General discussion


Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

By jdclyde ·
Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself.

On "Face the Nation", Sunday December 4th, 2005, the Senator took to that airwaves accusing the US military of acts of terrorism against "kids and children, you know, women" and that it is the Iraqies that should be terrorising them instead.

"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...


Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that."
(end of page 4, beginning of page 5)

This is the man that was ALMOST President of the most powerful Country in the world? How is that for a scary though? And to think we MAY run again in 2008?

Read the interview if you didn't see it on TV before responding. Would hate to see people accusing anyone else of taking things out of context.

Do you think Sen. John Kerry is way out of line and should apologyze to the US forces, or is he stating something that is true but a hard pill to swollow?

Full transcript here in PDF format.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

It's nothing new

by master3bs In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ...

He's been doing that kind of thing since Vietnam.

And what about Howard Dean saying that we could not win? What does that do to the morale of the troops? What does it do to the morale of the Iraqi terrorists?

Collapse -

This should be sedition

by castorm3 In reply to It's nothing new

Kerry and Dean are abhorrent. We need to read the laws pertaining to sedition because these two should be brought up on charges. Kerry escaped once but should not escape a second time. I'm really astonished at how stupid they both are and how far they've made it in their respective careers. I'm not being mean, I'm serious. It's shocking just how inarticulate they are when they are not spouting sound bites. I welcome a rigorous debate of ideas, but the opposition party today is just a cesspool. Very poor representatives of the party of Scoop Jackson, Jack Kennedy, Pat Moynihan, etc.

Collapse -

Last of the decent Democrats

by Montgomery Gator In reply to This should be sedition

Those men you named were the last of the now almost-extinct breed of decent Democrats, who may have been liberal in some ways, but still loved their country and stood up for it. Joseph Lieberman is the one of the few prominent Democrats that I still respect and is still worthy of honor.

Collapse -

If Joe L. ran for Prez vs. John McCain..

by road-dog In reply to Last of the decent Democr ...

I would hang a chad next to the (D) candidate.

I still haven't forgiven McCain for killing the McDonnell Douglas Tomohawk plant in Titusville, FL.

If I were the Republican Party Chair, I'd offer Howard Dean McCain in trade for Joe L. and throw in a first round draft pick next season.

Even where we disagree, at least I respect Joe L. because he believes in what he says. There isn't enough of that in Washington these days....

What the man lacks in charisma he more than makes up for in integrity.

Collapse -

Can't win an election

by jdclyde In reply to If Joe L. ran for Prez vs ...

Because as Pres Clinton showed us, it is a popularity contest. The "average" voter won't get behing Liberman as was shown in the Dem primary last time around. Not to menion, as much as it blows my mind, there are still people that worry if someone is Jewish or not before voting for them.

"Joe-mentum" is going no where at a presidential level.

Collapse -

Sedition - definition

by MirrorMirror In reply to This should be sedition

I agree!


"n. the federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government or support for an enemy of the nation during time of war, by speeches, publications and organization. Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy. Sedition is a lesser crime than "treason," which requires actual betrayal of the government, or "espionage." Espionage involves spying on the government, trading state secrets (particularly military) to another country (even a friendly nation), or sabotaging governmental facilities, equipment or suppliers of the government, like an aircraft factory. During U.S. participation in World War II (1941-1945) several leaders of the German-American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization, were tried and convicted of sedition for actively interfering with the war effort. Since freedom of speech, press and assembly are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and because treason and espionage charges can be made for overt acts against the nation's security, sedition charges are rare."

Text of the Sedition Act..

"Section 3.

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States, and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service..."

Sounds like sedition to me.

It saddens me that anyone in the US military will ultimately be the ones to pay for these types of statements. You and I know that these types of statements get broadcast on Al Jazerra and used by all of the America Haters. What good can it possibly do for our country for someone in our government to say things like this when our military are laying their lives on the line. Take out the Dem or Republican, pro-war or ant-war, pro-Bush or Anit-Bush agendas and feelings and REALLY look at what he said. It does the United States NO GOOD. I'm not saying Kerry is un-American, I'm saying Kerry is stupid. Dean is right there with him.

When will the right time be to say things like this??? When we are not actively engaging terrorists anymore. Now is not the time!

Collapse -

Of course he should be ashamed

by jdmercha In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ...

After all he is in politics.

From the Greek Poli, meaning many, and tic meaning blood-sucking insect.

Collapse -

This is true Kerry

by road-dog In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ...

He did the same thing after Viet Nam, accusing his fellow servicemen of atrocities in order to ensure his own political advancement.

This man has no shame. To ask it of him is to ask for something the man cannot offer.

Personally, I think Howard Dean has surpassed Kerry in outrageousness. But then he's well known to be a nutjob. Putting him in charge of the DNC was Carl Rove's masterstroke, if you believe that he's the penultimate puppeteer that the Democrats try to paint him as.

Kerry 's statements are a calculated political position. He's wrong, and I wouldn't worry about him in 2006. His words will hang over his head like the proverbial albatross. He's reached his peak, politically.

Collapse -

I didn't get terrorist

by antuck In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ...

When I read this, I don't get the idea he is calling the troops terrorists. More I read the terror part being that the military is in someones house and this causes terror. I know if in a war time situation and the military is going through my house it would cause some terror. Especially if the military is from the invading country.

But hey I still don't know the real reason were are in Iraq. So maybe I'm wrong in here.

Collapse -

Re-read it without pre-conceived notions

by jdclyde In reply to I didn't get terrorist

Forget being Anti-Bush, Anti-Iraq, or any other forms of Anti.

Forget being Pro-Bush, Pro-Iraq, or any other forms of Pro.

Start fresh and take it for what it is.

First, the majority of the Iraqi citizens do NOT think of us as an invading country. The majority may not want us to stay around much longer, but they know they are better off now than they were under Saddam.

As for his statement standing on its own though, it can't. Even without laughing at his mis-speaking (people LOVE it when Bush does this.) it comes down to one simple thing.

Do YOU believe in your heart that our soldiers are terrorizing the Iraqi civilians?

If you DO believe that we are, would it then be acceptable if it was Iraqis that were performing the terrorizing of Iraqi civilians instead?

A terrorist is someone who inflicts terror. If our soldiers are going around inflicting terror on innocent civilians then they would be terrorists, right?

He used that word on purpose, you can bet the farm on that.

How about him blasting the administration for not doing the withdrawl of the 20,000 troops like he thinks it should happen, only to find out that is already the stated plan of the administration?

Can he make mistakes or is he without flaw? Was this one of the mistakes or not?

Who benifits from this statement of his? Does the military personel get helped by being accused of terrorizing children and women, as well as violating their religious beliefs (whatever that is, he doesn't clarify on that point and the interviewer let him have a pass on it).

Does this help The Administration? No.

Does this help the Democratic party? Only to show how extreme the fringe side has gotten, causing the true main stream democrats to distance themselves from them even more.

Politically, this is GREAT for the Republican party.

Have you read Lebermans recent letter about the withdrawl that was refered to in this interview?

Related Discussions

Related Forums