Senator "Claghorn" Kerry Calls US Soldiers Terrorists

[slim]

I can't believe this guy .........even Murtha didn't say this about our troops. He called American soldiers terrorists on CBS Face The Nation Sunday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf

From page 3-4 of the CBS transcript, emphasis mine (h/t:CQ reader Dave Z):

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay the course because, he says, real progress is being made. He said 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?

Sen. KERRY: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, `Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. 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--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...


Slim

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by slim
He (Kerry) called American soldiers terrorists on CBS Face The Nation Sunday.

IF American soldiers are --going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night and terrorizing kids and children, breaking the historical customs and the religious customs of those people, does that make them **terrorists**, in your view?

If your answer is *No*, then Kerry is not calling them terrorists at all...........he simply implied that some of their actions have the result of terrorizing people. Which is true.

If you answered *Yes* to the question.........do YOU think it is right that they're carrying out "terrorism" in our names??

I guess the bottom line here is that I often have a hard time discerning just what is is you worshippers-of-all-things-Rightwing are whining about.

[thetruth05]

Slim, I've read many of your threads and I want to ask you something. Do you just find an article and post a link, or do you actually have some opinions of your own?

[slim]

My opinion is ......." I can't believe this guy .........even Murtha didn't say this about our troops. "

Translation .....what Murtha did was bad ...........what "Claghorn" Kerry did ............went beyond what Murtha did ..........and was ...........more baddddddddd.

Two bads make the ....... left ........*L*


Slim

[Brooks]

Originally posted by Freethinker
IF American soldiers are --going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night and terrorizing kids and children, breaking the historical customs and the religious customs of those people, does that make them **terrorists**, in your view?

You left out the best part. After Kerry said this, he said "the Iraqis should be doing this".

[Napsterbater]

Senator "Claghorn" Kerry Calls US Soldiers Terrorists

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...

That's a pretty big stretch there slim. That's like, "I can't find anything else to hate on this guy for, so I'm going to just flat out make shit up." So, just because he used America and terror in the same sentence, apparently Americans are terrorists now, huh? That isn't what he said, and you are making a classic Limbaughian malicious mis-quote. Bill O'Reilly would be proud. But then, he's probably your idol, isn't he?

[500lbguerilla]

IF American soldiers are --going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night and terrorizing kids and children, breaking the historical customs and the religious customs of those people, does that make them **terrorists**, in your view? If your answer is *No*, then Kerry is not calling them terrorists at all...........he simply implied that some of their actions have the result of terrorizing people. Which is true. If you answered *Yes* to the question.........do YOU think it is right that they're carrying out "terrorism" in our names??

Crickets....

[Frogger]

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...

Kerry is an ass who seems to know little, if anything about fighting a war. Yes, there are many reasons for American soldiers to go into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night.

The dead of night is when you find the people you are looking for at home. The dead of night is when they are disoriented after being abruptly awakened and are less likely to fight back and more likely to give you the information you are seeking.

Breaking local customs is not always desired but is sometimes necessary. Local custom says men, other than husbands can't talk to women. Not being able to talk to the women makes it just a tad difficult to interogate them. Local custom says men, other than husbands cannot look at women. If you can't look at them how are you going to know if they are among the people you are looking for.

I repeat, John Kerry is an ass. He would better serve his country by keeping his dumb mouth shut.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by Frogger
Yes, there are many reasons for American soldiers to go into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night.

The dead of night is when you find the people you are looking for at home. The dead of night is when they are disoriented after being abruptly awakened and are less likely to fight back and more likely to give you the information you are seeking.

Ok.

Does the fact that American soldiers are doing this make them **terrorists**.....??

If you said --"no"--, as you seem to be doing........then John Kerry did not call the soldiers "terrorists". He simply said that they should not be terrorizing [iow, frightening them, in the sense thathe used the word] people in the middle of the night.

Ergo, slim is spreading malicious lies about Kerry over something he knows little about.

[Catch 3]

Originally posted by slim
He called American soldiers terrorists on CBS Face The Nation Sunday.

QUESTION: What is the difference between:

- the Iraqi soldiers who followed orders and invaded Kuwait (without provocation)
– Egyptian soldiers who followed orders and invaded Israel (without provocation)
– Russian soldiers who followed orders and invaded Afghanistan (without provocation)
- German soldiers who followed orders and invaded Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, etc. (without provocation)
- and the American soldiers who followed orders and invaded Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. (without provocation)?

ANSWER: NONE. They were not terrorists but simply manipulated by their own fascist non-democratic governments.

[Brooks]

Catch, I don't know what you mean by "provocation" exactly. Provocation, in the case of Vietnam, was the spread of communism throughout Asia, I think. If you're thinking short-term, which the left tends to do, then you won't find your provocation.


(PS - Is the Bay of Pigs the American invasion you're talking about?)

[Catch 3]

Originally posted by Brooks
Catch, I don't know what you mean by "provocation" exactly. Provocation, in the case of Vietnam, was the spread of communism throughout Asia, I think.

Hi Brooks.

By “provocation” I mean an act of aggression against a sovereign state. Perhaps “a serious threat” could also be used but that term is being so misused that I’d rather stay away from it. Under those conditions you might attack my country and fabricate some kind of “plan of terrorist conspiracy” theory in the same way the U.S. did with Irak. Let’s stick with “physical aggression”.

Vietnam was no threat to the U.S. and Ho Chi Minh would never have turned to communism (in the first place) if it weren’t the only way to gain independence from France. Once France was out, the U.S. (less weakened than France by the Second World War) saw a chance to pounce and use it’s superior strength to take it over.

The very same goes for Cuba. Castro was no communist. He was a tried and true democratic believer. All he did was rid Cuba from the American mafia (which was deeply entrenched in his country and skimming the hell out of it) and he supposed that the U.S. government would thank him for kicking them out. Instead, the U.S. strangled Cuba (and still does) by embargoes and blockades. The Soviet Union was the only power strong enough to challenge the U.S. by trading with Cuba - so Castro had no choice.

Ps. " the spread of communism throughout Asia" cannot be considered "provocation".

[Napsterbater]

I always thought the US's emnity against Cuba and Castro must have had more basis than the whole Communist thing. But then, nothing happens in a vacuum, now does it?

[Catch 3]

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I always thought the US's emnity against Cuba and Castro must have had more basis than the whole Communist thing.

Yes, you’re right. Communism really had very little to do with it.

Castro threw out the American mafia that had a monopoly on Cuban resources and was giving nothing to the Cuban people, keeping the population in destitution. Once Castro wiped out the mafia, he naturally expected to trade with the United States in “business as usual” but now with the Cuban peoples interests foremost. Castro was very pro-American and a strong believer in democracy. He was terribly shocked when the U.S. government turned its’ back on him. It was a while before he understood that his “best friends” weren’t such good friends after all. The U.S. government wanted to take up where the mafia had left off. THERE’S THE REASON FOR U.S. PRESSURE AGAINST CUBA.
But when Castro had no other choice than to barter with the Soviet Union, the U.S. picked up on that as the reason. Remember that McCarthy had America on a communist witch-hunt so it wasn’t difficult for the American people to fear the threat of Communism. It was all a hoax, of course, but how could American citizens know that? The U.S. had been the biggest heroes of the Second Wold War and nobody wanted to believe it was capable of such treachery.

Eventually, Castro did become a Communist - but who wouldn’t under the circumstances?

[slim]

Yes ..communism ..is good .....RME ......*L*.

Just keep repeating that to yourself .......*L*


Slim

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by slim
Yes ..communism ..is good .....RME ......*L*. Just keep repeating that to yourself .......Slim

A quick review reveals that he made not the slightest suggestion that ""communism is good"". (you really, truly need to take a course in reading comprehension, btw)

What he noted was that with Castro, presented the choice of being either strangled by ConservaFascists or giving in to communism, he chose the latter.

[Catch 3]

Originally posted by slim
Yes ..communism ..is good .....RME ......*L*.
Just keep repeating that to yourself .......*L*

Communism is like all other governing philosophies in that it can be good or it can be bad depending upon how well it is conducted. Was Soviet Communism good under Stalin? Hardly! Is Capitalism good under Bush Dub-ya? Certainly not!

But this brings up the central part of the subject:

- Was that Communism during Stalin’s term of office? No, it wasn’t!
- Is this Democracy with Bush Dub-ya? Give me a break!

So the reply to your post is this ……. yes, Communism was good for Cuba. NOT because the Communism of the day was so great, but because it was a far better alternative to the kind of non-democratic Capitalism the Americans were offering.