General discussion

Locked

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...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

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

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

141 total posts (Page 2 of 15)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

No preconception

by antuck In reply to Re-read it without pre-co ...

My reading that was without any preconceived notions. No Pro\anti - Bush, no Pro\Anti - Iraq, no Pro\Anti anything. My thoughts were if a military were coming into my house it would cause terror. Why are they here? what are they going to do? are they after me or someone in my house? This is what I read it to be. Causing a panic.

Personally I think the words terror, terrorism, terrorists are being way over used. It keeps the fear factor planted in peoples heads.

If the US were occupied by an opposing military and I saw tanks and soldiers walking around with automatic weapons, this would cause terror. Does this mean all militaries are terrorists?

You can also bet your a$$ he used the word terror on purpose. Much like the current administration countinuously uses the word terror. It invokes fear, and if people are afraid they will follow who ever promises them the road to a safe place.

I did think his comment about the withdrawal of 20K troops was odd since it was stated that was part of the plan. Although, that was the first time I had heard they were talking about withdrawing 20K troops. I guess will see after Dec 15.

Yes he does make mistakes, much like all politicains when they open there mouths.

Again, I didn't take his statement to mean he was calling the troops terrorists. Just what I mentioned at the begining.

Collapse -

double talk

by jdclyde In reply to No preconception

doing something that causes this "terror" does not make you a terrorist.

Turning around and sanctioning someone else to do the same action that is causing the "terror", is sanctioning terror.

And the citizens KNOW why the army is there, looking for the REAL terrorists. Which you well know too.

Collapse -

Triple talk

by donniebnyc In reply to double talk

"And the citizens KNOW why the army is there, looking for the REAL terrorists."

This citizen KNOWS that the REAL terrorists are regrouping in Afganistan while the REAL terrorist's leader (Bin Laden, remember him?) laughs at us from his undisclosed location. How did this happen, you may ask?

It happened because our fearless leaders pulled OUT of Afganistan before the job was DONE. I live in NYC. I watched the towers fall from my roof. As far as I was concerned, we should have NUKED Afganistan until Bin Laden was a confirmed KILL. Bush had my support for that and I didn't even vote for him.

Instead of doing the job we needed him to do, he turned his back on us, yes us, and went running into Iraq with a "plan" devised by incompetents. I will never forgive him for that.

As I write this, more than 2000 young Americans lay dead. When will ditto heads like you understand how stupid and needless this is? Perhaps you will see the light when the number of American war dead exceeds the number killed on 9/11.

My children ride the subway every day. I do not feel safer today than I did on 9/12. I feel LESS safe. It must be wonderful to sit in Lansing, Michigan supporting Cowboy George and his idiot posse as they bomb Iraq and torture suspects until a democracy magically appears. Your fellow citizens in cities like New York and Washington do not have that luxury.

Collapse -

Support of who?

by jdclyde In reply to Triple talk

By saying it is wrong to call out troops terrorists is supporting "cowboy george"?

If you have a grip with GWB, fine and dandy.

That in NO WAY changes the facts of what I had said here against what Sen John Kerry has done and IS doing.

Rationalize it or excuse it away if you want, but it doesn't make it right. Trying to distract from the point doesn't make it right either.

And we are still in Afganistan. Had we "nuked" them, there would be NO "confirmed" kills. Haven't you ever seen what a Nuke does? Oh, and what about Afgan civilains? Colateral damage? No. I know you did not mean the Nuke part so don't worry about defending that.

Don't excuse one persons bad behavior with anothers. If you have a very specific complaint, feel free to start a discussion on that complaint with the unbiased supporting documentation to back up the validity of your claim (like I have done here).

My Aunt is about five blocks from you, and I understand your point a view very well. It just has nothing to do with justifying what Kerry is doing against our troops.

Collapse -

A calmer reply

by donniebnyc In reply to Support of who?

I was responding to one statement you made that I quoted. And yes, if you think we are in Iraq chasing the REAL 9/11 terrorists then you are either sadly uninformed or a mindless supporter of Cowboy George. Of course, I admit I may have misjudged you.

I know we are still in Afganistan. But as you said, my complaints are off topic and belong in a different thread. And thank you for realizing my reference to nukes was hyperbole.

I have just read the entire transcript. First, let me say I am no fan of John Kerry and I hope he does not run again. However, I do not believe that he purposely called American troops terrorists. Despite the fact that Kerry wasn't a C student, I cannot believe he is stupid enough to call our troops terrorists and then think he can run for president. Your willingness to jump to this conclusion tells me that you may want to reflect on your preconceptions and biases.

Kerry was using this interview to attack the administration's execution of the war. Given the fact that Bush and company have screwed up everything they've touched, I believe Kerry was saying we need to question the plans they have for our troops in Iraq. He was trying to point out in his usual obtuse way that the administration has treated the troops badly -- not supplying them, giving them an impossible task, etc. He was also responding to the president's speeches that amount to little more than "Trust me." Everything we were told leading up to this war was either wrong or a lie. Seriously questioning every decision this president makes seems like a good idea to me.

If you really think Kerry feels that our troops are terrorists, then I have nothing more to say. You are a lost cause.

Collapse -

Lost cause

by jdclyde In reply to Support of who?

Well, it has been four days since he said this. He as not stepped up and clerified anything that someone taking him at face value would hear and understand.

He was clear that our soldiers were terrorizing women and children AND violating their religous beliefs.

If you know of a statement or interview he has done since then to either clerify or applogize, please link to it.

A simple "I miss spoke" or "That was not my intention" from him would be good enough for me. If he does, I will come back in here and retract what I have said. Fair enough?

Collapse -

And that's the point

by antuck In reply to double talk

"doing something that causes this "terror" does not make you a terrorist."

I see Kerrys comments as exactly what you said. He is not calling the troops terrorists. But I'm sure that when going through someones house it does cause terror (painic). I see what he is saying that we DO NEED TO GET OUT OF IRAQ. Let Iraq handle there problem.

We had no business going into Iraq. Seriously tell me how Saddam was so different then 19**? And when did Iraq ever attack the US? Remember it was Bin Ladin and his idiots that were responsible for the attacks on the towers.

Collapse -

Ever hear of the "no-fly-zone"?

by jdclyde In reply to And that's the point

He has been shooting at our troops all along and has even shot down unmanned drones.

What is different? Nothing.

The question isn't why now, but why so long to wait?

Collapse -

What?

by Shifty78 In reply to Re-read it without pre-co ...

The Iraqi civillians don't see the USA as an invading country? How on earth would you know?
I have a friend out in Basra working in a charitable capacity and this is not the picture she sees. And anyway, regardless of how the Iraqi's see it the USA and my own country, the UK, both illegally went to war to dispose of a leader we didn't like. I really, really hate Bush and don't agree with any of his foreign policy. Does that then make it ok for me to enter the USA and take him out? Or is it one rule for the USA/UK and another for everyone else? I feel sorry for the soldiers of both our countries who have been forced into this horrible situation by egotistical, greedy, stupid fools.

Collapse -

Say what again?

by Montgomery Gator In reply to What?

I heard people spill that drivel saying "USA and UK went to war illegally" and still don't know what law was violated. The US Congress and the UK Parliament both approved going to war against Saddam Hussein to liberate Iraq, and remove the threat to world peace he was. Since Congress and Parliament approved the action, it is therefore perfectly legal. The USA and allies came as liberators, and those I know in Iraq tell me that the majority of Iraqis see the coalition forces as liberators. Saddam Hussein is now on trial for his atrocities instead of formenting terrorism and threatening his neighbors and own citizens with chemical warfare. Yes, there were WMDs, Saddam Hussein used Mustard Gas against the Kurds. He just conveniently got rid of them in the months leading up to the war, because he saw it coming. I would not be surprised if he sent the WMDs to Syria.

I pity you for the hate you feel for those who are defending our freedom and fighting the terrorists. You do not deserve to benefit from their sacrifice with that attitude you have, but you do anyway.

Back to Community Forum
141 total posts (Page 2 of 15)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums