Kerry calls U.S. troops terrorists

Originally posted by dbates
If you live in the United States, and especially if you are a Senator, why you say that the United States soldiers are the terrorist?

Exactly! How stupid would he have to be to intend to call US troops terrorists, KNOWING how nearly everyone supports and honors our troops? You may think he's stupid, but come on. Do you think he would purposely turn millions against him? Why?

I believe his point was that the Iraqis should be doing the house searches, not the US soldiers. If the US was occupied, I'd rather have US troops coming in my home at night than the foreign-speaking scary soldiers. I think that was his point. (Of course, his real purpose doesn't seem to matter when people want so badly for him to be calling US troops terrorists)

As regards your opinions on the war and what should be done now, that's been hashed and rehashed a million times.

Originally posted by dbates
We should finish what we started.

Correct. Which means adopting ethical policies and stop having double/tripple standards.

If you live in the United States, and especially if you are a Senator, why you say that the United States soldiers are the terrorist?

Kerry didn't. Why do you think he did?

but he implied that. By say that they were terrorizing he implies that they are terrorist.

No it doesn't. Unless perhaps you engage in issue deflection and misinformation.

dictionary.reference.com...
adjective : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
dictionary.reference.com...
verb 1: coerce by violence or with threats [syn: terrorise] 2: fill with terror; frighten greatly [syn: terrify, terrorise]

A honest real approach would be to finish what whe started.

How can a dishonest government be entrusted to do this?

Democrats can't give that because it's a political disadvantage for them for Bush to succeed.

Agreed. Both "sides" are complicit in the current problem as well as why it's a problem.

I've just been enlightened as to what the issue is and I should have thought of this sooner. John Kerry is running for re-election locally so he's telling them what they want to here. And that is that we need to pull the troops out of Iraq ASAP. Of course when he was running for President he was willing to say what he believe the majority of the U.S. was wanting to hear. Right now he's just focused on what he thinks the good folks in Mass. want to hear.

Text from speech last Thursday.

The United States needs to reduce its forces in Iraq by "at least 100,000" by the end of 2006, sending a message to the Middle East that Americans are not interested in maintaining a permanent military presence in that country.

Text from speech when running for President

Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure.

Funny how he can tell the same group of people something entirely different depending on what he's after. Like I said earlier this strategy is political suicide for the Democratic party. Why is it that the Democrat party is the one that changes their stance on issues based on their election cycle? How nice it must be to be a Republican and boldly proclaim that we plan to finish what we started in Iraq no matter what year it is.

A short but interesting read. (flip...flop)
John Kerry: We’ll Bear Any Burden for up to Two Years


[edit on 9-12-2005 by dbates]

Originally posted by dbates
Text from speech last Thursday.

The United States needs to reduce its forces in Iraq by "at least 100,000" by the end of 2006, sending a message to the Middle East that Americans are not interested in maintaining a permanent military presence in that country.

Text from speech when running for President

Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure.

Funny how he can tell the same group of people something entirely different

I don't see how those two statements are "entirely different". Calling for a 100,000 troop reduction in 13 months isn't an "accelerated" troop withdrawal.

How are they different?

Or are we still playing the rhetoric game of hide the issues?

This is the game played so well by our elected propagandists...

A Democrat stands up and calls for the end of "the terror our armed forces are perpetrating on the Iraqi citizenry...

The Republicans come out and call him a traitor and commie pinko whozamawhatsit...

Now Most of the American public is caught up in this meaningless argument rather than LOOKING at, behind and under the REAL ISSUES that BOTH sides are complicit in!

This country's leadership is waging war based on LIES, spending OUR money like it was growing in the backyard and we have 5 pages on whether Kerry is a traitor or not.

GAME, SET and MATCH to the Skull and Bones power elite!


Springer...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Calling for a 100,000 troop reduction in 13 months isn't an "accelerated" troop withdrawal.

He didn't say that. He said that "accelerated Iraqification" and "American troop withdrawal dates" were bad, yet he turns around and hands out suggested American troop withdrawal dates. We're not hiding the issue. The issue always has been, and still is that we can't give the insurgents time-lines for our withdrawal. Doing so only emboldens them and gives them the idea that they are winning or can just wait it out until we leave to act up.

Our stance should be, when the insurgents are under control or when the Iraqi people themselves can effectively fight the insurgents we will withdraw all troops. ( If we haven't invaded Iran yet ) Telling the insurgents what day we are leaving or that were even thinking of leaving is counterproductive. Like telling the buglers when we will be out of town. You just don't tip your hand on security measures.

Originally posted by dbates
He didn't say that.

According to your two quotes he did.

His withdrawl suggestion is much more conservative than many other liberal grandstanders... and as such, seems to be in-line with his previous statements on not rushing to withdraw troops.

Originally posted by dbates
You just don't tip your hand on security measures.

Is that "republican" for "we have no plan?"

Regardless, nice to see the rank and file still debating Kerry. You know you're losing the national debate when you're still "countering" the guy who lost last year.

You know you're losing the national debate when you're still "countering" the guy who lost last year.

Almost. Actually, you're "losing the national debate" when you take a side-- either of the two, essentially interchangeable sides. Or maybe more accurately, you're doing the work of the powers-that-be-- you're dividing that they might more easily conquer.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

The way I see it, there are really very few honest politicians anymore (I don't even know that it would be appropriate to throw in that "anymore".) While I do support this war and believe that we most definitely need to win it, I know that either side will do anything in their power to "win" this political back and forth. This might even mean going against something that they've previously stated, or even something that they believe in order to take their position to the extreme. As the stakes get higher, both parties will do more and more to win, getting further and further from the center in an effort to "Win the pot" if you will. I know it sound terrible...and it is. I really don't believe that there's any skull and bones or shadow government thing going on, but I think that if both parties would shovel aside the BS, forget about "the game", and really do what's best for our country, we'd be much better off.

My problem with a withdrawl date is that wars aren't that predictable. Remember Clinton's "They'll be home by next Christmas!"? Yeah, bull, tell that to the troops who are still there. For all we know, the terrorists and insergents that are there could simply wait until we've withdrew, then resume their attacks! Things take time, and you can't always predict how long they'll take. I know that this war is extremely important. We need to secure the area with Iraqi troops before we withdraw, otherwise all of the efforts we made to get rid of their dictorial government and get rid of terrorists and insergents in the area will be lost. We also need to rebuild. We can't simply withdraw and leave the country in shambles, or it'll all collapse and this war will turn out to have been a disast.... Hey, doesn't this sound like something that the democrats would want to happen?

Your quote of what Kerry supposed said is prima facie rediculous.
It is laughable that Republicans have nothing to say but made up quotes supposedly made by those who actually read once-in-awhile.
TheRepubs could talk about their achievements...Opps, sorry, I guess thay can't; they don't have any they can be proud of. They have plenty of achievements but none that a sane person would bring up let alone brag about.
So, what else did Kerry supposedly say? Maybe Democrate want to collect the puppies of polite children and make a nice soup of them. No! No!, I have it, maybe Kerry started WW II. Oh! I have it, he spread the Bubonic plague in the 1300's killing the would be grandparents of modern day Republicans causing your favorite President no to be able to complete a sentence in English.
Thanks for warning us about Kerry. What would we do without Republican news releases?
skep

Originally posted by skep
What would we do without Republican news releases?

Continue to read Democrat news publications sensationalizing releases?
Someone might want to consider starting an internet news source entitled: "Pot calling the Kettle black," thats sole purpose and intention is to compare and contrast Republican and Democrat methods of sensationalism and hypocrisy.






seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Someone might want to consider starting an internet news source entitled: "Pot calling the Kettle black," thats sole purpose and intention is to compare and contrast Republican and Democrat methods of sensationalism and hypocrisy.

That's a helluvan idea. It could show the bare bones of various news stories-- who, what, when, where, why and how-- then show the versions of the story as they were run (or not) by various media outlets, and rerun editorials demonstrating the standard ways in which each party harangues the other. Maybe keep a "jingo" tally-- keep track of the number of times various standard buzzwords are used by each party to refer to the other-- that sort of thing.


In this context, I've posted a Mencken quote so many times over the years that I've got it memorized:

"Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule, and both commonly succeed, and are right."

And to get back on topic-- that's exactly what this story demonstrates. Kerry didn't technically call U.S. troops "terrorists." It was close enough to allow the Republicans to claim that that's what he said, or at least meant, but far enough away to allow the Democrats to counter that that's not really what he said, or what he meant.

It's classic divide and conquer, or what my mom used to call, "Let's you and him fight."

It seems to me that Kerry is not trying to call the troops as terrorists or baby killers but he is trying to point out that the troops are put in precarious position where civilians are involved. But I believe he is also trying to put out a picture in front of the audience that we are not winning the war and that American troops are committing atrocities in Kerry's view that would be equivalent to Vietnam as well as describing the horrors of war. But still Kerry needs to watch his words when describing the Vietnam vets as baby killers as they, instead of adding himself included since he was there. Ironic.

Kerry is an outright idiot, he has proven that many times with his senseless babble. I personally take offense to that remark because I myself am prior service that was in Iraq and believe me we are not the terrorist but hey I guess Kerry is a patriot right? Support the troops? What a leader.

Originally posted by swampcricket
I personally take offense to that remark

My I ask why?

It seems that, in its entire context, the remark is saying he'd rather you and our troops not have to raid the homes of Iraqi civilians. It seems like something you'd support... which is why I look forward to some futher feedback.

Thanks.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by swampcricket
I personally take offense to that remark

My I ask why?

It seems that, in its entire context, the remark is saying he'd rather you and our troops not have to raid the homes of Iraqi civilians. It seems like something you'd support... which is why I look forward to some futher feedback.

Thanks.

I know I wasn't the one who said it, but I would take offense to that comment as well. As someone who has, had, and soon will have family and friends over seas, John Kerry implying that our troops are terrorizing people is offensive. It's degrading to the mission that they're trying to accomplish, and offensive to those who support this mission and the morality of our troops.

Originally posted by Herman
John Kerry implying that our troops are terrorizing people is offensive. It's degrading to the mission that they're trying to accomplish, and offensive to those who support this mission and the morality of our troops.

He didn't say that... why do you think he did?

You're being misinformed by a deceptive interpretation of what he said. The nature of the entire statement, in context, is that he doesn't want our troops "terrorizing" Iraqi civilians.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord


He didn't say that... why do you think he did?

You're being misinformed by a deceptive interpretation of what he said. The nature of the entire statement, in context, is that he doesn't want our troops "terrorizing" Iraqi civilians.

I disagree with you.

.. and there is no reason, Bob (Schieffer), 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 -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.

By saying, while obviously speaking against the war, that there is no reason that soldiers should be "terrorizing kids and children", he is implying that our troops do indeed "terrorize" kids and children. (Same thing, right? Bushism? ) I don't think that I'm taking his remarks out of context by explaining what I think he means, I think that the opposition is taking his comments out of context to protect themselves and deny what John Kerry was really implying. I've heard the tape, and it's clear to me, by the tone of his voice and the context it is used in, what he is implying here. Having friends and family who have honorably served (Uncle was the commander of two A-team special forces units, "Green Berets".), this is really offensive to me. I know my uncle and the friends who have served to be extremely honorable and morally sound people. Describing what they've done as "terrorizing kids and children" doesn't sit well with me.

Originally posted by Herman
By saying, while obviously speaking against the war, that there is no reason that soldiers should be "terrorizing kids and children", he is implying that our troops do indeed "terrorize" kids and children.

Correct. And by the nature of their various missions, and the occasional need to search civilian homes, someone in your home, with a big gun, will cause a reaction of terror.

(Same thing, right? Bushism?

)

No, it's not. You're playing the popular conservative-versus-liberal-versus-conservative political game of subtly twisting the words of the other side to deflect attention away from what someone is talking about (the mission of our troops) to the minutiae of what they said (he used the word "terrorize" which sounds like "terrorist").

I don't think that I'm taking his remarks out of context by explaining what I think he means,

Yes you are. It's clear, by the portion you quoted, that he does not want our troops in these missions that will result in a reaction of "terror" from Iraqi civilians.

I think that the opposition is taking his comments out of context

The "opposition"? Who is that? Do you mean... those nasty liberals? There's no election right now... why are "they" the "opposition" instead of the real terrorists we've identified?

You've listened to your training very well. You're continuing to play the game you've been indoctrinated to play.

Having friends and family who have honorably served (Uncle was the commander of two A-team special forces units, "Green Berets".), this is really offensive to me.

Why? To me, he desires honorable missions for our troops.

It's offensive to you because you're playing the game and twisting words/meanings and jumping to your politically-charged knee-jerk conclusions that focus on the "other side" rather than real issues.


And to give fair play where fair play is due...

These idiots are playing the game just as efficiently on the liberal side:
www.worldcantwait.net...

When will you politicos stop pissing and moaning about each other and turn your attention to some real issues?