Kerry: American Forces Are
“Terrorizing Children”
Is This The Same Guy Who Burned Down Villages In Nam?
This overly pessimistic view on this war effort is nothing new from the Democratic Party. Here we have a United States Senator calling our U.S soldiers in Iraq terrorists! The Democratic Party has gone way over their heads. These are the same people who continue to claim to support the troops. The truth is that the American left wants us to fail in Iraq. They’ve been pessimistic about this effort since the beginning. They don’t care about the safety and protection of the Iraqi people. Why else would they want us to cut and run? They don’t care about the elections that took place in Iraq not to long ago. All they want is to gain control of this country and if that means labeling our honorable Armed Forces as nothing but a bunch of terrorists, than so be it. This is how they operate; this is pure 100% liberalism for ya. 
Believe it or not, a lot of Americans agree with the Senator, Kerry is just echoing the words that the liberal left has been saying all along. They use whatever they can to attack our troops and this effort. They used Congressmen Murtha. I haven’t heard one general back Representative Murtha’s words. Not one. Requesting an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq is borderline insanity. Yet, the American left continues to push for it. These are the same who people claimed that we’d be ruining Iraq, that we’d be exposing the country to major terrorist activity if we had a presence there, yet those same people we’re so quick to protect the words of Murtha. They were so quick to nod their heads at the lunacy that spewed from his mouth. They were so quick to agree that we should hand that country over to the terrorists. Witnessing Democratic politicians appeal to their liberal base is absolutely mind boggling.
Morrison
Comments (13)
RIGHT ON MIKE!!!!!
"Is This The Same Guy Who Burned Down Villages In Nam?"
-Oh, so quick to attack the record of a soldier if he goes against your platform. As if the records of Kerry and McCain haven't been victimized enough. What ever happened to being so thankful for those who serve to protect our country?
-I guess what is distinguishable here is that Kerry came back remorseful for the wrongs he committed (which apparently is tantamount to treason), whereas everyone in the current administration dismisses any atrocious American behavior in Iraq outright, and the GOP in general justifies it all as part of the "war on terror."
-Rather than taking this quote of Kerry's out of context (and twisting it into the falsehood that Kerry called American soldiers terrorists), why don't you talk about something that is actually relevant, ie the Ethics Cloud Growing Wider Over the GOP?
"Requesting an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq is borderline insanity. Yet, the American left continues to push for it."
-You're right, it is a crazy notion. But no they did not push for it. Remember that vote? They want a timetable, not immediate withdrawal.
I'm glad you don't call this place the "No Spin Zone."
Wyoming...
"What ever happened to being so thankful for those who serve to protect our country?"
- is that what Kerry is doing by saying American Forces are terrorizing Iraqi civilians? (an arguably seriously erroneous statement)
- Wyoming, you can't have it both ways. If Kerry is allowed to denegrade the current flock of soldiers, then others should be allowed to denegrade his service as well.
Maybe you should be asking that question of Kerry, Not Morrison?
"is that what Kerry is doing by saying American Forces are terrorizing Iraqi civilians? (an arguably seriously erroneous statement)"
-Show me how it is erroneous. Assuming that the situation Kerry was referring to (raiding homes etc in the middle of the night), the term "terrorizing" appears quite apt. Regardless of the justifiability of the procedure (I would argue that it is justified to raid the homes of suspected insurgents in the middle of the night, but under these circumstances, the rationale of the raids is a moot point), the children in said homes are certain to be terrified of the goings-on. If they are terrified, have they not been terrorized?
"You can't have it both ways. If Kerry is allowed to denegrade the current flock of soldiers, then others should be allowed to denegrade his service as well."
-When I read the transcript of what was said, I see no denigration of US soldiers; I see a denigration of US practice and policy. The two are not inseparable.
"Maybe you should be asking that question of Kerry, Not Morrison?"
-Morrison is claiming that Kerry called American forces terrorists. This is patently false. So I ask it of him.
Wyoming- "Show me how it is erroneous"
- Show me how the U.S is terrorizing the citizenry of Iraq "breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs"????
- 1st off, I'm not sure what customs are being broken through miltary raids. (That might just be a little erroneous)
- 2nd off, I'm not sure what women and children Kerry is reffering to, as I have not seen any stories about the sfferage of the wives and children of terrorists and their plight of being married to or children of islamofacist murders.
Maybe you have?
- (and his misplaced compassion here may not be erroneous, but it sure is questionable as to why that's his main concern)
"but under these circumstances, the rationale of the raids is a moot point), the children in said homes are certain to be terrified of the goings-on. If they are terrified, have they not been terrorized?"
- Uh I suppose???
- And once again. I think it's great for Kerry to be so consurend about the wives and children of the insurgents in Iraq during wartime operations. Truly.
- But shouldn't, as he is the ivy league guy, he be more careful with his use of the term "terrorize"? One might conclude (and I watched the scheifer intereview) that indeed Kerry thought the U.S. military to be terrorizing instead of the TERRORIST who will randomlu strap bombs on their bodys and BLOW THEMSELVES UP TAKING AS MANY PEOPLE WITH THEM AS THEY CAN.
Now kerry didn't bother expanding on his use of the word "terrorize" there. He simply seemed to have more compassion for the wives and children of the terrorists being interrupted while the U.S. is capturing the ACTUAL TERRORIST.
- how dare the U.S. perform unsuspected night raids on the enemy where he lies during war time, Sen Kerry. How dare we!
"-Morrison is claiming that Kerry called American forces terrorists. This is patently false. So I ask it of him."
- you know, your semantical argumentation aside, would you do me a favor and find the quote from about 5 or 6 months ago when Kerry was calling for more troops in Iraq, because now, less than 6 months later, he wants less. I would hate to have him as a commander in chief calling the shots. Just as more troops arrived upon his request, they'd already be on the move back out as there were too many there in the first place.
- Can you admit that Kerry is playing politics here, and not genuinely questioning the leadership or the war's direction? or are you unwilling to admit that?
- BTW, did you hear what durbin reiterated about the U.S. being over there??????
I don't have much time to respond substantively at the moment, but..
"Show me how the U.S is terrorizing the citizenry of Iraq "breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs"????"
-I never claimed it was. While it would seem to me that a good nights' sleep is a "custom" of every nationality, it certainly doesn't seem relevant to what Kerry is arguing. But like I said, I never claimed it broke any sort of custom, nor did I reference or defend Kerry's claim as such.
"I'm not sure what women and children Kerry is reffering to, as I have not seen any stories about the sfferage of the wives and children of terrorists and their plight of being married to or children of islamofacist murders.
Maybe you have? "
-Nope...that's why I said that I was assuming his reference was accurate. That said, I don't have too much of a doubt that some homes of innocent people have been raided. Do you?
"But shouldn't, as he is the ivy league guy, he be more careful with his use of the term "terrorize"?"
-Maybe, but remember - his GPA was only marginally better than Bush's - how much can we really expect of him? Judging from his performance during the presidential campaign, my conclusion would be "Not much."
"Now kerry didn't bother expanding on his use of the word "terrorize" there. He simply seemed to have more compassion for the wives and children of the terrorists being interrupted while the U.S. is capturing the ACTUAL TERRORIST."
-You're right. I agree. That was a mistake. But two things:
One, I don't think it's fair to categorize all those women and children who have been subjected to these raids as being related to terrorists. Innocents have undoubtedly suffered. Of course this does not mean that I think the raids should be stopped, but let us remember that there are innocents in Iraq - that's why we are there!
Second, I think it's also a mistake to justify or excuse the actions of our own military merely because the enemy we fight is more savage, indiscriminate, and remorseless. We are better than that - it is what separates us from them, and we should aspire to maintain that superiority.
" how dare the U.S. perform unsuspected night raids on the enemy where he lies during war time, Sen Kerry. How dare we!"
-Indeed. But note that I never supported his position; I just want the essence of his statement to be acknowledged, rather than to see it twisted into something that it was not.
"Can you admit that Kerry is playing politics here, and not genuinely questioning the leadership or the war's direction? or are you unwilling to admit that?"
-ABSOLUTELY. Without a doubt, this is pure political posturing, and I apologize for the preceding alliteration. But on that note, can you admit that these people twisting Kerry's words are ALSO PLAYING POLITICS?
*Phew. Guess I had more time than I thought.
Just unbelievable... does is BS just in Kerry's blood? And why in the hell would the head of party come out and say that "we will not win in Iraq"
Here is my take and I guess you will agree or disagree according to your stance and or political philosophy...
1) I saw Kerry give his little comment and I thought to myself, "hmmm, I probably wouldn't have used the word 'terrorize.'" now with that said, I understand why he used it since it is a nice buzz word that has a nice ring to it when trying to make an over the top type of statement akin to the Elian Gonzalez captions during those trying days... at no time did I think that Kerry was calling US troops "terrorists" as our host and others have said...
2) The war in Iraq is a highly political issue (as you can guess) and neither side is exactly sporting halos when discussing it... right now it is the major political issue in the land with enough hyperbole from both sides to basically burn us out of such rhetoric... the "cut and run" phrase that is used for anyone who mentions that we should step back and let the Iraqis do their thing, set a timetable or a list of attainable goals or even just say that it looks as if we can not win in Iraq is used mostly in a dishonest way... very few reasonable people have actually advocated such a drastic move of "cutting and running" but it is an easy label to toss on those who are not backing the "stay the course" thought... there is a middle ground that neither side wants to admit to since this is a nice wedge issue in the country right now...
3) The mass generalizations that Morrison has been known for is something that I am very surprised that even people of his political thought have not mentioned... Morrison (and by default his supporters for the most part) have believed this "American Left" and "liberals" are "hoping" for more American deaths or a defeat... outside of the extremists on the left (and some on the right) this is not true...
4) It is becoming increasingly apparent that the insurgency in most of Iraq is not a "terrorist" action as once again the DoD has reduced the estimates of how many foreign fighters are present... this is not a war to make a "terrorist" country as some have deduced... this looks more along the lines of a war for political power struggle between the Sunnis v the Shi'a and Kurds (the old guard v the new guard)... both sides are claiming that they are looking to unify Iraq... to me, it would seem that if the Sunnis got an upper hand on the Shi'a and Kurds, they would then turn on the foreign fighters to push the idea of unification of Iraq...
5) Morrison's comments about the Generals not backing Murtha's plans isn't necessarily true... Murtha's plan for reduction of troops is somewhat similar to the plan proposed by General Casey... it isn't exactly the same but it follows along the same lines of reducing ttoop levels in Iraq, making an action team in neighboring or nearby locations to react in case of trouble and more non-American help to keep the peace... other military experts have jumped in on this idea with similar thoughts...
6) The idea of not winning in Iraq to be honest isn't anti-American but more realistic... our presence there has been noted as one of the reasons that the foreign fighters are there... why some Iraqis citizens have turned to the insurgency... and even the leaders of Iraq have mentioned that our presence there has made things difficult... our job is not to WIN in Iraq but to help with the regime change to the best our ability... the actual foundations of the new gov't in Iraq will have to be decided by Iraq... if this means a civil war, then so be it... our job should be to help train the new Iraqi army and police and let them decide their course... if democracy is going to flourish, then it must do so on its own...
I am not for "cut and run" as some of have said it... sooner or later we're going to have to leave and it really depends on much time, money and material (including troops) we want to spend there... the idea of perpetual war in Iraq or occupation of Iraq is not something I would back at any degree... to me, Iraq is not a central point for the war on terror... and once again, I do not think you can win a war on terror since it is not a conventional war with a central point of leadership... it is a war on ideas and philosophies that is not necessarily the same between groups, factions or cells...
Before the war started in Iraq, I was against it since I did not (and do not) see it as part of the war on terror... however, once the troops went in, we had to do what we could to get the job done... over that time from the first footfall on Iraqi property to the present, we have made some serious blunders, mistakes and foibles... our policies and goals were not clear... the reasons for being there were not clear... and actions afterwards did not help our case (suspected abuse/torture of prisoners, putting out backing behind certain parties with a blind acceptance that they were thinking of the greater good in Iraq rather than their own agendas and so on...) I understood the early days of the conflict of busting in to houses to check for bad guys (or the comic book term "evildoers") but when it started to come down to neighbors getting even with their rivals, similar names of people, unconfirmed intel and so on... there were and are a number of very innocent people who have been victimized by our policy of crashing through doors... some innocent people have been shot... some personal property was lifted... I know that this happens in a confusing situation in which you are trying to protect your own interests but very idea that any comment or action taken by the innocent victims was virtually ignored... this is not winning the hearts and minds... this is not making Iraqis feel better about us...
Finally, you can make a comment or a statement that the "American Left" or "liberals" are pushing for the downfall of this country and or the our failure in Iraq but it isn't being completely honest... just as saying that it is the same left or liberals that are making this a political issue... the football cheerleader mentality of "rah rah for our side" is continuing the poisonous political climate in this country and this includes blaming the other side for all the problems... the facts are that both sides of the aisle have made some serious mistakes in either statements or actions during this conflict in Iraq... the extremists from either side help propagate the overreaction to these mistakes from the "Bush Lied and People Died" to now the "Kerry Calls US Troops Terrorists..." here is an idea that I want some people to think about... the reason I bring up what both sides do is genuine... but it is to point out the following A) neither side is completely correct or honest with what is going on in Iraq, B) neither side is truly not unpatriotic or anti-American for their views or statements and C) in the divisive structure of what is going on as far as the politicization of military action in Iraq, neither side is exempt from using it as a wedge issue...
Wow.. I'm so not into politics at all... What school do you go to now?
Wyoming -
But on that note, can you admit that these people twisting Kerry's words are ALSO PLAYING POLITICS?
oh yeah, big time! This kinda crap is one of those that the right has wrong for trying to blow wayyy out of proportion what kerry said, They simply should stay with what he did say as it was silly enough.
btw- did anyone catch what Kerry said... he said that US troops shouldn't being going in to Iraqi houses terrorizing children, kids and women... along with some glop about historical and religious traditions... finally the best part... "Iraqis should be doing that."
Come on... that is funny!
Kerry should take some lessons in patriotism from folks like Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limgaugh, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, Karl Rove, Bill Frist, Roy Blunt, Rick Santorum, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott and John Ashcroft--they all bravely fought in Vietnam when it was their time to do so. OOOPS! No they didn't!
Comments are closed.