--->John "Our Troops are Terrorists" Kerry's

Can you find me a link to where Kerry Said "Our Troops are Terrorists" I missed it.

I know he said this the other day ""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...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.""

I agree with the sentiment, Iraqis shoud be doing this work, but understand if they aren't ready (even though the President says they are) and maybe he could have used a different word other then 'terrorize', but anyone who trys to twist the above statement into 'Our Troops are Terrorists' is being disingenuous! Both sides do a nice job of screwing themselves over, no need to make stuff up!

Flash

The Schieffer bit was bad enough.

By the way, the President doesn't say the Iraqis are ready to go; they're getting there. Building an army from scratch, especially officers and NCOs, is complicated stuff (it took the US a couple of years of absolute 120% national effort to do it, even starting with a regular military in 1940). Keeping the original Iraqi army, by the way, was not the answer; it was an Arab military, built in the Soviet pattern; Arab armies built in that model have never won a war.

Thank you to Flash for making the distinction for me: Just because a man with a history of calling US Troops 'war criminals' says they are 'terrorizing' people, it doesn't mean he is calling them terrorists.
Noted.

Flash, I agree that there is a jump between what Kerry said and "our troops are terrorists," but you have to admit he wasn't exactly painting what our soldiers are doing in Iraq in a very positive light. Using that as an example of what they do over there is pretty damn disingenuous at best.

Plus, this is politics, where people get to take a "mission accomplished" banner on a ship returning from its, er, mission and turn it into a "lie" by the president. Or turn a real turkey in a goofy photo into a plastic one.

It's not fair, but neither is how Kerry was trying to define what our soldiers are doing in Iraq.

And now you go with the Kerry said our troops are terrorists line.

Wow... Mitch really comes out swinging. Must have gotten called into Kens office for not spinning fast enough.

At least you're honest about one thing. The only thing the GOP has is a well paid PR machine.

All spin. No substance.

The only thing the GOP has is a well paid PR machine.

All spin. No substance.

Posted by Doug at December 9, 2005 01:29 PM

You forgot the whole Culture of Corruption spiel.

Mitch,

Part of the reason to have an agenda is that, after 2.5 years, we are still "building" the Iraqi ability to handle civilians with AK's and RPG's. (Well and the cache of explosives we failed to secure).

I'm not surprised I guess, just disappointed that you'd characterize saying entering someone's home, terrorizing them, means you are calling the troops terrorist.. what emotion do you suppose those folks feel in the middle of the night, you know, the innocent Iraqis who would like us to succeed. Do you think they'd feel "safe" at that moment. Kerry's point was accurate, it's probably best done by others, regardless, it was a stupid point to make. Kerry is a slick politician, but not a gifted one. Overstating his words only makes you look like a blowhard and a deceiver.

PB

Here's a thought to put a chill into the shriveled up little hearts of all you right-wing nutjobs.

I was within about 15' of the President 30 minutes ago. I was leaving my building just as the Presidential motorcade drove right by the corner I was waiting on to go to where my car was parked.

I was polite, actually, I mocked the protesters, asking them if they were aware you can't really impeach a man who isn't President.

I did roll my eyes as he went by, and then I thanked the cops on the corner for being there on this witch's tit cold day. They'd been standing outside for the better part of a couple hours so that Bush lite could do the only thing he's good at, go to meetings and beg for more money.

But hey, when comparing Kerry and Bush, it's merely a choice between two pretty inept politicians. Since I suspect Bush was waiving to me, I was the only white guy on any of the four corners in business attire or not wearing a grunge look and appearing to need a shower, by Mitch's example of how to twist things, I think I should start saying that Bush personally endorses me.

PB

PB wrote-
"I was within about 15' of the President 30 minutes ago. "
And then PB wrote:
"I mocked the protesters, asking them if they were aware you can't really impeach a man who isn't President."
That's whole lot of stupidity in just two sentences. And to think they used to say that Clinton was lucky because his political enemies were incompetent.

Terry brayed: "And to think they used to say that Clinton was lucky because his political enemies were incompetent."

Still are. It's just that they run the country now.

Gee Terry,

I guess feeling a man who refuses to read, watch news, and insists on being spoon fed information by 2 or 3 close confidants, is vulnerable to manipulation is stupid in your world, but in mine, it seems more likely to be wise to question the judgement of such a man. Maybe you need to look up stupid, you seem to have confused it with prudent, thereby prompting you to believe your remarks were prudent, but you were unfortunately confused, your remarks were simply foolish.

PB

Mitch obviously misspoke. He should have said, "Terrorizers," or "Terror-Makers." It's totally unfair to say that Kerry said our troops are terrorists, when Kerry didn't use that word.

"Terror-fiers?"

Gee Terry,

I guess feeling a man who refuses to read, watch news, and insists on being spoon fed information by 2 or 3 close confidants

Um, why read the NYT, WaPo or watch "news" when you A) have more info than they do, B) can predict the biased spin they will put on any subject, or C) could give a rats ass what these "reporters" think in the first place?

, is vulnerable to manipulation is stupid in your world, but in mine, it seems more likely to be wise to question the judgement of such a man.

Good thing it's your world. I'm glad he doesn't listen to any of the above mentioned "news sources". Why the Hell should he?

Maybe you need to look up stupid, you seem to have confused it with prudent, thereby prompting you to believe your remarks were prudent, but you were unfortunately confused, your remarks were simply foolish.

pb

One again, Pot meet kettle.

You hittin' the bong today, Peebs?

"Terror-fiers?"
Posted by Brian Jones at December 9, 2005 03:49 PM

"Terror-doers"

I think MDE got a shot of PB holding a yellow sign:
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2005/12/stupid-protesters-protest-bush.html

"Well and the cache of explosives we failed to secure.."

What this "we" ya little puke? You a mouse in one of our troops' pocket?

pfft..

And what are you doing wasting your time trolling the internet Komrad? Open another fifth, don't you know the economy is imploding and the sky is falling?

Do your progressive part!

"Um, why read the NYT, WaPo or watch "news" when you A) have more info than they do, B) can predict the biased spin they will put on any subject, or C) could give a rats ass what these "reporters" think in the first place?"

"I'm glad he doesn't listen to any of the above mentioned 'news sources'. Why the Hell should he?"

Oh, no reason. Just so that the next time a major disaster hits the US the freaking LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD won't have to rely on a junior aide burning a DVD comprised of televised news reports for him so he knows that something actually happened on US soil that was kind of a big deal that he should be aware of. That's not just stupid, that's gourmet stupid. Bon appetit.

Interesting point there Tim. I watch very little of the network news shows, I dont take the NYT or WaPo yet I am very informed on what is going on in the world and in this country. I also dont have a junior aide buring me a cd comprised of televised news reports for me. It's a mystery, I guess.

Tim,
The "freaking LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD" has the CIA, FBI, NSA, State Dept., HSA, TSA, Dept. of Interior, not to mention access to dozens of foriegn intel agencies. I would posit he's a little better informed than any stooge at the Times or WaPo.
Oh and most of these are in his Cabinet, not "junior aides".
Get a clue.

Kerm,

Just one other thing, Cheney despises the CIA and keeps them away from Bush, he similarly distrusts the FBI. Remember the posts from idiot walking err. Eracus.. blaming the CIA for the intell lapses and suggesting they purposefully tried to sandbag Bush. In Era's dim world, that was the REASON for the creation of NIE (Bush Admins private little intel office).

The real issue though is, Kerm, he doesn't use that intel, he rarely even sees or reads it. He may get a daily brief, but it's questionable whether he reads it or at least pays attention. The access to him has been shut down, in part because he wants it that way. People take stuff to people to take to him, and nearly all those paths run through the four people mentioned. After Abu Graib, Rumsfelds access fell, and it's become essentially three, Rice, Cheney, and Rove.

Don't believe it, I really can't change your mind anyway, but suggesting that because there ARE organizations like the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State, MI6, Interpol, doesn't mean that information gets to him. It may not even get to it's own leadership, which then makes the decision whether to forward. I wouldn't hold Bush accountable for any of that, nor even of his own staffers culling some details, what Bush gets held up for is that he seeks out nothing, chcecks nothing, investigates nothing. He relies on spoon-fed info, and that is a recipe for an easily led charlitan. He doesn't need to be Clinton, who was vorascious in consuming information and detail, but the comments like "we can't win the war on terror" followed a day later by a complete retraction, indicate a man who is handled, far more than he handles.

PB

I like bongs.. they make me feel misunderestimated when talking about nucular fitness.

PB

pb

"and I'm really really tired of the worthless saw that the media is left bias. The right has taken over to such an extent it's dominating nearly every sector."

I listen to both sides, so-called right-wing and the totally obvious democrat biased MSM. I try to be objective in my analysis. The fact that the MSM overwhelmingly supports democrat postions aside, the way they portray news is astonshingly biased by my observation.

"So Kerm, I'm sorry, but the wise thing to do is question those who have power, to expect them to actually use their office responsibly, not just for partisan purposes, and to require that they, in fact, not become the puppets of their handlers."

This applies equally to those self-same purveyors of information. I do question them, and find them deceptive, biased and fraudulent. Yhink Dan Rather and Mary Mapes: "fake, but accurate".

"It has also been reported that he essentially relies on Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Rove, for almost all of his information, so how he "has better information" I'm not quite sure. "

By the aforementioned "news" sources, which discredits their veracity in toto.

"The real issue though is, Kerm, he doesn't use that intel, he rarely even sees or reads it. He may get a daily brief, but it's questionable whether he reads it or at least pays attention. The access to him has been shut down, in part because he wants it that way."

This is such an incredible stretch of the imagination. How on Earth wouold you know this? Do you depend on the already discredited "news" sources for this bit of ignorance?

"An editorial today at CBS even talks about how Ken Tommlinson attempted to run PBS by using CPB to interfere with PBS's programming, and further, by using shabby investigation and tactics, to intimidate and remove people it didn't like PURELY FOR POLITICAL reasons."

God forbid a conservative get in the way of the unbiased, purely objective analysis of such icons as Juan Williams, Bill Moyers, Jim Lehrer, etc.
When I heard this I was shocked. SHOCKED! The public broadcasting system belongs to liberal democrats, dammit!

"Read O'Niell, read Clarke, the picture is appalling, and the evidence, like Iraq, like even Abu Graib"

I have. They are partisan political hacks who have been totally discredited in my humble opinion. And what the Hell do they have to do with Iraq and Abu G? O'Neill was Sec of Treasury for God's sake. Clark is an idiot who couldn't find a terrorist if it waved a flag in his face.

Kerm,

Paul O'Niell, former Chairman of Alcoa, lifelong and still, republican, is a partisan political hack? I'm sorry, I don't think so.

Richard Clarke, republican appointee under GHWB, lifelong intel expert, is a partisan political hack? Sorry again.

As I said, I don't expect you'll believe me. BTW, the reports of Bush' intellectual incuriosity came not from AP or Reuters, but from accounts written by his friends, or from interviews of his friends, and similarly from close aids, coworkers, dating back 20 years and more.

I will not look to convince you further, just say simply that the evidence is sufficient to conclude this, unless you choose to discount it for your own reasons - which I don't cast any aspursion on.

Regardless, I may conclude, without aspursion, that this evidence suggests a man who is easily and frequently manipulated. His history of saying candid, lucid things, when not on script, suggests a bright man (which I believe he is), but one who is asked to essentially NOT stray from script... that was the point made by Doug and Eric, when he did, he sounded surprisingly, refreshingly, reasonable. It is too bad he has handlers like Rove, a vile human being if there has ever been one, for I think he could actually make good decisions if he had decent information.

Take care,
PB

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal, PB?

I see on Drudge that some Senator is calling on the president to take down the white flag ad because it will harm the troops.

I guess putting together a video of what Democrats say will indeed hurt the troops.

1) It's spelled aspersion.
2) Despite what you say, you are casting them far and wide, and it does not go unnoticed.

Oh, Peeb,

Paul O'Niell
Richard Clarke

Did you read either of their pathetic attack books? These two losers sold any cred they had for fifteen minutes with Katie Couric and 60 Minutes, neither of which were A) convincing, or B) substantial.
If you are basing your whole "Bush is being misled because he can't be a leader" rap on them, well, more power to you. I've heard more convincing arguments from angryclown.
O'Neill was a Clinton holdover, just like Tennent.
Just like Clarke. If Bush made a mistake with these two, it was the foolish notion that a Democrat would put his country before his politics.
Sad but, thankfully Bush learned. I'll take one Wolfowitz and one Rove over a dozen O'Neills and Clarkes any day.
By the way, where is ol' Dick Clarke and O'Neill today? Haven't seen them on the Today show lately. Hmm.

Attack books?

I love how any critical commentary about the administrations decisions or actions becomes an attack.

HBTY, HBTY,
HBDM, HBTY. M

Kermit blathered: "O'Neill was a Clinton holdover, just like Tennent."

Maybe you're thinking of former CIA director George Tenet, the guy Bush gave a Presidential Medal of Freedom last year? No doubt Clinton put him up to it.

As for Paul O'Neill, he was chairman and CEO of Alcoa beginning in 1987. He retired from the company in 2000 and was appointed Treasury Secretary by then-President Elect Bush late that year. Again, the fingerprints of Clinton are clear.

You can look this stuff up if you care about facts, Kerm. The Internet's not just for whacking off to porn, you know.

"I love how any critical commentary about the administrations decisions or actions becomes an attack."

Ipse every lefty's reference to Rush Limbaugh, et al.

... so when Bush says something that could be twisted into something that the great PB might agree with, then he is being 'reasonable' and speaking truthfully in an 'unguarded' moment?
So, to be clear, the man's a buffoon, except when he agrees with you? Yes, he is just dying to come over to your side, but those pesky advisors who control his puppet strings prevent him from throwing up his hands and giving up like 'the smart people' are saying.
You said:
"He doesn't need to be Clinton, who was vorascious in consuming information and detail, but the comments like "we can't win the war on terror" followed a day later by a complete retraction, indicate a man who is handled, far more than he handles."
Clinton was vorascious in consuming a lot of things. I know that when I think of Clinton I think of a rock of personal and ideological consistency and integrity. He NEVER said one thing one day, and then retracted it the next (and I'm not just talking about the obvious, I'm talking about policy).
He will also go down in history as one of the worst presidents we've had, and probably the biggest waste of potential when compared to what he should have/could have accomplished given his God given abilities.

The point of the Doug/Tim/PB/Flash brain trust in the last few posts seems to be that Bush is a lazy moron who has spoken his true feelings only once in 4+ years, on Aug 31, 2004 when he said that the WOT can't be won but that we can only make it more difficult for terrorists to act.
The attempt has been to equate this one statement with a series of statements by democrats over a long period of time saying we're losing, we can't win, we need a way out.
I need a few things explained to me:
1) Does anyone truly doubt Bush's committment to win this war? No, there will not be a formal surrender ceremony. No, there will never be a day when a terror attack is not possible somewhere in the world. It cannot be "won" in the traditional sense. Anyone with half a brain knows this. What can be accomplished -- and what has been accomplished with breathtaking speed and unprecedented effectiveness -- is to contol the battle field, interrupt flows of arms, funds and state support, and bring freedom and democracy to millions. Bush has never waivered in this.
2) Why do guys who insist Bush needs to read a more balanced and varied diet of news seem to link exclusively to the NYT?
3) Why do democrats (with the exception of Lieberman and a few -- very few -- others), who insist that they really want us to win in Iraq, spend all their time doing the one thing that could cause us to lose? The only hope Zarqawi (who has lost the support of even Ba'athist loyalists) has is to wage a low level insurgency until the Paper Tiger cuts and runs. Every news story about Murtha or Dean gives him hope, gives him something he can use to rally his troops. Could it be that they would rather be 'right' about the outcome (that they had a hand in creating), than do what it takes to win? Doug or PB ripped on Kermit for talking about the dem's demoralizing approach. It's not our troops he's worried about. Thankfully our troops believe in what they are doing and aren't swayed by stupidity. It's the aiding and abetting the enemy aspect that is problematic to me. Might as well send Zarqawi a memo saying Hang in there until the next round of US elections and you'll get someone you can play ball with. What motivates the enemy is division here at home. Motivated enemy = longer conflict = increased casualties on all sides. The arithmetic doesn't seem that hard.
3. How come whenever PB says 'Just one more thing' Mitch has to spring for more bandwith?
4. Yes, I understand the pot/kettle/black aspect of that last question.

Again, the fingerprints of Clinton are clear.
Posted by angryclown at December 11, 2005 01:02 PM

You're right. No Clinton fingerprints. Neither one was a White House intern.