Who is the keeper of the Kerry-ism file?

<p>This is a definite keeper from this past Sunday's Face the Nation:</p>

Sen. KERRY: ... 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.


<p>fundingfather, I am not a Democrat or Republican, but</p>

<p>that quote seems a little questionable....</p>

<p>especially with all the "..." as if it was taken out of context.</p>

<p>The only ellipses that I added was the first to eliminate the clutter. The pertinent quote that I put in bold was exactly how it was stated. CBS put the ellipses in to indicate that Schieffer tried to interject something. When I heard it the first time I had to rewind to make sure I heard it right (and I did).</p>


<p>You're right to question the comment because it's so over the top. Unfortunately it's what he said. Thankfully his fifteen minutes are over.</p>

<p>Isn't he simply stating the Administration's position?</p>

<p>I think it's an example of how the Democrats don't know how to handle the fringe left on the issue of the war. Witness the war protestors who are regularly showing up at Hillary Clinton's various events. She's trying to follow what in her view is a middle of the road approach to the war, but the far left won't let her. You're now seeing more and more Democrats who will make comments that only those on the fringe would have said in the past. Thus, you have Kerry's odd way of supporting our troops by calling them terrorists.</p>

Witness the war protestors who are regularly showing up at Hillary Clinton's various events.


<p>Hillary is probably paying them to protest. Let's see...I have an eye towards a general election. Wouldn't be such a bad thing if the media is reporting that I am too moderate to satisfy the fringe elements in my party.</p>

<p>Because she controls the money headed into the primaries, Hillary has the luxury of positioning herself for the general election.</p>

<p>For example, she is co-sponsoring a bill with Republican Robert Bennett to make burning the flag a crime.</p>

<p>I think the whole nomination process is wrong. Candidates who are not way to the left or right won't get nominated. So in the general election, we get candidates like Kerry and Bush. I think the best President is a moderate one. I would like to see more candidates like General Clark, General Powell, and John McCain and less candidates like Kerry and Bush in the general elections.</p>

<p>Also, I would like to see less lawyers and more economists running for president.</p>

<p>Anyone agree?</p>

I think the whole nomination process is wrong.


<p>Wrong for whom?</p>

<p>The special interest groups who control the purse strings of the two major parties probably think the current system works pretty well.</p>

<p>A bill or an amendment?</p>

<p>Because last time I checked, flag-burning is protected under the Constitution as political speech... by both liberals and originalists. Why are they wasting their time and our resources doing that?</p>

<p>"You're now seeing more and more Democrats who will make comments that only those on the fringe would have said in the past. "</p>

<p>Never seemed to stop the Reid's and Pelosi's of this world before!</p>

<p>She is opposed to an amendment to the constitution preventing flag burning. She is in favor of a law banning flag burning. I doubt she much cares whether such a law ultimately passes Court review because, by that time, it will have served its purpose. Like any smart politician, she appreciates the usefulness of being able to campaign on both sides of an issue.</p>

<p>For example, on this issue, she could effectively raise money at an ACLU convention and a veteran's convention.</p>

<p>Va Alum, I agree with your comment re: economists. </p>

<p>However, you have Pres Bush all wrong--he is hardly far right. He is a big government Republican like his father, with some extra piety thrown in. Not my cup of tea.</p>

<p>OK FF, I'll bite and to bring this thread back on topic.</p>

<p>Your objective is to dis Sen. Kerry?</p>

<p>That's fine. It is my habit to look at things from more than one direction to test the hypothesis- AKA The scientific method, Socrates Method, even Bush's eventual logical reasons and basis in fact, to place the US foreign policy and involvements where it is today. I refer you to Pres. Bush's Inaugural, State of Union, Addresses to Congress, United Nations, etc. </p>

<li><p>If you replace the name, Sen. Kerry with VP Cheney or Sec. Rumsfeld, would the reply to Mr. Shieffer, be reasonable? But without knowing the question, it is hard to answer. </p></li>
<li><p>On first reading of your quote, I remember something in my HS Civics, on a discussion of the reasons for the Bill of Rights. US Gov Printing office, Constitution of the United States, 2002 edition, Amendments to the Constitution, Fourth Amendment-Search and Seizure.
<a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/022.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/022.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li>

<p>Its been 40 years ago, but some people say that the oldest memory stays the longest, that the American populus was not exactly pleased to have British Soldiers or representatives of the British to<br>
"going into the homes of (place your country here, mine) 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..." </p>

<p>And the British was at that time the legal authority and attempting to put down an insurgency. </p>

<li>Along this same thinking, If I was a British soldier or one of King George lll's mercenaries; Am I going to endear myself to these Americans, Put down this rebellion, Get back home to Wales alive, OR Would I like to have some American Royalist do the the breaking and entering? </li>

<p>PS: Love your posts. I only hope that our children can see that we can make pleasant discussion and thought.</p>

<p>So are they terrorists or not? Kerry seems to think that they are.</p>

<p>Depends on which side of the door you occupy, doesn't it?</p>

<p>Still sounds like he was stating the Administration's position.</p>

<p>if there was something on TV worth watching, I wouldn't be doing this.</p>

<p>About ready to read LIES My Teacher Told Me. Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, Loewen, James W. The New Press, NY. 1995. (bio for Loewen is on Wiki.)</p>

<p>also as I was thinking about the American Revolution (Rebellion, Insurgency) googled: <a href="http://www.wsu.edu:8000/%7Edee/AMERICA/REV.HTM%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/AMERICA/REV.HTM&lt;/a> ,Washington State University, World Civilization, </p>

<p>Number of Hessian mercenaries in the American Revolution.
<a href="http://member.tripod.com/%7ESilvie/Hessian.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://member.tripod.com/~Silvie/Hessian.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>disclaimer: What you believe is your business.</p>

<p>Actually, my post wasn't so much to dis Kerry as to point out that Bush isn't the only one who makes verbal mistakes. I think Kerry's basic point was that we need to let the Iraqis take over the job. But, rather than saying it as simply as that, he had to add the typical Kerry ponderous pontificating, during the course of which he:</p>

<li><p>dissed American soldiers in that by using a derivative of the word terrorist, he is equating what they are doing to what Zarqawi is doing. He may not like how they are attempting to fight the terrorism there, but there must be a better way to say it than to link our soldiers with acts of terrorism. I wonder if he accusses a police narcotics team of terrorism when they break into a drug den?</p></li>
<li><p>The use of the term "kids" and "children" as if they are separate entities makes it sound as if he is trying to attract the PETA vote because of the way our soldiers are terrorizing baby goats. Perhaps as research for his next presidential run he has taken a lesson from Bush and has been reading "My Pet Goat" and now can relate to their plight in a war torn land. ;)</p></li>
<li><p>he goes to great lengths to describe the bad things that our soldiers are doing, but then goes on to say Iraqi soldiers should be doing that. Huh?</p></li>

<p>MEET THE PRESS August 31, 2003.</p>

<p>MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that we should withdraw American troops from Iraq?</p>

<p>SEN. KERRY: No.</p>

<p>MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe we should put more American troops in Iraq?</p>

<p>SEN. KERRY: No. </p>

<p>August 18, 2004 <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4771823/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4771823/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>John Kerry told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that if elected he would commit additional U.S. troops if necessary to stabilize the violence-torn nation, but also would offer the United Nations a more substantial role in an attempt to induce more countries to contribute forces and financial support.</p>

<p>MEET THE PRESS transcript January 30, 2005</p>

<p>SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D-MA): Once Sunday's elections are behind us and the democratic transition is under way, President Bush should immediately announce his intention to negotiate a timetable for a drawdown of American combat forces with the Iraqi government. At least 12,000 American troops, probably more, should leave at once to send a strong signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation.</p>

<p>(End videotape)</p>

<p>MR. RUSSERT: Specifically, do you agree with Senator Kennedy that 12,000 American troops should leave at once?</p>

<p>SEN. KERRY: No.</p>

<p>MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe there should be a specific timetable of withdrawal of American troops?</p>

<p>SEN. KERRY: No.</p>

<p>December 1, 2005 <a href="http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15676599&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=68561&rfi=6%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15676599&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=68561&rfi=6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"The large presence of American troops in Iraq gives credence to the notion of occupation and in fact delays the willingness and ability of Iraqi troops to stand up," Kerry said on NBC's "Today" show.</p>

<p>FACE THE NATION December 4, 2005</p>

<p>Sen. KERRY: *** And our troops could redeploy, pull back into a more garrisoned rear position. They don't need to leave totally so that you have no ability to intervene in the event that Iran played their games or Syria or Others. We can provide for the security of our country but it begins with the
understanding that success in Iraq is predicated on an exit strategy.
SCHIEFFER: So what you're saying here is it is more dangerous to the American people to leave the troops There than to begin drawing them down? Is that what I take from your answer?
Sen. KERRY: It is more dangerous to the mission to leave them in the large numbers they're in today in the status quo. The president keeps saying we're going to stay the course. Staying the course leaves the Iraqis the option of making the decision of when they stand up. If you say to the Iraqis--here's what I believe the president should do. I--these elections are incredibly important. I believe they're going to be successful. We want them to be successful. The day after the election, the president of the United States should announce to the Iraqis and the world, `Because they were successful, because the referendum was successful, I am withdrawing the 20,000 additional troops we put in to do them.'</p>