going into people's homes terrorizing people, beaking traditions and religious customs - like it or not Iraqis should be doing that. Then he finishes with what have been doing training a couple hundred thousand Iraqis if they can't do that? Beginning middle end - all about passing responsibility to the Iraqis.

There is no way to divorce his use of the word terrorizing from the fact that the entire answer is about having Iraqis take the responsibility - if you are not partisan about it. :)

[portisizzle]

No I have not seen the tape. I have only read the transcript, which no one claims is not word-for-word accurate. But really, I don't care if Kerry was bright red in the face, blowing smoke out of his ears and waving both arms over his head the whole time - he did not say or imply that our troops were terrorists. He said that the terror inducing job of searching Iraqi homes should be done by Iraqi soldiers, not American soldiers. Context matters. The whole question and the whole answer matters.

Call it the attorney in me. When I read a brief and some guy quotes half a sentence from some case to support his point, I always go back and read the rest of the paragraph, or the whole case. When I see that the guy has taken the language out of context for a point that it does not stand for, it makes me really mad, and it affects the recommendations I make to my judges.

Dammit, I don't like Kerry, I never have, and you do not see me defend him on this board very often. Frankly, I haven't even decided what I think we should be doing in Iraq now - I am not sure whether our troops staying there are making things better or worse in the long run. I'm trying to keep an open mind and hoping it all turns out well. I would love to see the Middle East start undergoing a long needed transformation.

But it really pisses me off when I see red herrings like this one thrown out there by responsible people who should know better. Kerry did not call out troops terrorists. In his usual stuttering, ineffectual manner he made a point which many agree with and many disagree with, but no one seems to want to debate. Ken Mehlman and the GOP are more concerned with having a GOTCHA! on Kerry than with the issues.

Yes, yes, I know Democrats do it too. Yellowcake might be a good example, or the Mission Accomplished thing. But that is not what we are talking about now. We are talking about Kerry, and what he said. And in context, he did not call our troops terrorists, or imply that they are evil, or anything of the sort. I can't believe that anyone here really disagrees. I just can't. I think you guys must be pulling my chain.

I'm so tired of this. I think I need a break from the Tailgate. This stuff is starting to bother me way too much.


Predicto,

I am disappointed in you. Before you take your break why not answer the question that none seem to want to come to grips with.

How do you think Muslims who watch Al-Jazeera are interpreting Kerry's comments?

And does it damage our position in the Middle East?

[portisizzle]

.There is no way to divorce his use of the word terrorizing from the fact that the entire answer is about having Iraqis take the responsibility - if you are not partisan about it. :)


Yes or no.... do Terrorists terrorize?

[Predicto]

Predicto,

I am disappointed in you. Before you take your break why not answer the question that none seem to want to come to grips with.

How do you think Muslims who watch Al-Jazeera are interpreting Kerry's comments?

And does it damage our position in the Middle East?


That is a good question. Is or was Al-Jazeera showing that clip or discussing it at all? I don't know. The only people I have seen giving any notice to it are Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and Ken Mehlman, and they seem to be doing it to embarass the Democrats and fire up their base. But I'm sure that those fellas they love our troops and do not want to damage our position in the Middle East, so they can't be publicizing this thing for any political reason, can they? :)

Honestly, this was not a scripted policy speech by Kerry. It was a stumbling single answer in an interview, which doesn't mean what people are saying it means. I doubt that anyone in the Middle East is affected by it at all. Do you think there is a single youth in Pakistan who suddenly changed his mind about how he feels about the US because of this quote?

Once I wrote a long memo about the California Public Utility Commission. Except I accidently typoed and wrote "Pubic" commission. I got teased, but no one really thought I was discussing genitalia in my memo, because they read the whole thing.

You can always take a five second snippet out of context and propagandize. If they want to, they can find their ammo.

Who made this into ammo?

[Predicto]

Yes or no.... do Terrorists terrorize?

Yes or No.... Have you stopped beating your wife? :laugh:

[Predicto]

Actually, this is better: yes or no... Do haunted houses terrify?

[portisizzle]

Yes or No.... Have you stopped beating your wife? :laugh:

I heard lawyers are trained to never answer yes or no questions. Your response seals my understanding.

[portisizzle]

Actually, this is better: yes or no... Do haunted houses terrify?

Ditto above...

[Predicto]

I heard lawyers are trained to never answer yes or no questions. Your response seals my understanding.

Dude, you set me up with a loaded question and you criticize me for not playing along? C'mon now.

[portisizzle]

Dude, you set me up with a loaded question and you criticize me for not playing along? C'mon now.

Another pillar of lawyerdom....

Never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to.

C'mon now. :D

[lovellj]

Predicto,

I am disappointed in you. Before you take your break why not answer the question that none seem to want to come to grips with.

How do you think Muslims who watch Al-Jazeera are interpreting Kerry's comments?

And does it damage our position in the Middle East?


Most republicans (not trying to make this into a mud-slinging match) said that, in response to Democratic criticism over Bush's use of the word "Crusade" to talk about the war on terror, that those in the middle east generally had either a) made up their mind to dislike and attack Americans previously or b) wouldn't be dumb enough to misinterpret Bush's words. I fail to see how this example is any different. Either you think both sides are grasping at straws to find attack chinks in the other side's armor, or you think that both sides are classless/foolish/intentionally damaging in their results. To choose to criticize one and not the other proves that you really aren't much more than a political hack.

And Iheart...in response to your International force wish...I personally think that a force like the one (ISAF/NATO) in Afghanistan is about the best we can hope for, and, considering the circumstances, they've been quite a success. That's part of the reason I maintain NATO is the most important international organization in the world today.

[portisizzle]

. I fail to see how this example is any different. .

No, a U.S. Senator being quoted by Al Jazeera as admitting our military terrorizes "Iraqi kids and children" is very much different.

And trying to compare a comment by Bush regarding a crusade to this demonstrates either...

1) Your misunderstanding of what effect words have on our enemies (and allies who are counting on us).

2) The fact that you, and not me, are a political hack.

Since I do not know you, I will assume you just do not understand how a radical muslim might be emboldened by such comments by Kerry and Dean recently.

It is as if we are living with Jane Fonda and John Kerry via Vietnam all over again. How many stories do we need to hear from our military about the effects of our "leaders" making disparaging remarks about the fight they are engaged.

Our men and women deserve better than dolts like Kerry.

[lovellj]

Please tell me you're not serious? Terrorists claim that there is a war of religions and you don't see a problem with Bush calling the war a crusade? And you call ME the political hack? You seem to vstly underestimate the effects of the words of our commander in chief. Also, who are Muslims more likely to look at to draw conclusions about the war in Iraq. Bush, the President of the United States, or Kerry, the loser of the last election. Clearly you vastly underestimate how much of an emphasis the terrorists and muslim countries put on the idea of a clash of religions. How would a radical Muslim NOT be influenced by the idea that our COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF referred to the war on terror as a crusade?


No, a U.S. Senator being quoted by Al Jazeera as admitting our military terrorizes "Iraqi kids and children" is very much different.

And trying to compare a comment by Bush regarding a crusade to this demonstrates either...

1) Your misunderstanding of what effect words have on our enemies (and allies who are counting on us).

2) The fact that you, and not me, are a political hack.

Since I do not know you, I will assume you just do not understand how a radical muslim might be emboldened by such comments by Kerry and Dean recently.

It is as if we are living with Jane Fonda and John Kerry via Vietnam all over again. How many stories do we need to hear from our military about the effects of our "leaders" making disparaging remarks about the fight they are engaged.

Our men and women deserve better than dolts like Kerry.

[Winslowalrob]

Man, Bush can call Islam a backwards religion worthy of destruction for all we conservatives care, so long as he prevents mass infanticide! There is a HUGE difference between Al-Jazeera quoting Kerry and Bush; militant middle-easterners do not CARE about the Crusades. They happened so long ago, and its not like they are Muslim or anything. But for Kerry to use a loaded word like terrorize, well of course THAT means something more. There is no way "Crusade" can be misinterpreted, and when people watch him say that on television they will see it is just another left-wing conspiracy and tune in to watch Kerry. We conservatives know more about middle-eastern television patterns than liberals, obviously!

[nelms]

Man, Bush can call Islam a backwards religion worthy of destruction for all we conservatives care, so long as he prevents mass infanticide! There is a HUGE difference between Al-Jazeera quoting Kerry and Bush; militant middle-easterners do not CARE about the Crusades. They happened so long ago, and its not like they are Muslim or anything. But for Kerry to use a loaded word like terrorize, well of course THAT means something more. There is no way "Crusade" can be misinterpreted, and when people watch him say that on television they will see it is just another left-wing conspiracy and tune in to watch Kerry. We conservatives know more about middle-eastern television patterns than liberals, obviously!
What the hell are you talking about? Please stop with the sarcasm. It ain't working bro.

[JimboDaMan]

Another pillar of lawyerdom....

Never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to.

C'mon now. :DPortis, you're getting beaten like a rented mule and the guy's not even trying...its like he's holding out a fist and you keep running into it face first.

Let it go.