PDA

View Full Version : John Kerry Calls American Troops Terrorists



BigBadBrian
12-06-2005, 07:35 PM
John Kerry Calls American Troops Terrorists

December 5, 2005

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: John Kerry beginning to undermine the war in a big effort now, in a big way. Let's go the sound bite. This is Face the Nation yesterday. Bob Schieffer says, "Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, he takes a very different view, Senator Kerry. He says basically that we should stay the course, because he says real progress is being made. He says, 'This is a war between 27 million Iraqis who want freedom and 10,000 terrorists.' He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?"

JOHN KERRY: I don't agree with that. 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 -- of -- of -- 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 --

RUSH: (laughing) Iraqis ought to be terrorizing Iraqi women and children! He (interruption). Yes he did. Yes he did just say it. Cue it back up, Mike. Yes, he did. He said, "...and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of customs, the historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis ought to be doing that." Here, listen to it again. If you didn't believe it the first time you heard it, listen to it again.

JOHN KERRY: I don't agree with that. 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, uh-uh-uh, 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. 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.

SCHEIFFER: But you're not saying --


RUSH: There's so much... I'm sorry I even have to play this buffoon for you, but he's assumed the position of official Democrat Party spokesman on this. He's putting himself out there, so we have to deal with it. There's so much wrong with this. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis? What's been going on the last year and a half that he hasn't noticed, number one. Number two: "After all these 2-1/2 years and all the talk of 210,000 people trained, no excuse for not transferring more of that authority"? What are we in the process of doing? All these people are trying to do is get ahead of something that is already happening so they can take credit for it. But this business that US soldiers are terrorizing Iraqi women and children, you now, if you doubted John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, if you doubted anybody, the Swift Boat Vets, if you doubted anybody about him, you shouldn't now. It is clear what he thinks of the US military. His view is common throughout the Democratic Party. The only Senate Democrat who sounds like FDR or Truman right now, is Joe Lieberman. You've got the likes of John Kerry and Dick Durbin now echoed by Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy as the voice of the modern Democratic Party, which despises the US military and feels no compunction whatsoever to characterize them as terrorists. Let's go back to April 22, 1971 -- and this is Kerry, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about his tour in Vietnam.

JOHN KERRY: They told the stories of times that they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in the fashion reminiscent of Jen-giss [sic] Khan, not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with a full awareness of officers at all leveled of command.

RUSH: So he came back and he lied about atrocities that he never saw. He accused men of committing these atrocities. He never saw them. He lumped himself in at some point with having participated in them, but he never saw these things committed. That truth has come out. He has not seen US soldiers terrorize kids and children in the dead of night in Iraq, and yet he can't help it because this is who he is -- and who he is, is a carbon copy of today's modern Democratic Party. This is how they view the American military man and woman; this is how they view their own country. We are the terrorists. We brutalize. We're the barbarians. We are cowards. We are doing things like this under cover of darkness. It is shocking to have to play this stuff for you, but I feel compelled to do it because so many people still want to have their head in the sands about all this. How much longer do we have to pretend these people are patriots? How much longer do we have to do that, folks? We've got Ramsey Clark, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy -- who, of course, said that our running of Abu Ghraib prison was no different than a change of management. In fact, we're doing it just as badly and doing just as rotten things as Saddam did. They don't speak like patriots, folks, and they don't act like patriots. In this comment, John Kerry is anti-American. He's trying to get away with making you think he is pro-American and pro-military because we're in a situation that the president put us all in that's untenable and it's not these people's fault; it's all Bush's fault. But make no mistake that's not how this is heard around the world. This is cheered by our enemies. This is not patriotism. This is not patriot speech. It's not patriot actions. This is pure anti-American, anti-anti-US military and these are the mouthpieces of the Democratic Party today who are assigned the effort of saying these things: constantly slam our own country, pretending that they're slamming Bush. And it's true incidental they hate Bush. There's no question. But they have to know that they're pounding our institutions, and the people who support them know it. International Answer, Code Pink, all these other loon, left-wing peace groups are all part of the same organization. They are invested in our defeat. They are now agitating for our defeat. They are seeking our defeat -- and I, for one, find nothing patriotic about it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: So you've got Durbin comparing interrogators and military personnel in uniform to Pol Pot's thugs, Soviet gulag operators, and Nazi soldiers and so forth -- and, of course, all hell descended on Durbin after that. I'm just wondering if this comment by Kerry will cause a similar crescendo. I mean, when he actually has gone out now and repeated what he said in April of 1971. Those were total lies in 1971. He couldn't substantiate these allegations he was making, and now he comes back and basically accuses young soldiers, American soldiers, of terrorizing Iraqi kids and children and breaking their historical and religious customs, and that there's no reason for this, and that it must stop. This is clearly agitating for defeat. It's a disguised attempt here, folks, at ripping Bush. But this is an all-out assault on their own country. These people are not courageous. It doesn't take any guts for Kerry to go to the Senate floor or to go on Face the Nation in front of a friendly audience and say what he says. They like to think of themselves as courageous, but that term it misused -- usually by them to define their opposition to the war.

What these people are doing is not gutsy. It doesn't take courage or guts to do what they're doing at all. It's the easiest thing in the world. Liberalism is the easiest, most gutless choice anybody can make. Courage is speaking for freedom while faced with tyranny, not speaking for tyranny while living in freedom -- and these people are advocating tyranny by suggesting Saddam shouldn't have been deposed, maybe we shouldn't even proceed with this trial, that Iraqis were better off. I mean, these are the people that claim, folks, to have all these interests in human rights and civil rights and freedom and love and tolerance, and they're willing to consign the Iraqi population back to this thug dictator and all of his evil and all of his horrors -- and at the same time they want to be called courageous for doing so! Well, this is the exact opposite of courage. Courage is when you are tyrannized, when you're living in tyranny, and you dare speak up for your own freedom. These people are living in freedom. They're protected by it, and they are speaking up for tyranny -- and you've gotta add Jimmy Carter to this list.

Add Carter, and Bill Clinton as well. Carter in many ways is difficult to distinguish from Ramsey Clark, because Carter is out there currently constantly embracing dictators, from Castro to that pot-bellied little fool in North Korea, Kim Jong Il or Kim Jung Il, Kim Il Jung, whatever they go by. They're always just out there traveling the world denouncing us. Clinton himself often comes close, but he pulls back. He'll go over to Dubai and rip the soldiers. He will not call them terrorists, but he'll demoralize them and attempt to make illegitimate their effort, then he'll come back and change his mind when he's speaking to an American audience. I guess he thinks this is courage, too, telling an audience what it wants to hear, even trying to triangulate the war. Then in the meantime, you've got Joe Lieberman who is the black sheep of this party because he speaks the truth and defends his country, but he's totally ignored. He's an outcast in his own party. Instead, you've got people like Cindy Sheehan and John Murtha, lauded, praised, because they undermine the war -- and in the process, undermine their country. Then you've got the media, nothing more than the Democrat National Committee house organ, the Democrat National Committee Times, the Democrat National Committee NBC, the DNC-ABC, and it's sickening. It is just sickening -- and they must pay a price.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: Listen to this again. John Kerry, Face the Nation yesterday. Again, nobody watches this show, and that's why you may have missed this.

JOHN KERRY: [T]here 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, uh-uh-uh, 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.

RUSH: Now, folks, is it me, or does this man sound like he has dementia? He just blabs away. If you saw the whole appearance, he just blabs away, says whatever enters his mind, regardless of its possible effect on our troops, regardless of whether it makes any sense. As long as he's being paid attention to, he will pursue any hapless effort again at winning the presidency. But it's totally hapless. Don't forget, this is the guy -- and the reason he does this is because he knows that he's never going to be scrutinized by the press. That pitiful performance of his outside the White House last week where he contradicted himself inside of six sentences about his policies on troop withdrawal, whether it would work or not work? It was one of the most incoherent convoluted things he said since he said, "I voted for it before I voted against it," but he's confident he can get away with this because he knows he's not going to be scrutinized. Remember, this is the guy when CBS a bunch of the press were running around asking him some questions, he gave this long, winding answer that nobody could make sense of, and CBS said, "Senator, you want to do another take on that? We don't have a sound bite in there." Now, rather than air it as rambling incoherence, in vain search of a cogent thought, the media gives him take two, which is what he got -- and in this case, he says this; there's no outrage from Bob Schieffer. There's not even a raised eyebrow from Bob Schieffer. There's a, you know, stroke the chin with the hand and give it considerable thought; "Why, senator, you may be on to something, hmmmmm." It's just absurd. But at the same time all these people think they're being courageous! Kerry, I'm sure, thinks this is a great act of courage -- just like he thought when he thought April 22nd, 1971, was a great act of courage.

END TRANSCRIPT

Link (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120505/content/america_s_anchorman.guest.html)

ELVIS
12-06-2005, 07:37 PM
I heard this today...


What a FUCKING idiot !!


Fuck Kerry...

Fuck the liberals...


:elvis:

Nickdfresh
12-06-2005, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I heard this today...


What a FUCKING idiot !!


Fuck Kerry...

Fuck the liberals...


:elvis:

Maybe you guys can avoid this War like RUSH LIMPDICK did his..."Mission Accomplished!":)

Oh, BTW, where does KERRY say US Troops are terrorists?

Nickdfresh
12-06-2005, 07:44 PM
Claim: Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh was disqualified from the Vietnam-era draft due to a pilonidal cyst.

Status: True.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]

There are similar stories [of avoiding service in Vietnam] about almost every other prominent rightwing Republican of recent vintage. Newt Gingrich, ex-Speaker of the House, went the Cheney route [of obtaining deferments]; Kenneth Starr, Clinton's legal nemesis, had psoriasis; Jack Kemp, Dole's running mate in 1996, was unfit because of a knee injury, though he heroically continued as a National Football League quarterback for another eight years; Pat Buchanan had arthritis in his knees, though he soon became an avid jogger.

The best story concerns Rush Limbaugh, the ferociously bellicose radio personality, who allegedly had either "anal cysts" or an "ingrown hair follicle on his bottom". It is not my custom to mock others' ailments, but anyone who has listened to Limbaugh's programme can imagine the dripping scorn he would bring to the revelation that a prominent Democrat had skipped a war over something like that. Also, in his case, a pain in the arse is peculiarly appropriate.1

Origins: Vitriolic "hawk vs. dove" debates are a standard feature of modern American politics whenever war is in the offing. Generally pitting Republicans against Democrats, the argument (at its lowest level) boils down to hawks criticizing doves as cowards who don't understand the military because they never served in it and are too timid about using military force, while the doves maintain that their detractors are cowardly hypocrites who avoided military service themselves while others fought the wars they advocated. From the latter side comes the term "chickenhawk," defined (by The New Hampshire Gazette, which maintains a Chickenhawk Database) as "a term often applied to public persons who tend to advocate, or are fervent supporters of those who advocate, military solutions to political problems, and who have personally declined to take advantage of a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime."

As men in their 50s — men of America's "Vietnam generation" — are now the most predominant figures in American politics at a national level, service in the Vietnam War is a "litmus test" issue that comes up often in political debate. And since talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is one of the most popular media proponents of the conservative political viewpoint and has been a vociferous critic of a young Bill Clinton's efforts to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, it's not surprising that the question of Limbaugh's own military status should be a common one.

When Rush Limbaugh first came of draft age he held a 2-S (college deferment) Selective Service System classification as a student at Southeast Missouri State University in 1969-70, but after he dropped out of college at the end of his first year he no longer qualified for a student deferment and was subject to being reclassified as 1-A (available immediately for military service) and drafted. Selective Service System records show that Limbaugh was reclassified as 1-Y (qualified for service only in time of [declared] war or national emergency) on 24 November 1970, which effectively ended his draft eligibility and ensured that he would not be called for service.

What was the basis of Limbaugh's 1-Y classification? The Selective Service System records still available indicate that the classification was not assigned on psychological or moral grounds, but because of a physical problem. And since there are no records indicating that Limbaugh was ever examined by a physician at an Armed Forces Entrance Examining Station (i.e., he never underwent a pre-induction physical), the 1-Y classification was almost certainly assigned based on a report Limbaugh had his own doctor prepare and submit to his draft board. (No implication that the report was fabricated is intended; the point is merely to note that Limbaugh's deferment was based upon an examination conducted by a private doctor, not one administered by an Armed Services physician.)

What was the physical problem that disqualified Rush Limbaugh from the draft? Limbaugh biographer Paul D. Colford notes that:

As for Limbaugh himself, the broadcaster stated that he was not drafted during the Vietnam War because he had been classified 4-F after a physical found that he had an "inoperable pilonidal cyst" and "a football knee from high school." He added: "I made no effort to evade it or avoid it."2

(Technically, Limbaugh's classification during his primary year of draft eligibility was 1-Y, not 4-F; he was only reclassified as 4-F after the 1-Y classification was abolished on 10 December 1971.)

Which of the two stated medical reasons was the primary one behind Limbaugh's 1-Y classification is difficult to determine directly since individual medical files held by his draft board have long since been destroyed. Some, such as Limbaugh biographer Paul Colford, imply that Limbaugh's knee injury was minor or non-existent:

Asked about Limbaugh's "football knee from high school," [Ryland] Meyr, the coach during his lone year of play, said he did not remember any injury.2

However, that Limbaugh did indeed have a pilonidal cyst seems indisputable, as he himself, his mother, and his brother all maintain that he did:

Yet, for all his father's patriotism, and deep-rooted fear of Communism, Rusty (Rush) did not enlist to preserve those ideals. The official explanation, David Limbaugh said, is that Rush had a student deferment and, like his father, had a pilonidal cyst on his ass which qualified him for a medical deferment.3

Limbaugh's mother said in 1993 that she did not know if her son had a physical or not, but she added that he did have a pilonidal cyst like his father.2

And a pilonidal cyst was indeed a legitimately disqualifying condition:

According to the Military Entrance Processing Command, a pilonidal cyst was then and is today a so-called "disqualifying condition" for induction. It's a congenital incomplete closure of the neural groove at the base of the spinal cord in which excess tissue and hair may collect and cause discomfort and discharge. The malady can be corrected by surgery, but short of that it is viewed by the military as a needless risk amid unsanitary conditions in the field.2

(Limbaugh critics have maintained that his pilonidal cyst was a "simple-to-treat condition" easily corrected through minor surgery, and that it was not a legitimately debilitating condition that precluded his serving in the armed forces but simply an excuse he seized upon to avoid military service.)

That the disqualifying condition was a pilonidal cyst and not a bad knee seems to be borne out by Limbaugh's own comments on his draft status:

Limbaugh's draft status arose during a 1992 appearance at the 92nd Street YM-YWHA in Manhattan. ABC newsman Jeff Greenfield, acting as moderator . . . posed to Limbaugh a written question from the audience about whether he had ever served in the military.

In response, Limbaugh chose his words slowly and cautiously. He seemed to be saying that he had not known ahead of time that whatever physical condition he had in 1970 would free him from draft consideration.

"I had student deferments in college and, upon taking a physical, was discovered to have a physical — uh, by virtue of what the military says, I didn't even know it existed — a physical deferment and then the lottery system came along, when they chose your lot by birthdate, and mine was high. And I did not want to go — just as Governor Clinton didn't."2

It's highly unlikely that Limbaugh only "discovered" he had a high school football knee injury several years after the fact or was unaware that a bad knee was reason for a physical deferment, so the pilonidal cyst is the far more probable explanation.

(The lottery issue is largely irrelevant since Limbaugh's 1-Y classification precluded his being drafted no matter how high or low his birthdate came up in the lottery. In the event, Limbaugh's birth date was selected 152nd in the 1970 draft lottery, and since the highest lottery number ultimately called for this group was 125, he wouldn't have been drafted in 1971 no matter what his classification.)

When asked about this issue nowadays, Limbaugh dismisses it as "Internet BS," as in this excerpt from a transcript of a December 2002 call to his radio program:

CALLER: And Rush you never mentioned how you dodged the Vietnam draft.

LIMBAUGH: I didn't.

CALLER: Yes, you did. You claimed you had a boil on your butt . . .

LIMBAUGH: No, you see, that’s part of popular mythology that is out there that I have not whined nor complained about, Greg. But that is just a bunch of internet BS and hyperbole. Never happened. Was not the cause, wasn’t the case.

These kinds of responses, provided by Limbaugh on his show and available on the rushlimbaugh.com web site, are unconvincing and dissembling. Why not just give a straightforward answer to the question? After all, "I had a knee injury" is a simple explanation (and hardly an embarrassing one), but dismissing the issue as "Internet BS" and railing against "Internet conspiracy theories" sound too much like the response of someone who is evading the question. Instead, Limbaugh provides non-responsive "answers" when queries are posed by quickly steering the focus away from himself and claiming that "the message is that unless you've been a member of the military, you have no right to support it" (which isn't the message at all — the message is about whether it's hypocritical for those who escaped the draft to criticize others who did) but doesn't address the issue of his own draft status in the least.

There is, of course, a huge difference between draft evasion (or "draft dodging") and draft avoidance: The former involves the use of unethical or illegal means (e.g., bribing a doctor to falsify a medical report, fleeing the country) to escape military service; the latter involves taking advantage of established legal means (e.g., college deferments, conscientious objector status) to avoid or delay military service. The issue discussed here is clearly not one of draft evasion, and the matter of who is justified in criticizing whom for not serving in Vietnam is a gray area to be hashed out in the public arena. The only conclusions drawn here are that Rush Limbaugh was ineligible for the draft due to a physical condition, that he had a pilonidal cyst, and that if there's an explanation for his draft status other than the cyst, he has yet to offer it.

Last updated: 16 December 2002

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2004
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission

Sources Sources:

3. Arkush, Michael. Rush!
New York: Avon Books, 1993. ISBN 0-380-77539-5 (p. 29).

2. Colford, Paul D. The Rush Limbaugh Story.
New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. ISBN 0-312-09906-1 (pp. 14-20).

1. Engel, Matthew. "Chicken Hawks."
The Guardian. 20 August 2002.

Franken, Al. Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot.
New York: Delacorte Press, 1996. ISBN 0-385-31474-4.

BigBadBrian
12-06-2005, 07:48 PM
Way to get off topic, Nick, as usual.

Kerry is a fucking enemy-sympathizer.

Guitar Shark
12-06-2005, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Way to get off topic, Nick, as usual.

Kerry is a fucking enemy-sympathizer.

So, back on topic, where does Kerry call American troops terrorists?

Nickdfresh
12-06-2005, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Way to get off topic, Nick, as usual.

Kerry is a fucking enemy-sympathizer.

And you're a defaming liar, like that fat bastard druggy chickenshit pussy draft dodger with a hairy boil up his ass...

If your going to nail somebody for something, don't change their quote and take it way out of context! THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT YOU BUFFOON!!

He never said any such thing!

Guitar Shark
12-06-2005, 07:51 PM
Deep breaths Nick... :)

Nickdfresh
12-06-2005, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Oh, BTW, where does KERRY say US Troops are terrorists?

Yeah, answer the question BRIAN!

Nickdfresh
12-06-2005, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Deep breaths Nick... :)

I just opened a beer...:guzzle:

I'll be okay.:D

blueturk
12-06-2005, 08:31 PM
The REAL cut-and-paste bandit (that's you BBB) is probably referring to this statement:

JOHN KERRY: I don't agree with that. 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 -- of -- of -- 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...

Then Rush "OC" Limbaugh cuts in. A stupid statement for Kerry to make, but BBB is really clutching at straws here. But then, so are all the other sheep.

FORD
12-06-2005, 08:33 PM
http://crap.jinwicked.com/imgs/comics/20031122.jpg

Warham
12-06-2005, 09:14 PM
Hey, if somebody is terrorizing somebody else, what do you call them? A terrorist perhaps? I know, that's a bit of a stretch for you libs here.

Nickdfresh
12-06-2005, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Hey, if somebody is terrorizing somebody else, what do you call them? A terrorist perhaps? I know, that's a bit of a stretch for you libs here.

You know that's bullshit...

That semantic double-speak and spin...

Now you're interpreting what he said and taking it out of context...

The word terrorist has an entirely differnet meaning nowadays. It was a poor choice of words. But he never said they were terrorists as in the noun function, he used it as a verb...

Nickdfresh
12-06-2005, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Hey, if somebody is terrorizing somebody else, what do you call them? A terrorist perhaps? I know, that's a bit of a stretch for you libs here.

You know that's bullshit...

That semantic double-speak and spin...

Now you're interpreting what he said and taking it out of context...

The word terrorist has an entirely different meaning nowadays. It was a poor choice of words. But he never said they were terrorists as in the noun function, he used it as a verb...And flame him for that.

But are they not 'terrorized?'

You guys actually care to debate his points (of why we're losing this war)?

blueturk
12-06-2005, 10:20 PM
Here's one for the sheep to get behind...

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." —George W. Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

ELVIS
12-06-2005, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The word terrorist has an entirely differnet meaning nowadays.

And what is that ??

It was a poor choice of words. But he never said they were terrorists as in the noun function, he used it as a verb...

Hahahaha...

LMAO!

What an idiot...




:elvis:

ELVIS
12-06-2005, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

But are they not 'terrorized?'



What constitutes being terrorized, Einstein ??

BigBadBrian
12-06-2005, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Hey, if somebody is terrorizing somebody else, what do you call them? A terrorist perhaps? I know, that's a bit of a stretch for you libs here.


Thanks Warham. :)

I knew it would take you or I or another well versed individual to point out the semantics of the article to the libs.

I thought GS was going to get it there for a moment...he must have had a rough day chasing ambulances.

:gulp:

thome
12-06-2005, 11:29 PM
There is something wrong in that mans mind and you can see it ,
new it was their, new it was there in 71, yet you still, Can't see it.

All bad things said in this thread about Kerry are square on the Mark.

Plain and simple, He was the dems best choice in 2000 and my anti-christ.

I and millions of others posted in fear of kerry haveing any ANY chance
at power in this country, He is not rite in the head.

The democratic party is good , however it has Melded into a --socialist
monster-- and needs to be reclaimed for the direction of the tradition
of the democratic party that Made this country the super power
of reality that it is.

Cast off your ties to these freaks of nature and remember the democratic party i remember wasn't against america.

Stop standing up with these things the democratic party tells you
are your leaders they aren't there lieing to you all. Always been My OP.

Nickdfresh
12-07-2005, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
What constitutes being terrorized, Einstein ??

You dudes wetting your panties everytime the terra-alert level goes up...

Nickdfresh
12-07-2005, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Thanks Warham. :)

I knew it would take you or I or another well versed individual to point out the semantics of the article to the libs. [quote]

You're changing his entire meaning and taking what he said out of context...

[quote]I thought GS was going to get it there for a moment...he must have had a rough day chasing ambulances.

:gulp:

Well, I'm still waiting for you to answer the question that has been asked by both SHARK and I. ANSWER IT!

Maybe you had a rough day at college getting through Basket Weaving 101...

How's the Advanced Shoe-Tying 400 course going?

DrMaddVibe
12-07-2005, 06:46 AM
It was answered back in post #11.

JOHN KERRY: I don't agree with that. 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 -- of -- of -- 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...

Warham
12-07-2005, 06:50 AM
We are not changing his meaning.

He said US Troops are terrorizing Iraqi citizens. Period.
In his mind, they are terrorists.

ELVIS
12-07-2005, 07:14 AM
Warpig is right, correct, and right !!

FORD
12-07-2005, 09:27 AM
And if soldiers of an occupying army busted into YOUR home in the middle of the night and scared the fuck out of YOUR kids, what would you call them?

ELVIS
12-07-2005, 09:33 AM
Soldiers!

You fucking asswipe...:rolleyes:

FORD
12-07-2005, 09:42 AM
I have a hard enough time sleeping as it is. If I had to worry about someone breaking into my home in the middle of the night and threatening my family, not only wouldn't I sleep, I'd stay up all night with a fucking AK-47 in my hands and perforate anyone who dared to walk through the door.

And then the BCE would call me an "insurgent" who worked for a non existent figment of Richard Perle's sick fascist imagination.

ELVIS
12-07-2005, 09:45 AM
You wouldn't know what the FUCK to do with an AK-47 in your hands...

I would put your eye out with a fucking sling shot before you could pick up that gun...

FORD
12-07-2005, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
You wouldn't know what the FUCK to do with an AK-47 in your hands...

I would put your eye out with a fucking sling shot before you could pick up that gun...

Sling shot? What's this, some kind of Davey & Goliath fantasy??

So, then there IS a "Jonathan" somewhere? Come to think of it, you never did say that the "hottie nurse" was female ;)

Warham
12-07-2005, 09:58 AM
I sleep fine at night knowing John Kerry didn't win the election last year.

thome
12-07-2005, 10:44 AM
The situation is he is a -nut bag- .

Someone owns him and has owned him since the begining of his
career he is a atom-aton a puppet these aren't Kerrys words.

He speaks in third person as if this is what i think you need to
hear this is not a -Idea- but -Assault on your rational thinking-

Here's how I Know This, every speaker is a representative of their Party.Yes/No?
He is told to -Work In- a statement about American GIs terrorizing iraqi citizens in order to -Undermine Bush- Plain and Simple.

Mr. Kerry is such a -Idiot- he can't put it in the correct context of the
conversation that's the of - of- of part he is realizing that he was
putting this -shock value statement- in at the wrong -TIME- out of
-CONTEXT- of the Conversation .

I admit when i'm wrong some people are afraid to and will cling
to a sinking ship till their death.

Stop defending Kerry you were LIED to and ..........GET OFF IT!

I noticed this -TRAIT- of his wathcing Films of him from 1971..

All speakers are prept w/what to say on what Show they are going on.

Most take it as the -Idea Direction- "I'm going to control the conversation",
Kerry puts the outline out point blank cause he is a DUPE and
cannot control or absorb pressure .

This kind of Man will never Be President Dem Or Repub as long as
I'm Alive if I can help it.............

.Bush was not the lesser of two Evils, He was the ONLY choice.
:cool:

FORD
12-07-2005, 11:18 AM
Go back to your illiteracy act. Your posts made more sense.

Nickdfresh
12-07-2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
It was answered back in post #11.

JOHN KERRY: I don't agree with that. 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 -- of -- of -- 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...

He did? So when did he call US troops "terrorists?"

Any of you Neo Con arm chair warriors have any reading comp...

GIVE ME THE EXACT SENTENCE, NOT SOME BULLSHIT CONVOLUTED PARAGRAPH...

Especially since he got this spew from the biggest draft dodging chickenhawk of 'em all...

Nickdfresh
12-07-2005, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I sleep fine at night knowing John Kerry didn't win the election last year.

And knowing you can rant & schill pro-War/BUSH shit policy statements without actually having to put your ass on the line for them...

thome
12-07-2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Go back to your illiteracy act. Your posts made more sense.

Otay putwee you maki BiG smart make Hulk feel dum

Maek Hulk an grie



:)

Guitar Shark
12-07-2005, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by FORD
I have a hard enough time sleeping as it is. If I had to worry about someone breaking into my home in the middle of the night and threatening my family, not only wouldn't I sleep, I'd stay up all night with a fucking AK-47 in my hands and perforate anyone who dared to walk through the door.


It's very obvious that all Kerry meant is that soldiers breaking into your house in the middle of the night is a traumatizing event. He's not calling the soldiers terrorists no matter what kind of spin Rush wants to put on it to revive his sagging career.

Nickdfresh
12-07-2005, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
It's very obvious that all Kerry meant is that soldiers breaking into your house in the middle of the night is a traumatizing event. He's not calling the soldiers terrorists no matter what kind of spin Rush wants to put on it to revive his sagging career.

Exactly! Why do people have to politicize every statement?

So. If US soldiers "terrorize" terrorists, are US soldiers then being called "terrorists?"

More Orwellian semantic crap-spin....

And oh yeah, God forbid anyone actually suggest that changes need to be made in US tactics since they're working so well....

Warham
12-07-2005, 01:54 PM
Well, then Kerry should apology like Durbin and I don't know how many other Democrats over the last few months, and recant his statement.

Guitar Shark
12-07-2005, 01:58 PM
After Bush apologizes for the misleading comments he made during his push for the war in Iraq. ;)

BigBadBrian
12-07-2005, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by FORD
And if soldiers of an occupying army busted into YOUR home in the middle of the night and scared the fuck out of YOUR kids, what would you call them?

See?

FORD thinks US troops are terrorists also. He has always had a dim view of the military. This is just another example in the long list over the years where he has disparaged our own people.

Fucker. :mad:

Guitar Shark
12-07-2005, 04:04 PM
Predictably, BBB fails to answer the question posed to him.

BigBadBrian
12-07-2005, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Predictably, BBB fails to answer the question posed to him.

Cross-examine me all you want, Counselor, but Kerry has been

CONVICTED!!!!!!!


Read the article again yourself.....you'll see where he calls US troops terrorists.

:gulp:

Guitar Shark
12-07-2005, 04:29 PM
Uh huh.

Warham
12-07-2005, 04:47 PM
I don't know what's so hard for you guys to understand here.

Kerry is saying US troops are terrorizing Iraqi citizens. Can it be any more clear?

I guess we should take your guys' lead. In this case, Al Qaeda suicide bombers are just terrorizing the good citizens of the world, but they are not terrorists. Let's make that clear.

Nickdfresh
12-07-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I don't know what's so hard for you guys to understand here.

Kerry is saying US troops are terrorizing Iraqi citizens. Can it be any more clear?

Oh, so HE DIDN'T CALL THEM "TERRORISTS." Thank you.:)


I guess we should take your guys' lead. In this case, Al Qaeda suicide bombers are just terrorizing the good citizens of the world, but they are not terrorists. Let's make that clear.

He said American's were "soldiers." Did he not? He referred to American Military in Iraq as "soldiers!" He said their 'actions' may cause terror when they raid civilian homes in the middle of the night. He suggested this might not be such a good idea....

He made no mention of "al Qaida," but he has referred to al-Qaidians as "terrorists." But never US "soldiers."

Here's what JOHN KERRY actually has said regarding "terrorism."


Kerry Vows to Rebuild Alliances, Confront Terrorism

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 28, 2004; Page A09

SEATTLE, May 27 -- Sen. John F. Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of undermining generations of U.S. leadership and pledged that as president he would restore the United States' alliances and aggressively confront potential terrorist threats.

Kerry, who said Bush's policies have made the United States less safe, sought to balance a bellicose tone toward al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with overtures toward allies and global institutions such as the United Nations. "As commander in chief, I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing [terrorist] networks," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech here. "We will use every resource of our power to destroy."

Speaking to graduate students and war veterans, including several of his Vietnam War crewmates, Kerry turned the words of Republican Theodore Roosevelt, a Bush hero, into an indictment of what he called Bush's "unilateral" foreign policy. "Time and time again, this administration has violated the fundamental tenet of Roosevelt's approach, as he described it -- 'If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble,' " Kerry said.

Kerry offered no new policy proposals, but provided a more detailed explanation of his worldview and foreign policy priorities. He criticized Bush for failing to kill or capture Osama bin Laden during the battle of Tora Bora in Afghanistan, for taking a "kid glove approach" to hunting down terrorist money and for coddling Saudi Arabia. "To put it simply, we will not do business as usual with Saudi Arabia," Kerry said. "They must take concrete steps to stop their clerics from fueling the fires of Islamic extremism."

Kerry dedicated only a few minutes specifically to Iraq, where he said the United States "is in deep trouble." He said the gravest threat to U.S. security comes from "lawless states and terrorists" armed with weapons of mass destruction. He said his strategy would focus on preventing the acquisition of such weapons.

Thursday's speech marked the beginning of an 11-day period during which Kerry will outline his national security policies and highlight his military service in Vietnam and foreign policy experience in the Senate. He will mark the opening of the new National World War II Memorial in Washington, Memorial Day and the 60th anniversary of D-Day with speeches and events about terrorism, modernizing the military and strengthening national defense. In his speech here, Kerry mentioned four "imperatives" of a new national security policy: rebuilding alliances; modernizing the armed forces to deal with new dangers; deploying diplomacy, intelligence, economic power and American values to help overcome threats; and freeing the United States from its "dangerous dependence on Mideast oil."

Kerry, a 20-year veteran of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would elevate the role of global organizations such as the United Nations and NATO in carrying out U.S. policy overseas.

"There was a time not so long ago when the might of our alliances was a driving force in the survival and the success of freedom -- in two world wars, in the long years of the Cold War, then from the Gulf War to Bosnia, to Kosovo," he said. "We extended a hand, not a fist."

During the 2000 campaign, Bush promised to build stronger international alliances, but, as president, he has alienated some traditional allies with such moves as rejecting a global warming treaty and pursuing the war in Iraq. Under pressure from critics, Bush recently intensified efforts to provide the United Nations and NATO more prominent and powerful roles in Iraq, a move Kerry has advocated since 2002. This convergence of views on has blurred the distinctions between the two candidates on Iraq.

As Thursday's speech showed, Kerry is positing his long history of respect for, and cooperation with, global institutions and foreign leaders as presenting the sharpest contrast between his worldview and military strategy and Bush's. He frequently uses tough rhetoric as a way to show that Democrats are as committed to national defense as Republicans.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush, many Republicans and some Democrats have said the war on terrorism sometimes requires the United States to act quickly and decisively without waiting for the blessing of the United Nations or other nations. Kerry, in essence, agrees, but he argues that a humbler and more solicitous approach would win greater support for U.S. military operations around the world and lessen the cost in lives and money.

Bush's doctrine of preemptive military action is the perfect example, according to Kerry's foreign policy advisers. Bush has asserted the United States' right to preemptively strike a nation it deems an imminent threat to U.S. security. Kerry would not rule out preemptive strikes, nor have past presidents, but he would de-emphasize this option in stated U.S. policy. Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a top Kerry adviser, said this represents a "profound difference" between the two candidates.

If an attack "appears imminent, as commander in chief, I will do whatever is necessary to safeguard the country," Kerry said. And he warned al Qaeda against trying to influence the presidential election.

Still, it is unclear how Kerry's multilateralism would administer military force. In a briefing before the speech, Kerry's foreign policy advisers said it is uncertain whether the senator from Massachusetts would have waged war with Iraq if he were president.

Kerry voted for the congressional resolution authorizing military action to depose Saddam Hussein, but he cautioned that all diplomatic options should be exhausted before striking Iraq. In 1991, he voted against the war with Iraq. Kerry said he was not opposed to the military operation 13 years ago but wanted to force the use of tougher diplomatic tactics first. He fought in Vietnam but opposed the war afterward. Kerry supported the U.S. military operations in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia, each time pushing for a broad, multilateral approach.

He called the situation in Iraq "grim" and encouraged Bush to use his upcoming trip to Europe and the Group of Eight Summit in Georgia to enlist NATO allies. He reiterated his plan for appointing a new International High Commander to help organize elections and the writing of a constitution in Iraq.

Kerry did not focus on the similarities between his Iraq policies and Bush's. Both oppose withdrawing military forces and putting U.S. troops under international leadership, and both support increasing the number of U.S. troops if needed to stabilize the country.

The Bush campaign said Kerry offered nothing new and contradicted his earlier positions. "For John Kerry, the war in Iraq and the overall war on terror are a political game of Twister," Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman said.

Kerry's approach toward Iraq and terrorism often contrasts with the much stronger criticism of Bush's foreign policies expressed by the growing ranks of antiwar Democrats and others. Recent polls show that a majority of Democrats want to pull out of Iraq, while former vice president Al Gore and others are calling for resignations in the Bush administration.

Staff writer William Branigin in Washington contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60588-2004May27.html)

No wonder why the polls have you guys cast as clowns.:)

Warham
12-07-2005, 08:34 PM
Yep, and you'll figure out what clowns we are when the Republicans win the presidency again in 2008.

FORD
12-07-2005, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
See?

FORD thinks US troops are terrorists also. He has always had a dim view of the military. This is just another example in the long list over the years where he has disparaged our own people.

Fucker. :mad:

Where did I mention US troops, bitch?