Ahhh...John Kerry...Just In The Nick Of Time....

What a guy that John Kerry is! Just when the roof is about to cave in on the Republican Party, this guy opens his yap and is about to cost his party a second national election! I think he secretly works for Karl Rove….

Is this guy a dolt or what?

Imagine insulting the entire military establishment, their families and friends less than one week before the mid-terms.

Brilliant!

What a guy. His "stick the old foot in the mouth" trick is perhaps the biggest political blunder since...well...since Bill got his zipper stuck!

Now, the proverbial tit is in the wringer for the Mules.

Do they demand an apology? Or better still, maybe they should endorse it..either way you can put 5 points on the board for the GOP.

What was that Foley guy's first name again?

Yup, just when the lights are being ready to be turned off, just at that new Democratic stationary is set to be delivered to Nancy Pelosi....this...

What a guy. John Kerry: my friend!

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at November 1, 2006 9:39 AM
Comments
Comment #192374

SE,

Here’s what Kerry meant to say at a speech Monday in California: “I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.”

Here’s what he actually said: “Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Can’t you Republicans come up with a REAL ISSUE to debate?????

Posted by: Steve K at November 1, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #192378

SK,

Wow!! What real issue was Kerry debating when he opened up his mouth, besides calling the Bush Admin names. Really on top of the issues here from “I love the troops” unless I am an anti-vietnam lying before congress to make myself a name, John Kerry

Posted by: shaun at November 1, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #192381

I agree with SE here. Kerry is a loser and a stuffed shirt. Hindsight is indeed 20/20, but I look at him as the guy the Dems put up there in ‘04 and just shake my head. At least Dean would have made a decent fight of it. Kerry sat back through the slander and kept trying to explain himself. You don’t get a chance to explain yourself in this country. Everything you do can boil down to one moment (just ask Dean). It’s our celebrity culture of ADHD.

Any sane informed person would vote against the Republicans if they knew the issues and had an ounce of compassion. As it is, those of us with a brain have to sit back and watch the Dems self-destruct yet again.

Oh, and by the way, even if he meant that our soldiers tended to be amongst the less educated in our society (and he didn’t), he’d be right. That’s an easy one—many soldiers from lower economic strata and education levels enlist for the opportunity to improve their situation. I doubt many expected a backdoor draft, however.

Good luck to you R’s. You’ll no doubt keep the edge you need!

Posted by: DavidL at November 1, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #192389

Excuse me.

Is Kerry running for office this election?

Aside from Kerry’s constituents, does anybody really give a rat’s ass what Kerry says?

Kerry could run around naked, with his hair on fire for all I care.
The Republicans screwed the pooch, and Kerry isn’t going to save them this time.

Posted by: Rocky at November 1, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #192395

Maybe Kerry is right ;-)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/1/154656.shtml?s=br

Make it http and see photo of spelling problems with troops

Posted by: Darp at November 1, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #192396

If you’re going to call Kerry a dolt, at least spell Karl Rove’s name right.

He apologized for botching his joke and we’re on to the next news cycle.

Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #192400

But Trent, didn’t you hear? He didn’t apologize *enough*!

Make no mistake, as SE is gently implying, the White House is going to milk this for all its worth. And the right-wing media—right-wing in that it doesn’t seem to give a rat’s tuchus about actual issues, the right-wing media will let this really stir.

Sorry, but that’s our reality.

Posted by: davidL at November 1, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #192401

Bush isn’t running for office either Rocky, but yet kerry brought him up. Hoping to scare up votes by comparing all Republicans as being just like Bush.
And now, the Rpublicans are using him to scare up votes by saying Democrats all think the troops are dumb-asses just like kerry does.
Fair is fair I guess.

Wish his handlers wouldn’t have written an apology so soon though.
Its was fun watching the left trying to make excuses for him and then try to defend him (what he said isn’t what he meant to say, lol) and then they tried to ignore it (its not a real issue so it means nothing, lol)

Of course he isn’t going to save them, but come on, his so-called attempt at a “joke” turned out to be good for a few laughs.

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #192403

DavidL
The left has only one actual issue: Iraq. And negative news about that is the only thing ever shown. Right-wing media? Please.

Besides, the left has already been clobbered in the last two elections by the “actual issues.”
Why else do you think all they ever talk about is Bush?

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #192404

Kerry is at best a mediocre intellect too stiff to deliver a well-written line.

But, in the interest of common ground, let’s beware of setting a double standard. After all “One has a stronger hand when there’s more people playing your same cards.”

Tying intellectual laziness to the war in Iraq is an easy job (tying the war in Iraq to Oedipus and oil is even easier) but “You know, one of the hardest parts of [President Bush’s] job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” And that was near impossible. Although, given the number of new terrorists we inspire daily through our occupation, that too is getting easy.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about you can go look it up in “The Google”

I do want to thank the original author of the comment, “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job”

Posted by: common ground at November 1, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #192406

DavidL,

“Oh, and by the way, even if he meant that our soldiers tended to be amongst the less educated in our society (and he didn’t), he’d be right. That’s an easy one—many soldiers from lower economic strata and education levels enlist for the opportunity to improve their situation.”


ANNNNNNH…wrong answer.

check here

Posted by: Jim T at November 1, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #192412

Uh, Sicilian Eagle, my chest-beating, braying friend, it is a documented fact that although some of the troops are enlisting out of a sense of patriotism or loyalty, most of the men and women pulling duty in Iraq made an economic decision based on their lack of perceived options. Kerry is 100% right that lack of options leads to service in Iraq, just as it did in Vietnam. You can crow that his statement is a blunder, but it doesn’t wash as an untruth. You right-wingers have taken the concept of politically correct speech and put it on steroids. If you disagree with the Iraq invasion and occupation you “want the terrorists to win” and if you speak the truth about who goes to Iraq you “insult the military”. You’re worse the the SDS at its most vocal.

Posted by: mental wimp at November 1, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #192425

Jim T

You do realize that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank funded by right wingers to promote their point of view, don’t you? If you look closely at their report, they fail to note that there are eligibility criteria for enlistment that exclude people in poor health with low IQ and poor education. When you compare eligible enlistees to the eligible population, you get a different story, but not one the Heritage Foundation is anxious to tell, because it doesn’t serve their ideological end.

Look at the academic studies and you will get a less biased picture, as their funding doesn’t depend upon supporting a particular answer.

Posted by: mental wimp at November 1, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #192431

Jim T:

I’ll believe the “Heritage Foundation” when you believe the “Communist Workers Daily Gazette.”

Anyways, isn’t it a lot less patriotic to send a military force to another country for a preemptive war whose justification turns out to be on false pretenses? Howsabout sending the force without adequate body armor? Howsabout lowering benefits for soldiers, or closing loopholes allowing them to declare bankruptcy? I’m just going with whatever comes to mind, but the injustices have been frequent and often.

Now *those* are issues. Y’all cons got nothing.

Posted by: davidL at November 1, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #192433

And by the way, kctim, since when are “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and the “overwhelming” threat of gay marriage issues? That’s what you guys won your election on.

Posted by: davidL at November 1, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #192436

Get him! Quick, write a big speech and pass out transcripts to anyone with a press pass! Go out and demand an apology on the TV! Go on morning radio and say it makes you sick! Put attack ads on TV linking your enemy to Kerry! Dont let up! Beat up the guy that everyone already saw get beat up 2 years back!

[Yawn]

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 1, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #192450

Tonite Kerry issued an apology on his web site. Yesterday he said he wasn’t…that it was a bad joke.

At least the guy is consistent…still a flip-flopper after all these years.

This guy was the Mules’ standard bearer in ‘04 and has been running for ‘08 since then….

He has skewered the president, and I am giggling at his gaff.

Seriously, this guy is self destructive.

PS…Sorry for the typo,but honestly, I was singing when I posted the piece..will fix it…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 1, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #192461

kctim,

“Bush isn’t running for office either Rocky, but yet kerry brought him up. Hoping to scare up votes by comparing all Republicans as being just like Bush.”

Like it or not, as President, Mr. Bush is the face of the Republican party.
Kerry is just another politician, albeit a loud politician, that lost a Presidential race.

I have to salute the Sicilian Eagle in yet another vain attempt to make ice cream out of horseshit.

Posted by: Rocky at November 1, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #192466

Eagle,
“His stick the old foot in the mouth trick is perhaps the biggest political blunder since…well…since Bill got his zipper stuck!”


It’s more like stepping in sh*t and walking around with your nose up in the air. What a complete and utter toolbag this Kerry is. Like I’ve said before, the greatest Americans (ever!) are the “Swift Boat Veterans for truth”; they argued against Kerry for turning on our troops over thirty years ago and they’ve been vindicated (twice in two years) by Kerry’s inane comments about our (current) military. Not to mention they costed Kerry the 2004 Presidency. Thanks Swift Boat Veterans!!! I salute you!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 1, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #192468

Rocky

Been busy watching the Patriots wup the Vikings this week…but I had to come off the perch over John Boy.

I think it is still nip and tuck on this election though.

Right now the MSM is playing up the “Chaos in Iraq” thing very large….BUT…I think the Repubs have a great grass roots thing 72 hours before the election…..if it’s close by then then may yet bail this thing out.

Or, Kerry…no Dean…can continue speaking…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 1, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #192471

These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute:
1. Hussein violated 13 U.N. resolutions.
2. Hussein violated the ceasefire agreement he signed after the first Gulf War.
3. Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people.
4. Hussein could never show how he destroyed his remaining arsenal of chemical weapons (It’s funny but, unlike garbage, you can’t just put it on the curb in a can and wait for the man in the big truck to come and take it away.)
5. Hussein sent $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
6. Hussein had a nuclear weapons program. It was inactive when we went to war but the IAEA said AFTER the invasion he could have reconstituted it up at any time.

These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute:

Honesty:
Your guys voted for the same war, based on the same intelligence that our guys did.

Honesty:
Your president said the same things about Iraq, Hussein and terrorism that our guys did.

Honesty:
Six years later, your guys can’t even say, “I thought it was a good idea at the time, I don’t any more.” They have to say that Bush lied when there is ZERO evidence of that.

Honesty:
Your guys have to say, “Bush lied, soldiers died,” because they can’t admit they were wrong.

Honesty:
After 9/11 we should have focused on border security. Our guys did nothing, neither did your guys.

Honesty:
There is no party that represents the best interests of the American people.

Honesty:
Raising taxes will not stimulate the economy or help us pay our debts
It is a fact that when taxation increases, Government revenues decrease.
People get fired: no payroll taxes from business, fewer income taxes for the Fed.
People spend less money. People require more federal assistance.
****The dotcom Era was a fluke so don’t give me Clinton and tax revenues, blah, blah blah - If Reagan hadn’t invested so much money in Defense, none of the communication’s technology that was declassified and spurred the Internet’s growth would have occured.

Honesty:
What we need to do is cut spending and NEITHER PARTY wants to do that

Honesty:
They love your money.
Honesty:
They think they can spend it better than you.
Honesty:
They think they have the right to spend it.
Honesty:
They don’t care if you’re rich or poor, they just want your tax dollars.
Honesty:
They just want power. They come up with this sh*t – Foley, Strom Thurmond, Drunk Driving Arrests, fake military records, to keep us all pi**ed off at each other.

Posted by: nate at November 1, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #192474

When you can’t intelligently debate the issues the left must turn to insults. Now the left will then argue that there is plenty of vial from the right so conservatives are just as bad. Not so.

Why is it that we routinely hear insulting remarks as part of speeches by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Howard Dean, etc., etc. but you will be hard pressed to cite any recent examples (past 4 years) of Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, President Bush throwing sensless personal attacks.

When we do have any of our people get out of hand, they are dealt with (e.g. Trent Lott, Mark Foley, etc). When a Democrat makes an ass of themselves, they are made leaders (see list above)

When a Democratic Congressman in the early 80s took a 17 year old boy page to Europe to have sex with him his liberal constituents re-elected him 5 more times. The same year when a republican congressman had sex with a 17 year old female page his conservative constituents voted him out.

Liberalism is all about emotionalism and insults, conservatism is about principles and values.

Posted by: Al at November 1, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #192502

Al,
“Liberalism is all about emotionalism and insults, conservatism is about principles and values.”


Amen! I’ve been saying that for years now; liberalism is emotionalism and conservatism is logic and reason. Now, logic and reason can be hard to endure, yet it’s the correct way to go in the long run.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 1, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #192506

rah, did you read SE’s post? It’s ecstatically gleeful over a bit of nonsense. “Wheee” is a good summation. Meanwhile, the real issues remain.

Do you read the articles in the Red Column? With some exceptions, they consist of wild, over-the-top rhetoric, hardly paradigms of logic and reason. SE is one of the worst offenders.

The Blue Column is often silly, too, of course, but you don’t have much warrant for your silly characterizations of liberalism and conservatism.

Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #192513

Kerry owes no one an apology. This is a scandal and when the truth comes out, it will blow the Republicans sky high. Kerry and the Dems are in secret meetings right now getting the evidence together. Bush is toast. Cheney is toast. Rove will be in prison.

They have proof, iron clad evidence, that Kerry’s remarks were part of a Karl Rove dirty trick. Karl Rove’s operatives were able to get in the room prior to Kerry and the audience. They switched the speaker systems and put their own loop in it. Kerry said one thing, about Bush, and an anti troop smear came out. This could just bring the administration down.

Oh, yeah, the Easter Bunny just dropped my egg shipment off and Santa called and said he will be late this year. He is busy crossing Democratic voters off his list.

Posted by: Peter V. Bella at November 1, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #192527

Kerry meant what he said, it has been a left wing “thing” for a long time, that US military is manned by uneducated poor people.

George Bush is a Havard MBA (higher degree than Kerry’s Boston College law degree). Plus Bush got better grades at Yale that Kerry did (they overlapped in time there), and Bush and Kerry took the same IQ test and Bush scored higher.

Thus Kerry+Supporters twisted claim that he was refering to Bush having not gone to college is impossible. He meant what he said, it was a slip.

Of course he has refered to American soldiers as murderers, rapists, and torturers on the whole in sworn testimony before the Senate in 70s. So at least Kerry is improving his opinion of American soldiers with this comment.

Posted by: Darp at November 1, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #192529

If the poor dumb ass can’t get a joke right that he is READING from a script, how can he be trusted to get anything right? He is right about getting an education or in his case marrying right on two counts. Why would anyone want to joke about our troops in Iraq who are fighting the war we will soon have brought home to us if the dims get elected?

film at eleven: Wolf Blitzer pull his head out long enough to ask Kerry, ” Why the long face, it ain’t u falt u illiterate, after all u had the best edcation at a pubic skool, didn’t you.”

seriously though I believe besides being a dunce, he just made a slip and spoke how he and the rest of the dims really feel and if elected you can not believe what happens next.

Posted by: lm at November 1, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #192530

The Dems made a huge mistake choosing Kerry for their candidate. He leaned too far left to be a comfortable choice for 85% of Dems. He had a questionable Viet Nam experience. He had testified under oath as an opponent to the Viet Nam war. He had done nothing significant in the Senate. And his grade point average was lower than Bush’s at the same school. He’s the reason Bush won his second term.

As presidential candidate in ‘04 he is the face of the Dem party. Too bad, isn’t it! Then, he refuses to go away! Here he is, two years later, making a crude joke about Bush which he messes up(Bush doesn’t waste his time making crude jokes about Kerry).

I think most of the Dems are actually glad Kerry didn’t win. Think of it, BENEATH Bush in popularity! (According to many on the left who post here, Bush is ABOUT as low as you can get.) I’m sure the Dems will be glad when they get to choose someone else to represent them.

Posted by: Don at November 1, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #192531

Don’t forget Kerry’s claim that in the middle of night American soldiers went into homes and did all kind of evil to women and children. He has not appologized for that sensless remark. The pattern has been formed. He is just living out the course he has laid. Of course he does have assistance from Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, Durbin, Feinstein, Boxer, Conyers, Rangel, Leahy, Clinton, Feingold, et. al.

Posted by: tomh at November 1, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #192533

SE, the dims are as solid as a soup sandwich and not too bright, hence the dims.
Once again he can stand tall and long faced and state unequivocally that he said he would not apologize to anyone about his stupidity before he apologized for not being a good comedian.

film at eleven: John Kerry was last heard to say ” Now I must leave you as I am late and Ted Kennedy said he would give me a ride home. Hey Ted, why do we have to go by Chappaquiddick?”


Posted by: lm at November 1, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #192534

Trent,
“did you read SE’s post? It’s ecstatically gleeful over a bit of nonsense. “Wheee” is a good summation. Meanwhile, the real issues remain.”


I agree! Kerry’s comments were “nonsense” and down right appalling. And, he (and others) had the audacity to try and defend that crap for as long as they could until they had to “cave” to reality; arrogant, pompous a$$e$!!

Eagle was simply saying that this Kerry comment will rally the conservative base; a base that was silent b/c of the spending and immigration (for starters), now they may actually rally behind the repugs to keep the country from being run by jackasses like Kerry, Murtha, and Pelosi…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 1, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #192541

Rah,

Ah, ok, just as long as you are not engaging in emotionalism ;)

Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #192547

Given the state of the current educational system, and specifically the institutions of ‘higher learning’, Kerry told more about the liberals than he wanted to.
Basically I see Kerry as saying this, “If you go to one of our screwed up liberal universities and believe exactly what the liberal professors tell you, then you can ponficiate all day long about how the world needs to be changed. However if you miss the chance for us to indoctrinate you and you don’t attend one of our fine institutions of higher learning, then you get stuck in Iraq where you have the opportunity to ACTUALLY change the world.

Posted by: avis at November 1, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #192577

Al,

I’m piggy-backing off something you’ve already stated so eloquently.

When a conservative goofs, misspeaks, or is misinterpreted, liberals call for apologies, investigations, and resignations.

When a liberal goofs, misspeaks, or is misinterpreted, liberals call for conservatives to “stick to the issues”.

Posted by: DJ at November 2, 2006 12:50 AM
Comment #192578

If you work hard, study hard, get good grades, chances are you’ll have more options available to you than those who don’t. It’s good advice. It’s advice I would like my children to receive and heed. It’s advice that most Americans would agree with. That Kerry chose to use our troops as an example of those youngsters who were left with fewer attractive choices in life is unfortunate, but not inaccurate. He was not trying to insult our troops. He was trying to inspire our children. Yet the Republican spin machine, which has very little else to grab onto these days, tries to portray Kerry and the rest of the Democratic Party as troop-haters.

Look for some real issues. This one is pure fluff.

Posted by: Stan at November 2, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #192582

“He was not trying to insult our troops. He was trying to inspire our children.”

And yet he’s doing a mighty fine job of doing the exact opposite, isn’t he?

Posted by: Don at November 2, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #192583

No Don. He’s irrelevant. If our troops are feeling insulted over those comments, then they really are stupid. What they should feel insulted about is that Bush sent them over there to die based on lies. They should feel insulted that their President considers their lives and their sacrifices meaningless. They should feel insulted that they are dying so that Exxon shareholders can line their already well-lined pockets.

Posted by: Kutnrun at November 2, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #192586

Stan,

Kerry and the Democratic Party do a first-rate job of portraying themselves as troop-haters. They don’t need anyone’s help to accomplish that.

Posted by: DJ at November 2, 2006 1:21 AM
Comment #192590

Kutnrun -

“If our troops are feeling insulted…” Who said anything about that? An insult is an insult, not a feeling.

Our troops should be supported. They are doing what must be done. They are no longer dying for anything but freedom and democracy for the people of another nation. We should all be proud of their efforts and sacrifices! WHY we went there is NO LONGER the issue. Now the issue is WHAT they are attempting to accomplish. The significance of finishing the objective could be enormous. They deserve every ounce of support we can muster.

Posted by: Don at November 2, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #192591

While Kerry spoke to the kids of the rich and well-to-do at college, giving them advice on working hard, studying hard, etc., he apparently forgot all about the boot camp training all those professional soldiers have to endure before getting stuck in Iraq. He must have also forgotten the free college tuition the little eighteen year old heroes are earning in Iraq coupled with veterans hiring preferences for all those who serve in the Armed Forces. It seems to me Kerry was steering those college kids wrong! I’ll bet in ten years those “stupid soldiers” are doing better than any of those skulls full of mush Kerry was talking to! After all, the Vietnam War did wonders for the good “Senator” didn’t it?

Posted by: JD at November 2, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #192593

Do you really believe it was bad advice to work hard and achieve good grades? Do you really believe it is a wise life choice to go fight in Iraq? If so, you will undoubtedly encourage your children to do just that. Just as Bush and Co. have encouraged their children to do. Yeah, you’re right, Kerry was steering those college kids wrong. We should be encouraging them to go fight in Iraq for…help me with that—what are they dying for?

Posted by: Stan at November 2, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #192594

JD,

“It seems to me Kerry was steering those college kids wrong! I’ll bet in ten years those “stupid soldiers” are doing better than any of those skulls full of mush Kerry was talking to!”

Or at least those who don’t come home in a body bag, or with acute schizophenia.

Do you really believe it was bad advice to work hard and achieve good grades? Do you really believe it is a wise life choice to go fight in Iraq? If so, you will undoubtedly encourage your children to do just that. Just as Bush and Co. have encouraged their children to do. Yeah, you’re right, Kerry was steering those college kids wrong. We should be encouraging them to drop out of school. To go fight in Iraq for…help me with that—what are they dying for?

Posted by: Stan at November 2, 2006 2:32 AM
Comment #192595

JD,

“While Kerry spoke to the kids of the rich and well-to-do at college…”

I’m trying to get this clear in my head. Do you Republicans like or dislike the spoiled rich kids?

Posted by: Stan at November 2, 2006 2:40 AM
Comment #192600

Kutnrun,

Well, I guess I’m stupid to you. I’m in the Army and in Iraq. Even if Kerry didn’t mean to insult Soldiers and it was just a stupid gaffe, its very easy to take it that way, especially considering how he behaved following his time in Vietnam. Beyond this, the idea that Kerry’s service would give him some sort of empathy with the troops is not nesiccarily true. Kerry served at a time when the draft was the law of the land and the low morale etc of Vietnam, coupled with the institutional arrogance that comes from being an Ivy Leager, could very well have given him a negative impression of Americans under arms. As it is, Kerry’s remarks were at least incredibly stupid, and attacking Bush rather than immediately apologizing probably just made things worse.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 2, 2006 4:20 AM
Comment #192602

1LTB:
Kerry may have expressed something he should have kept to himself, but it’s really no different than what most Americans believe. Stay in school. Work hard. Get good grades so you can get into a decent school or get a decent job. The better you do the more you’ll keep your options open. It’s nothing than most parents wouldn’t counsel their kids. Most parents don’t want to see their kids choose Iraq because it offers them the best available alternatives. Most parents, no matter how patriotic they are, worry to death that their child will be shipped off to Iraq or any other war zone.

What is stupid is believing, as the Republican leadership would have us believe, that there is any relevance to John Kerry’s advice to some students. It is not relevant. And he is not particularly relevant. The insult is sending 2800 Americans off to die in an unnecessary war. The insult is hearing the president state that even if everyone in the country except for his wife and dog believed we should get out of Iraq he would still stay there. He is treating you and the rest of our brave troops cavalierly. He does not seem to care about your life or your well-being. Nor does Cheney or Rumsfeld. He cares about oil company profits more than he cares about your life. He reduces veterans benefits, even while our troops are risking their lives every day for his war. There, my friend, is the insult. He insults you with his lies and his blatant disregard for your well-being. John Kerry’s remarks, whether brilliant or stupid, are totally irrelevant.

Posted by: Kutnrun at November 2, 2006 4:39 AM
Comment #192604

Kutnrun

Actually the military has been a way (for decades) for the young from all walks oif life to find themselves, I think…like college.

In the militay, (unlike college), most vets have a bankable skill which guides them thru life. Most importantly, I think, is the profound sense of accomplishment…in service to our nation’s country..is what seperates them from the rest.

When vets like Rad, when serving military like heroes like 1LT post here, I am thankful that men like these are around. They are America. That is what Kerry forgot. In his zeal to capture the spotlight, flesh and blood patriots like the two mentioned above were stepped on.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 2, 2006 5:37 AM
Comment #192605

Kerry is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

So what do you expect?

Now you know why I am a Conservative Rupublican

Charlie George

Posted by: Charlie George at November 2, 2006 5:43 AM
Comment #192606


Kerry did not do anything wrong, it just said what most Democrats are thinking, and wished that they had said.

Charlie George

Posted by: Charlie George at November 2, 2006 5:50 AM
Comment #192614

Kutnrun,

What you say is partially right. My parents worry about me, as I’m sure all family of servicemembers do. What annoys me is the attitude that is behind remarks like Kerry’s. Its the sort of inbred arrogance that assumes that military service is the result of either bad economic circumstances or a lack of education. I went to college at a school that was rated in the top 10 of colleges academically in the Midwest. Not quite Yale or Harvard, but a good school. I did not have a full ride of scholarships but enough that college there would have been less expensive than if I went to state school in my home state. Plus, I wouldn’ve been able to get a job that would have made what college debt I would’ve had very managable. I chose to accept an ROTC scholarship and join the Army out of a desire to serve. It was also nice to leave with significantly less debt than I would’ve had otherwise, but money was niether my sole, nor my primary motivation.

From my perspective, that same attitude is alive and well in some, and I emphasize some, liberal minds. I have been called a knuckle dragger and a baby murderer by a few very far left individuals. Even with people who are otherwise well informed, I still find an attitude among some that looks on me as a fool who just couldn’t cut it in the “real” world and joined the military because I couldn’t compete. Friends I’ve not seen for years have expressed shock that someone as smart as I am (their words) would “waste my intelligence in the military.” Its an attitude similar to that of some radical feminists to whom housewife is a four letter word and a woman who stays at home to raise children is wasting her life.

I don’t agree with everything that Bush has done. To the contrary, I’m a very disgruntled Republican. The thing that offends me the most is the hypocrisy of Republicans who bash Democrats for not treating this as a war and at the same time continue business as usual pork barrel spending etc. That being said, when I look at the leadership of the Democratic party, people like Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Rangel, I’m not impressed. Their general attitude seems to me to smack of this same condecension for Soldiers and their families. I don’t want to be insulted for my service by my elected leaders, nor do I think I should be an object of pity. I am proud of the choices I’ve made in my life, and an attitude that says I’m a fool for those same choices is one I’d rather not see in public servants.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 2, 2006 7:17 AM
Comment #192621

Always remember that he was the dims choice in 2004 and they all think like this. Hillary, Dean, Pulosi, and Kerry. All dims think the military is a bunch of dumb kids out to kill. Well they are half right and the kill part is what scares the hell out of all dims. they hate the military, the 2nd amendment and anything else that interferes with their ability for total control of our lives. they want to rule but not at their peril.

John Kerry just said what all dims are, they know not what they do they just do what is their nature to do.

solid as a soup sandwich. chicken noddle!

Posted by: lm at November 2, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #192624

You can forget about this non-story. All it’s doing is eating news cycles that Republicans could have used to do something constructive for their chances. Now they look like the whiners we know they are. Whatever Kerry said, he’s not running for anything this term.

This election is about Republican rule and how it has been a disaster on every level. What Kerry said changes nothing. Do you really believe that any of this is going to save little Ricky Santorum?

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #192626

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! How’s that for a destructive message to send to our troops?

This thread has become a feeding frenzy of people who spell “bile” as “vial,” people who subscribe to “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Home Journal” and people who actually believe that the US army was angelic in Vietnam (or that war was started on truthful pretenses).

I’ll look to another thread without quite so many hiding ostriches.

Posted by: DavidL at November 2, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #192630

The great irony here is that Republicans are bringing of the failures of Democrats in past Elections, when they’re just about to experience a catastrophic failure of their own. Who are they to criticize us for fielding a bad candidate, given all that their re-elected president and soon to be unelected majority in Congress have screwed up?

Kerry mispeaks from time to time. Well, folks, that’s the end of the world for us. Sorry. But seriously, everybody mispeaks from time to time, and Kerry made a pretty serious gaffe. It’s nothing, however, in comparison to the continual failure that is Republican policy at this point, for all the lies and deceits. You folk on the right point to this as some reason to fear the intentions of the Democrats and Liberals, but what can you do about the constant reality that draws people to be resentful and afraid of your policy? This is just one more partisan game among the many, which Americans are sick of.

So if you want to dwell on this, go ahead. Slander is the opiate of the masses among the Republicans. If it dulls the pain of your defeat, by all means, indulge.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #192633

Yes, John Kerry, my friend. A decorated war veteran, vilified by small dirty bought off hacks, who happens to suffer from a mind too fast for a mouth too slow to catch up. Unlike the President, with a mind so slow that the mouth doesn’t have any input as it noises off.

Personally, I think hoopla is just fine. As long of the GOPers and their Fox stooges stupidly blather on about how Kerry didn’t actually insult the troops, Iraq will be in top billing. As long as Iraq is on everyones mind, As we enter the voting booth we will remember that the incompetent cowardly chickenhawks who are this administration are the ones responsible for this grotesque murderous mistake in the first place.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 2, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #192636

LT said “What annoys me is the attitude that is behind remarks like Kerry’s. Its the sort of inbred arrogance that assumes that military service is the result of either bad economic circumstances or a lack of education.”

Kerrys comment was supposed to be “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.” Not exactly an insult to service men and women made by a retired and decorated officer who volunteered to serve, is it? What arrogance? It wasn’t directed at or even mentioned the troops. You may not like the Dems, but this is one time where there is really nothing but the GOP trying to blow smoke up our butts.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 2, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #192639

What Kerry said was a monumental insult and lie. I had a BA in psych with a 5 year practice in Music therapy prior to my entry into the army. I recieved an education in medicine that allowed me to work and travel for nearly 30 years. It also allowed me the time to study history, law, religion and meet people I would not have a chance to otherwise.
The guys (not kids) today have intel far above the average. They have to go on the usual patrols and shoot the usual weapons, the same as any army. But the technology and speed of information absorpsion is beyond belief. I know soldiers who watch 5 to 7 computer screens and control aircraft who “just” finished “highscrul”, which today is not a sign of sucess or intelligence. The skills of the military are real world not the “ivory tower” of irrelevence.
k

Posted by: Kuzriel at November 2, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #192640

One more note. I hear a lot of what Kerry was to say and what he did say. There is a world of difference. In my day it was called a “Freudian slip”. In other words his mouth spoke his real belief over his cover story. Ah but spin, spin all you want - he said what he said and he should be man enough to admit it not offer 5 different versions of the same spin. No words can undo the damage “no mistakes” “no lies” Kerry could do now.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #192643
What Kerry said was a monumental insult

Yeah. But those Bush jokes about looking for WMD under his chair and desk, those were just “funny.” Amusingly, Kerry didn’t send our sons and daughters to die over the brunt of his “joke.”

All you’re education in “psych” and “Music therapy” didn’t seem to teach you what’s important: Kerry is not respondible for putting our people in harm’s way based on a lie. That’d be your guy: Bush. You know, the guy who makes jokes about THAT after the fact…

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #192649

All your harping about WMD - read Kerry and other Dims they were yelling about it long before Bush was in office. Then read Bush’s full speach and the resolution sending us to war. After that we might have a basis for discussion.
Body counts are a relitive thing in war. I never heard of body armor. You ducked, you found or dug cover.
WMD - tell me did Clinton’s attack make them go away?!
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #192650

To all supporting Kerry and his ilk.
It’s “vile,” not “vial.”
Next, Kerry was still a commissioned naval officer when he “threw” his medals.
Next, the average grunt in Iraq has passed a series of mental and physical tests to “get stuck in Iraq,” tests the typical high school grad would struggle with.
And lastly, as a 31 year Navy retiree: it is an insult to me personally that Sen. Kerry wore my uniform. He brought great discredit to all of us who served. He swore an oath to not do what he did.

Posted by: Dennis 40 at November 2, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #192652

IT CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME THAT ATTACKS BASED ON BUSH’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE IRAQ WAR AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROBLEMS FOLLOWING THE RAPID DEFEAT OF THE HUSSEIN MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT ENTITIES ARE THE DEMOCRAT “ISSUE” NUMBER ONE.
WHO DO THEY (THE DEMOCRATS) THINK ARE KILLING INNOCENT IRAQ CIVILIANS AND U. S. SOLDIERS AND OTHER NATIONS SOLDIERS AND JOURNALISTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD AND IRAQ POLITITIONS AND POLICE AND ARMY PERSONEL.
DO THEY REALY BELIEVE THAT LEAVING THE IRAQ POPULATION TO THE MERCIES OF THOSE THAT ARE DAY IN AND DAY OUT PRACTICING TERRORISM WITHOUT COALITION FORCES TO ASSIST UNTIL THE NEWLY FORMED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE ROOT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA.
IF THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IRAQ WILL BE AT RISK OF BECOMING THE BASE OF TERRORISM THAT AFGANISTAN WAS AND THEREFORE THE PLATFORM TO LAUNCH ATTACKS ON THE USA WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE?
EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY WHAT SPECIFIC ACTIONS WOULD DEMOCRATS ADVOCATE BEYOND “WITHDRAWING OUR TROOPS”?
SOMEONE SHOULD LIST ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERSHIP STATEMENTS ABOUT POST WITHDRAWAL IRAQ.
DO YOU THINK THERE WILL BE ACTIONS OR RESULTS OR PROJECTIONS THAT WILL MAKE AMERICANS PROUD?
IRAQ OR THE ECONOMY DEMOCRATS ATTACK AND SHOUT THE SKY IS FALLING. SELDOM WILL THEY SAY WHAT THEY WILL DO. WONDER WHY?

Posted by: JIM H at November 2, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #192657

Dave1,

If this was all a misunderstanding, why wouldn’t Kerry apologize immediately? I can see where what he actually said was an attempt, albeit a very ambiguous and lame attempt, to make fun of President Bush. However, even he must’ve realized quickly how it sounded and how it could be taken. Had he just said whoops, I misread my script etc, sorry, I don’t think this would be a big deal. His initial response to Bush was forceful and had he shown the slightest trace of that 2 years ago he might have won. Instead, much like the party he represents, when the going got tough he tanged out and gave a half-assed lame and insincere apology and didn’t even have the decency to do it in person. What leadership.

Jeff Seltzer,

Have you ever taken a lesson in Civics? The resolution to go to war in Iraq was supported by every democrat leader in the Senate and most of the House. Hell, Dean is the only one of the 2004 contenders I could respect for actually being consistent. As it is, any member of the Senate might’ve held that resolution up, but none did. This leads me to think that two conclusions are possible. Number 1, the Senators looked at the evidence and came to the honest and sincere belief that Iraq under Saddam represented a real and imminent threat to the US as Bush said, in which case they were just as incompetent as they accuse him of being. Number 2, they looked at the evidence, decided that it was bs, noticed the country was a-jingo, bought into Bush’s lines about a 6 month campaign, and voted for the war anyways, in which case you can add derliction of duty on to the incompetence. Oh, and before you start on the bullshit about how they were given doctored intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee gets the same info the President does. Either way, the Democrats positions on the war now are nothing more than political ploys. They have no plan, unless you call redeployment to Guam a plan. Instead, they whine and cry and offer nothing.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 2, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #192658

“Kerry is not respondible for putting our people in harm’s way based on a lie.”

Funny …. Point of fact - Kerry voted to send our boys over right next to all the others who are now blaiming the President for doing something he does not have the power to do without the approval of the congress and senate!

Posted by: K2 at November 2, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #192660

sicilianeagle,

It’s sad that the GOP apologists are hanging their hats on one stupid statement and not looking at 6 years of bad policy and ineptitude by the GOP and Bush.
Remember Iraq, trade deficit, Soc. Security, Prescription drug plan(Tax givaway for Pharm. co’s.), Torture, illegal wiretapping, failure to capture Bin Laden, Delay, Foley, Plame, Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, gas prices, oil and energy secret meeting w/ Cheney, wealth disparity, corporate welfare, tax breaks for the wealthy, shrinking middle class, co child left behind etc.
The rest of us do.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 2, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #192667

Let’s see now, Mr. Kerry, and all you other Dems out there. We’ve been in Iraq transforming that nation torn by war for four years. We’ve lost approximately 3,000 soldiers. I know I’m not very good at math since I didn’t particularly study hard at it, but four years is approximately 1465 days, divided by 3000 troops lost, equals about 2 soldiers per day. We’ve not been attacked on home soil for 5 years. 365 days multiplied by 5 years; that’s 1,825 straight, safe American days. Hmm, that’s quite an accomplishment! I challenge you Dems to name any other war in which we have so successfully protected both the home front, and protected our incredibly cunning, and courageous soldiers on the front lines!

Posted by: JD at November 2, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #192670

I’m fairly new to this blog, but have noticed a trend in Sicilian Eagles’ posts. He doesn’t seem to spend a lot of time talking about what the GOP is doing right, which isn’t much (agreeing with Andre’s last post). Instead, he seems to get stuck on picayune mistakes the Dems are making as a way to prop up a party I haven’t seen him logically or factually defend.

Maybe it’s just me, as I am new here.

Posted by: Darth Independent at November 2, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #192671

Congress - did you ever hear the word ? The president offers ideas for the party to support in Congress - they vote yea the bill passes. Nea - it dies or is adjusted.
Torture - Definitions here.
Illegal wire taps - who, what and where? Citizens even criminals get a court order. Non-citizens and people with known links to terror forfeit. Have you ever been tapped? I doubt it.
Delay - no court case as of yet. Ever hear of the presumption of innocence until proven by a jury?
Plame - when did you last read anything about the so called case - Only one person was charged with anything (and that was lying to investigators). No White house personnel were involved. It was and open secret in DC and was published by her husband long before Bush came on the scene. And was published by the media.
Abramoff - just as many Dims were paid off as in the GOP - even Ms. Polosie.
Foley - resigned under party pressure before the scandal. And who was that Dim who had sex with under age intern? and what about that Dim who got a blow job in the white House?
Tax breaks for wealthy - hey, if you didn’t like yours give it back! Hpw many Dims are wealthy?? Hummm - Kerry hides his in municipal bonds and other doges. What about Polosie ? She uses shelters to avoid taxes as do many others in this country. I’ll keep my $2000 thank you.

Get your facts straight and avoid distortions and half truths.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #192678

1LT B, Dennis 40, and Kuzriel
Thanks for your support and comments. They were from a live and truthful perspective.

Dave1-20-09
Kerry did receive medals. He served 90 days and the medals were for some self-inflicted wounds and he went over the head of his superior to get them. He tarnished the title of “decorated war vet”. He proceeded to throw medals over the White House fence. I personally believe he disposed of someone else’s medals. He certainly is not a hero.

The comment Kerry made is widely documented. The addition you said above is not documented. The script has not been released to support it. It was after consultation with aides that Kerry said that is what he meant to say. Tough. What he said was what he meant to say. It was not a botched joke. He screwed up royaly. He posted on his website an alledged apology. It was not an apology for what he said. It was an apology for people misundstanding what he really said. Tough. I saw what hes said and I believe he meant what he said. The Bible says that what a man speaks is what is in his heart.

Posted by: tomh at November 2, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #192683

Don’t be fooled that this was only a gaff.. and that Saigon John “blew the joke”.

This is the new and improved version of Kerry’s supposed joke. We get this version 3 days after he made the stupid comment and his handlers have had time to do damage control. This elitist piece of crap stuck his foot in his mouth and is now back pedaling his sinking swiftboat ass to make up for it. The good thing about all this..at least we won’t have to listen to this deflated version of Ted Kennedy in ‘08.

Posted by: Daddy0f4 at November 2, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #192688
The resolution to go to war in Iraq was supported by every democrat leader in the Senate and most of the House… As it is, any member of the Senate might’ve held that resolution up, but none did. This leads me to think that two conclusions are possible. Number 1, the Senators looked at the evidence and came to the honest and sincere belief that Iraq under Saddam represented a real and imminent threat to the US as Bush said, in which case they were just as incompetent as they accuse him of being.

This would be true if the administration had not manipulated intelligence to support their preconceived notions.

Number 2, they looked at the evidence, decided that it was bs, noticed the country was a-jingo, bought into Bush’s lines about a 6 month campaign, and voted for the war anyways, in which case you can add derliction of duty on to the incompetence.

Stop projecting the mendacity of your party onto the entire government.

Oh, and before you start on the bullshit

I object to your foul language.

about how they were given doctored intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee gets the same info the President does.

That is not true. Stop making things up to support your point of view.

Either way, the Democrats positions on the war now are nothing more than political ploys.

assertion… prove.

They have no plan, unless you call redeployment to Guam a plan. Instead, they whine and cry and offer nothing.

Bush broke the egg, and now you want the other party to come up with a plan to put it back together for him? What, exactly, is the Republican plan? Allow a foreign government to order our troops around? That’s what’s happening now…

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki demanded the removal of American checkpoints from the streets of Baghdad on Tuesday, in what appeared to be his latest and boldest gambit in an increasingly tense struggle for more independence from his American protectors.

Mr. Maliki’s public declaration seemed at first to catch American commanders off guard. But by nightfall, American troops had abandoned all the positions in eastern and central Baghdad that they had set up last week with Iraqi forces as part of a search for a missing American soldier. The checkpoints had snarled traffic and disrupted daily life and commerce throughout the eastern part of the city.

The language of the declaration, which implied that Mr. Maliki had the power to command American forces, seemed to overstep his authority and to be aimed at placating his Shiite constituency.

The withdrawal was greeted with jubilation in the streets of Sadr City, the densely populated Shiite enclave where the Americans have focused their manhunt and where anti-American sentiment runs high. The initial American reaction to the order, which was released by Mr. Maliki’s press office, strongly suggested that the statement had not been issued in concert with the American authorities.

You must be very proud of your fearless leader…

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #192690

really simple!! If Kerry missed the joke and meant to insult the prez….its his problem…He should’nt have been pissin’ & moaning about Bush…you reap what ya sow, Mr. I love 2nd place

Posted by: kevin at November 2, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #192696

JD-

“I challenge you Dems to name any other war in which we have so successfully protected both the home front, and protected our incredibly cunning, and courageous soldiers on the front lines!”

Are you kidding? That is the most bass ackwards logic ever formulated. What a joke.

We invade Iraq where the total casualties are in excess of 300,000 people and there is still no sign of stability with insurgents running rampent. For that, we have gotten 5 years without a successful attack (not including all of the foiled attempts and attacks on other nations…which is a pretty significant thing to not include). And nevermind the fact that we have also been on high alert with national guard troops stationed all over places like manhattan and airports. I’m sure that played no role at all.

So you cannot show causation. And this is your best justification for using $300 billion of our grandchildren’s money, killing 3000 Americans, perminantly disabling thousands more with PTSD, sacrificing domestic issues for 6 years, and directly causing the expanding of a global terrorist network to record high numbers?

Not to mention all that we systematically dismantled every guarantee that seperates us from the uncivilized world in our treatment of the accused and have still managed to be unsuccessful most of the time in making charges stick. Even yesterday authorities in Britain had to release Umair and Mehran Hussain…the ones Bush mentioned no less than 15 times in his state of the union last year.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-bomb-plot-suspects-released/2006/11/02/1162339947390.html

It has been stated over and over agin by experts that our presence in Iraq has created more, not less, security concerns around the world. So please, without resorting to some ridiculous overgeneralization linking the lack of successful terrorist attacks to military action overseas without any ability to prove it in any respect and where the prevailing evidence is against you, why don’t you explain to me the TANGABLE benefits, and then explain to me why it is worth the cost to our future generations? I’ll even let you assume Iraq’s new government will not completely collapse in the near future…but don’t assume it will be a democracy either, as even Bush is careful not to say that anymore.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #192700

kevin-

also very simple: read Kerry’s prepared notes for the speech…they clearly made fun of Bush and not the troops. So maybe people should stop being so hard nosed about a legitimate mistake and take it only for what it was worth…close to nothing.

Now had he meant to bash the troops, he gets what he gets. But it is proven now that his intent was otherwise. He apologized for screwing up the line. Done deal. Anyone who wants to hold him to mispoken words is just being a hard ass for no unselfish reason…as if they’d never mispoken before themselves.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #192704

Is it only me or does everyone belive Kerry botched a joke. Does anyone really think he said those sentences and expected a laugh. He said what he said and believed it.

Posted by: soak490wit338 at November 2, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #192705

Is it only me or does everyone belive Kerry botched a joke. Does anyone really think he said those sentences and expected a laugh. He said what he said and believed it.

Posted by: soak490wit338 at November 2, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #192707

Is it only me or does everyone belive Kerry botched a joke. Does anyone really think he said those sentences and expected a laugh. He said what he said and believed it.

Posted by: soak490wit338 at November 2, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #192710

Sorry Kevin23.. it doesn’t wash. The Kerry group has refused to release a copy of his “text” and to assume that they have now released some hand written notes is just more damage control. Perhaps they can find that guy that did the Bush National Guard docs in 04…


Posted by: Daddy0f4 at November 2, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #192717

Daddy0f4-

What do you really care? I don’t. We could launch a formal investigation into whether he actually had prepared noted or not, but seriously, he already apologized. He’s not even running.

Seriously, no one cares.

There are much, much bigger fish to fry. Any explaination that makes clear there was no intent to publicly disparage the troops is sufficient. Why? Because the whole thing is meaningless until he’s up for re-election.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #192720

… about how they were given doctored intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee gets the same info the President does.
… That is not true. Stop making things up to support your point of view.

Jeff - have you ever worked in congress or for a president? I have a dear friend that “carried the football” and he tells me that the only difference in briefings these days is certain operations that are classified, however those are shared with the chairman of the congressional committee. reason?:
The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 provides that the heads of intelligence agencies would keep the oversight committees “fully and currently informed” of their activities including “any significant anticipated intelligence activity” Detailed ground rules were established for reporting covert actions to the Congress, in return for the number of congressional committees receiving notice of covert actions being limited to the two oversight committees.” …

… Either way, the Democrats positions on the war now are nothing more than political ploys.
… assertion… prove

Read daily statements prior to this summer’s election cycle. There has never been a positive plan by the Dims beyond “hate Bush” or “incompetence” of the GOP.

By the way - Sadar and the sh’ia do not want anyone in the way of their attempt to “correct” the historical injustice done to them (the actual majority) in Iraq. You do not understand the Sh’ia or Islamic history.
Please don’t A.S.S.u and me. Like your “facts” you base yourself on your feelings of how you feel things should work - we call that arm-chair generalship with 20/20 hindsight.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #192726

For all those (still) trying to defend Kerry and the left for that matter, Here’s what our troops think about Kerry’s comments


By the way, has anyone see Pelosi, Reid or Dean?!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #192732

Kevin23

You bring it up and now claim it’s not important? And his apology is that that his comment was misinterpreted? . Is that how the left defines an apology?

Posted by: Daddy0f4 at November 2, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #192734

“There are much, much bigger fish to fry.”

Kerry was the democrat’s presidential nominee. Almost 1/2 the country voted for him. Kerry speaks for the party and has been enlisted to campaign for many democratic candidates. Kerry is a leader of his party. He speaks for his party. You don’t get much bigger (and more arrogant) than Kerry.

Kerry clearly expresses the democrat’s dislike and disrespect for the military.

Every Republican candidate should replay commercials of Kerry’s words as a clear example of what democrats stand for.

Kerry is a pompous, arrogant, highly educated buffoon, who cannot speak clearly, because he always has both feet in his mouth. Then, he blames his outrageous statements on everybody else, claiming they misinterpreted his words.

The democrats should be pushing Kerry out front as he represents their views well.

Posted by: Jimmy at November 2, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #192735

As always the Repubs taking words and putting them in the order that suits them the best. Same ol crap differant election. No one is telling us what they can do, just what they think the other has done wrong. It is about time to vote for the GREEN and take what we get.

Posted by: Roger at November 2, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #192737

If this was all a misunderstanding, why wouldn’t Kerry apologize immediately? …His initial response to Bush was forceful and had he shown the slightest trace of that 2 years ago he might have won. … Posted by: 1LT B at November 2, 2006 10:51 AM

He did, more than an hour before Snow went on TV to bitch at him, only, perhaps, not as strongly as some would have liked. I agree that by going on the offensive immediately, acting more like a Republican, he provided what most conservatives want to see. However, that behavior doesn’t fit him or most Democrats very comfortably. We prefer a rational and reflective response so we know that the respondent recognizes the mistake and learns from it. Unlike, as is repeated often, the Bush admin which simply postures defensively, blames others, and makes the same mistakes second, third, etc…times. BTW; I understood the joke without him having to explain it. Unfortunately, I tell jokes in an even worse manner than him so I won’t quit my day job.

tomh,

Not worth responding to. Thanks for proving the big lie still works on those susceptable to it.

kevin23,

Rove is probably thanking Satan (his lord) for the gaffe. That way he doesn’t have to defend the debt, deficit, Iraq, failure to catch OBL, screwing the middle class, etc… for a few days. But it will still bite him in the ass. The more we talk about Iraq, by next week people will be remembering how much Bushie and his evil GOPer buddies in congress are responsible for the messes instead of a Senator with bad jokes.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 2, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #192741

It’s good to hear all you neo-cons railing at Kerry’s remark. Let’s analyze issues here:

Democratic Party assertions: The Republicans have gotten us into an unnecessary war. They have intentionally lied to do so. They have mismanaged the war to the point of putting that country into virtual chaos. They have borrowed trillions of dollars to support this pointless war—money our grandchildren will have to pay back with interest. They have exhibited levels of corruption never-before seen in this country. The Republican congress has shown absolutely no backbone by completely rubberstamping the president on everything. Their policies have emboldened our enemy and increased the ranks of the terrorists. They have put politics ahead of everything, including the well-being of our children.

Republican Party Assertions: Some senator who is not even running for office told some school kids to study hard and work hard so they won’t have to get stuck in Iraq.

Posted by: Stan at November 2, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #192747

“It’s good to hear all you neo-cons railing at Kerry’s remark.”

Just like libs rallying around “Mission Accomplished”, huh?!! Notice how much (media) attention that received; yet this didn’t receive the same amount of attention!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #192754

All I can say is: Go get him! If you think he meant to disparage troops, then you take that sentiment and go vote him out….oh wait.

What a lame topic. Daddy0f4, I brought it up? No, I merely responded that it was not an intentional comment, and it was retracted. So again, WHO CARES?!?

Jimmy-

You’re so adorable to think that Kerry is vital. Guess what? No one else thinks twice about him. He lost. It’s over. He’s now a senator from Mass. That’s it. Throwing all your eggs in that basket is the same as flushing them down the toilet. I find it funny.

I’m more interested in things like the war, congressional spending, education, medical costs and the people actually running re-election campaigns…you know, the MUCH BIGGER FISH.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #192759
The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 provides that the heads of intelligence agencies would keep the oversight committees “fully and currently informed” of their activities including “any significant anticipated intelligence activity” Detailed ground rules were established for reporting covert actions to the Congress, in return for the number of congressional committees receiving notice of covert actions being limited to the two oversight committees.

K, How can you say this with a straight face? We know how the administration kept the intelligence committee “informed” about their NSA surveillance programs…

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #192763

Jeff,

They did keep the intelligence committee informed of them…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #192764

How can I say this - read the law that I quote and read the mission statement of the oversight committee - I quoted it.
You see, I read and listen then I think then write or speak.
If you would do half with due diligence you would not dream the way you want a statement to say - like Kerry.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #192765
We prefer a rational and reflective response so we know that the respondent recognizes the mistake and learns from it.

LOL, That’s why you guys put Howard Dean in charge of the DNC?

Wow, too…many…jokes…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #192772
How can I say this - read the law that I quote and read the mission statement of the oversight committee - I quoted it.

I’m not saying that you incorrectly quoted the law. I’m saying that the administration did not obey the law.

You see, I read and listen then I think then write or speak. If you would do half with due diligence you would not dream the way you want a statement to say - like Kerry.

I was not “dreaming” when I read this

Nor was I dreaming when I read this.

You should probably read this before you say that I did not do “due diligence” and “dream the way [I] want a statement to say.”

The administration DID NOT follow the law in the manner in which they “informed” congress of the NSA surveillance program.

Impugning my motives does not change that fact.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #192789

Who cares what Rockafeller writes “he is a political hack and pundent who, as the correspondent is - speaks out of their opinionated agendas. Neither is useful. If Bush or anyone has broken the law they would be challenged by more than Dims.

As far as the NSA goes they have followed rules that have existed since the Telephone has been used. Any out of country person can be used. For the most parts the home country monotors the phone call. In most western countries this is done by a computer program that samples the call and if certain key words show up then the conversation is processed. If conversations continue in this manner a live listener will be added to the tapes.
For the most part any open source is used by the NSA. If they have a terrorist on one end they monitor the other person as well. Just like a Mafioso talks to anyone he is taped, after he has proven himself worthy by the law.

If you tell me Bush or his cabinet broke the law - give proof. It like the Plame bit - lies on lies were told and now we know that no one in the Administration did it. It was the news.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #192791

Who cares what Rockafeller writes “he is a political hack and pundent who, as the correspondent is - speaks out of their opinionated agendas. Neither is useful. If Bush or anyone has broken the law they would be challenged by more than Dims.

As far as the NSA goes they have followed rules that have existed since the Telephone has been used. Any out of country person can be used. For the most parts the home country monotors the phone call. In most western countries this is done by a computer program that samples the call and if certain key words show up then the conversation is processed. If conversations continue in this manner a live listener will be added to the tapes.
For the most part any open source is used by the NSA. If they have a terrorist on one end they monitor the other person as well. Just like a Mafioso talks to anyone he is taped, after he has proven himself worthy by the law.

If you tell me Bush or his cabinet broke the law - give proof. It like the Plame bit - lies on lies were told and now we know that no one in the Administration did it. It was the news.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #192817
In most western countries this is done by a computer program that samples the call and if certain key words show up then the conversation is processed. If conversations continue in this manner a live listener will be added to the tapes. For the most part any open source is used by the NSA. If they have a terrorist on one end they monitor the other person as well. Just like a Mafioso talks to anyone he is taped, after he has proven himself worthy by the law.

You really do just make stuff up as you go along don’t you…

If you tell me Bush or his cabinet broke the law - give proof. It like the Plame bit - lies on lies were told and now we know that no one in the Administration did it. It was the news.

The Vice President of the United States’ Chief of Staff (who also happens to be a senior advisor to the President) has been indicted for lying to the FBI and to the Grand Jury regarding the outing of a covert CIA agent. This much is fact. From this you take away that “no one in the Administration did it.”

You are not to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #192819

Jeff Seltzer,

I believe kuzriel quoted the rules for Cogressional Oversight, so I don’t much feel the need to respond to your assertions of Bush doctored the intelligence. If this even had any remoteness of truth to it, than Bush must not only have the power to go back in time and alter 10 years of intelligence findings, he must also be alot more popular with foreign leaders than we all think to make them say the same thing.

As far as my “assertion” that the Democrats are playing politics with the war, perhaps you can explain to me how thier opposition mirrored exactly the polls? When 80+% of the nation wanted the Iraq war the Democrats were all on board and went on record saying that Iraq was a threat. When things started going south, the Democrats turned. As far as thier “plans” go, are you kidding me? You have Jack Murtha talking about redploying to Guam, which is only a few thousand miles away and definitely large enough to hold a couple of heavy armored divisions. Did you notice he didn’t mention how to get them there? The ONLY difference between what the Dims say about Iraq and what Bush says as far as withdrawl goes is that the Dims would impose a timetable. This could motivate the Iraqis to take more action, but what if it doesn’t? Will we still withdraw even if the Iraqis can’t handle things on their own?

As far as this whining about the checkpoints go, you further prove my point about not paying attention in civics class. Apparently the concept of sovriegnty means nothing to you. Iraq is a sovriegn nation. You gnash your teeth about how the war is for nothing but oil. I suppose that dictating to or removing by force a democratically elected head of government is the best way to simultaneously show we are hear not for oil but to bring democracy, give the Iraqis confidence in their own government, and encourage the Iraqis to take greater responsibility.

With friends like you and John Kerry the military really doesn’t need any enemies.

Posted by: 1LT B at November 2, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #192823
As far as this whining about the checkpoints go, you further prove my point about not paying attention in civics class. Apparently the concept of sovriegnty means nothing to you. Iraq is a sovriegn nation.

Iraq was and remains a sovereign nation that we invaded without just cause.

You gnash your teeth about how the war is for nothing but oil.

I have not said that. I have not posited here what I think the cause or aim of the war was/is.

I suppose that dictating to or removing by force a democratically elected head of government is the best way to simultaneously show we are hear not for oil but to bring democracy, give the Iraqis confidence in their own government, and encourage the Iraqis to take greater responsibility.

Why our forces should abandon the search for one of our own based on the orders of another sovereign power escapes me. Who, exactly, is in charge of our forces? Why are we there if we cannot do the job?

These are not the rantings of “the left,” unless you count the Army Times as part of the “left-wing media.”

The concept of sovereignty means a lot to me, thank you. (Certainly enough to try and learn how to spell it.) The concept of the words and actions of this administration mean a lot to me too. How can you justify this? (Oh, sorry… you can justify anything that Bush does…)

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #192826

Jef you can say I make it up but I have quoted sources, which you pass of as liers and point me to questionable sources. Have you any experience in these areas? No, just talking points. Data mining and covert taps, are governed by law - look at it with information not personal opinion. We have a right to express opinions in our society - but opinions are not worth a hill of beans with out a fact to support.
Libby was charge with lying to a grand jury, not the FBI, he has not been tried - so according to our way of life he is not guilty. No one has been charged with the crime of outing an agent. Infact she was not an agent for years before her husband wrote his first book and long before some newspaper reporters wrote,

LOOK A THE FACTS
k

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #192827
Libby was charge with lying to a grand jury, not the FBI

WRONG.

According to the ACTUAL INDICTMENT (which you do not appear to have read), Libby was charged with lying to FBI agents and to the grand jury about conversations with reporters (regarding the Plame matter). He was also charged with obstruction of justice.

You are the one who said, “no one in the Administration did it.” That’s simply untrue.

I’ll say it one more time. You make up “facts” to suit your point of view. You are not to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #192829

Iraq was and remains a sovereign nation that we invaded without just cause.:

I Quote:

“Saddam Hussein’s Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999


Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC “immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access” to Iraqi officials and facilities.
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998


“Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation” with UN inspectors as “a flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide “immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation” with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998


“Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with” UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes “a totally unacceptable contravention” of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the “severest consequences for Iraq.”
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997


“Condemns the continued violations by Iraq” of previous UN resolutions, including its “implicit threat to the safety of” aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq’s responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997


“Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access” to UN inspectors, which constitutes a “flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997


“Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access” to UN inspectors, which constitutes a “clear and flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996


“Deplores” Iraq’s refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq’s “clear violations” of previous UN resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996


Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994


“”Condemns” Iraq’s recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991


“Condemns” Iraq’s “serious violation” of UNSCR 687.
“Further condemns” Iraq’s noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991


“Condemns” repression of Iraqi civilian population, “the consequences of which threaten international peace and security.”
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991


Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.”
Iraq must “unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material” or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities.”
Iraq must not “use, develop, construct or acquire” any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991


Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990


Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait) “and all subsequent relevant resolutions.”
Authorizes UN Member States “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
Complete Index of UN Security Council Resolutions

Additional UN Security Council Statements
In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein’s continued violations of UNSCRs. The index for UNSC Presidential Statements is on the UN website. The list of statements includes:

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998

“Excerpt from “Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam” by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different—and perhaps barren—outcome.

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation’s wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years …. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime …. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction …. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ….”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by several Democrats.

Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by John Kerry.

Iraq and a History of Terrorism
On December 3, 1976, the New York Times reported that radical Palestinians have gathered in Iraq to mount a terrorist campaign against “moderate” arab governments. The group referred to in the article was known as Black June and they were led by the terrorist Abu Nidal. On August 5, 1978, the New York Times reported that this Palestinian group was linked to Iraq’s intelligence service. Abu Nidal was a ruthless terrorist who planned the 1973 assault on an American passenger plane in Rome that resulted in 34 deaths and the 1974 bombing of TWA 841 which resulted in 88 deaths.

On April 24, 1977, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) was reorgainized under the leadership of the terrorist Abu Abbas. According to an October 13, 1985 article in the New York Times, the group was organized with money and help from the Iraqi government.

In December 1977, Carlos the Jackal (a.k.a. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez) a “terrorist for hire” met with Saddam Hussein. Carlos was openly supported by the Iraqi government.

On July 15, 1978, the LA Times reported that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had formally asked the government of Iraq to hand over the terrorist Abu Nidal “so he would get what he deserves.” The article reported Iraq had given support to Abu Nidal and even provided him with his own radio station which he called “the voice of the Palestinian revolution.” Among other things, the radio station had launched virulent attacks on two Palestinian leaders shortly before they were assassinated earlier that year.

In 1979, Congress passed legislation (Export Administration Act of 1979) which required the executive branch to create and maintain a list of countries deemed to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. In December 1979, the Carter Administration declared four countries as state sponsors of terrorism including: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Southern Yemen.

On August 30, 1980, the New York Times reported in an article titled “U.S. Forbids Sale of Jetliners to Iraq” that the Carter Administration decided to block the sale of five Boeing jets due to Iraq’s involvement in recent terrorist activities. The article reported that, within the previous few months, Iraqi diplomats were involved in attempted bomb attacks in Vienna and West Berlin.

On November 9, 1982, the Los Angeles Times reported in an article titled “Top Arab Terrorist Back in Baghdad” that Abu Nidal had recently moved back to Iraq after being expelled from the country four years earlier. His presence in Iraq was confirmed by President Saddam Hussein.

Abu Abbas was the mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking. Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree, was rolled by Abbas’s men, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. After holding some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours, the hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia aboard an Egypt Air jet. The airliner, however, was forced by U.S. fighter planes to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody but Abu Abbas possessed a get-out-of-jail card: an Iraqi diplomatic passport. Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia.

On May 13, 1986, the New York Times reported that the French Interior Ministry had received confessions for three terrorist bombings including the Marks & Spencer department stores in Paris and London. According to reports, the terrorist in custody had received his orders from a “contact in Baghdad”. That contact was Abu Ibrahim, the leader of a radical Palestinian organization called the “15 May Faction”. This group, which received Iraqi government support, was known for its use of sophisticated explosive devices in the form of plastic explosives and suitcase bombs. Among other crimes by this terrorist group, the 15 May Organization was responsible for five attacks on American and Israeli airliners between 1982 and 1983 including the August 11, 1982 bombing of Pan Am flight 830 over Honolulu which killed one teenager and injured 15 other passengers. They were also responsible for the April 2, 1986 bombing of TWA flight 840 which killed four people. The Los Angeles Times reported in a January 9, 1992 article that this group had close ties to Iraq.

During the first Gulf War, on February 4, 1991, the Washington Times wrote an article titled “Terrorist Camps Deserted in Iraq.” The article reported that several terrorist camps inside Iraq were abandoned shortly after the start of the allied bombing campaign. One camp in the western desert was operated by the terrorist Abu Nidal for weapons and explosives training. A terrorist camp near Bagdad was operated by Abu Ibrahim, leader of the Arab Organization May 15. And another terrorist camp near Bagdad was occupied by terrorists of unknown affiliation. Later, after the war, the Washington Times wrote another article dated November 24, 1992 reporting that terrorists were once again training at a camp near Bagdad in violation of the cease-fire terms that ended the Gulf War.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Al Gore criticized the first Bush administration for its “blatant disregard” of Iraq’s ties to terrorism. On September 29, 1992 Al Gore said, “The Reagan/Bush Administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorist who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came from Baghdad with suitcase bombs.” Al Gore went on to say, “There might have been a moment’s pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May 1987, killing 37 sailors — but the [Reagan/Bush] Administration smoothed it over very fast.”

Former President George H.W. Bush visited Kuwait between April 14 and April 16, 1993, to commemorate the allied victory in the Persian Gulf War. In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait and evidence indicated that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) was behind the assassination attempt. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. On June 26, 1993, the United States launched a cruise missile attack against a building housing the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Baghdad in retaliation for the assassination attempt on former President Bush.

On July 27, 1994, ABC News reported that Abdul Rahman Yasin (indicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) was recently spotted and was known to be living in Baghdad. Today, Yasin still remains at large with a $5 million reward for information leading to his capture.

After the Gulf War in 1991, no-fly zones were established in northern and southern Iraq to protect the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites from Saddam’s forces. The U.S. military enforced these no-fly zones up until the second Iraq war in March 2003. Iraq considered this an affront to its sovereignty and in December 1998 began shooting at American aircraft patrolling these zones. On March 28, 2001, General Tommy Franks reported to the House Armed Services Committee that during the prior year alone, coalition forces had flown nearly 10,000 sorties inside Iraqi airspace and those aircraft were engaged by surface-to-air missiles or anti-aircraft fire more than 500 times. Franks reported that during the prior year, naval forces had intercepted 610 ships while enforcing U.N. sanctions designed to limit Saddam Hussein’s ability to smuggle oil out of Iraq. On any given day, U.S. Central Command operated in the region with some 30 naval vessels, 175-200 military aircraft, and between 18,000 and 25,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines.

On January 27, 1999 an article in the New York Times titled “A Much-Shunned Terrorist Is Said to Find Haven in Iraq” stated that “Abu Nidal, one of the world’s most infamous terrorists, moved to Baghdad late last year and obtained the protection of President Saddam Hussein, according to intelligence reports received by United States and Middle Eastern government officials.” The article quoted a counterterrorism expert who said that, regarding Abu Nidal, “Osama bin Laden is a student by comparison.”

Before the rise of Usama bin Laden, Abu Nidal was widely regarded as the world’s most ruthless terrorist. The Associated Press reported on August 22, 2002 that Nidal entered Iraq during the late 1990’s “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” He lived there until August, 2002 when he died of between one and four gunshot wounds. It is believed by many that Abu Nidal was killed on the orders of Saddam Hussein although the Iraqi government claimed that Nidal had committed suicide.

On October 14, 2001, a former Iraqi army captain named Sabah Khodada granted an interview to the PBS television program “Frontline” in which he talked about a terrorist training camp in Iraq called Salman Pak. During this interview Khodada stated, “This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.”

Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 bonuses to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. “President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Iraq’s deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz declared on March 11, 2002. Mahmoud Besharat, who dispensed these funds across the West Bank, gratefully said: “You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue.”

On February 13, 2003, the Philippine government expelled Iraqi diplomat Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq’s Manila embassy. Cell phone records indicated that the Iraqi diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after this Al-Qaeda allied Islamic militant group conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf’s nail filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos plus killing U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40.

After the fall of Saddam’s government, coalition forces found and destroyed a terrorist training camp located near Baghdad called Salman Pak. This terrorist training camp featured an airplane fuselage where Iraqi defectors had earlier reported foreign terrorists were being trained in hijacking aircraft.

On April 14, 2003, Abu Abbas was captured by U.S. Special Forces during a raid near Baghdad. Abbas had lived in Baghdad since 1994, where he was living under protection of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Iraq. He surrendered to U.S. Marines in Baghdad on April 18, 2003.

On September 18, 2003, USA Today ran an article with the headline “U.S. says Iraq sheltered suspect in ‘93 WTC attack.” The article reported that U.S. authorities have evidence Saddam Hussein’s regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s political stronghold. Some analysts have concluded that the documents show Saddam’s government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on June 18, 2004, “I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received … information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.”

Connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The cruise missle strike was in retaliation for the August 7, 1998 truck bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya which killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 5,000 others. The chemical weapons factory in Sudan was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the embassy bombings. Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas.

On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.

On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline “Saddam + Bin Laden?” The subheadline declared, “It would be a marriage made in hell. And America’s two enemies are courting.” The article points out that Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.

On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, “Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden’s long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan’s fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”

On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, “Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden’s whereabouts were not known…..” The article reports, “Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden…..”

On February 18, 1999, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, “There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi, sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.” NPR reported that Iraq’s contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden when he lived in Sudan.

On February 14, 1999, an article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News claiming that U.S. intelligence officials are worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article states that bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that “there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world.” According to this article, Saddam has offered asylum to bin Laden in Iraq. The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Mohammed Amri (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim) is also believed to be in Iraq.

On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, “He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States…..”

On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, “Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West.” The article starts, “The world’s most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq…..” The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, “Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.”

On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence observed an Iraqi intelligence official named al-Ani meeting with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and identified Mohammed Atta as the man who met with the Iraqi intelligence official.

Able Danger, a highly-classified U.S. Army intelligence program under the command of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, supports information from the Czech Republic’s intelligence service that Mohammed Atta meet with the Iraqi ambassador at the Prague airport on April 9, 2001.

On July 21, 2001 [less than two months prior to 911] the Iraqi state-controlled newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.” The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the U.S. “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York.”

After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam became the only world leader to offer praise for bin Laden, even as other terrorist leaders, like Yassir Arafat, went out of their way to make a show of sympathy to the U.S. by donating blood to 9/11 victims on camera. Saddam later pays tribute to 9/11 by having a mural painted depicting the World Trade Center attack at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

CIA director George Tenet (appointed by President Bill Clinton July 11, 1997) wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. “We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression… . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities.”

On October 16, 2002, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was signed into law. The authorization (Public law 107-243) had passed the House by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate by a vote of 77-23. This resolution stated, “Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;” and “Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.”

Babil, an official newspaper of Saddam Hussein’s government, run by his oldest son Uday, published information that appeared to confirm U.S. allegations of the links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. In its November 16, 2002 edition, Babil identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an “intelligence officer,” describing him as the “official in charge of regime’s contacts with Osama bin Laden’s group and currently the regime’s representative in Pakistan.”

While sifting through the Iraqi Intelligence Service’s [Mukhabarat] bombed ruins on April 26, 2003 the Toronto Star’s Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph’s Inigo Gilmore and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service’s accounting department. Dated February 19, 1998 and marked “Top Secret and Urgent,” it said the agency would pay “all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him.”

On May 7, 2003, a federal judge in New York awarded damages against the government of Iraq after ruling that the families of two victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings had shown that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Judge Harold Baer ruled that the two families were entitled to $104 million compensation from Iraq, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban movement and their government of Afghanistan. “Plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida.”

Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
In the 1970s, Iraq was unsuccessful in negotiations with France to purchase a plutonium production reactor similar to the one used in France’s nuclear weapons program. With French assistance, Iraq then built the Osiraq 40 megawatt light-water nuclear reactor near Baghdad. When Israeli intelligence confirmed Iraq’s intention to produce weapons at Osiraq, the Israeli government decided to attack. According to some estimates, Iraq in 1981 was still as much as five to ten years away from the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Others estimated, at that time, Iraq might get its first such weapon within a year or two. On June 7, 1981 Iraqi defenses were caught by surprise and the reactor at Osiraq was destroyed.

It is estimated that the Iran/Iraq war cost the two sides a million casualties. Iraq used chemical weapons in that war extensively from 1984. Some twenty thousand Iranians were killed by mustard gas, and the nerve agents tabun and sarin. This marked the first time a country had been named for violating the 1925 Geneva Convention banning the use of chemical weapons.

On March 16, 1988, the Iraqi Air Force appeared over the city of Halabja. At the time, the city was home to roughly eighty thousand Kurds. The attack on Halabja was the most notorious and the single deadliest gas attack against the Kurds killing 5,000 civilians and injuring 10,000 more. But, it was just one of some forty chemical assaults staged by Iraq against the Kurdish people.

After invading Kuwait, Iraq attempted to accelerate its program to develop a nuclear weapon by using radioactive fuel from the Osiraq reactor. It made a crash effort in September, 1990 to recover enriched fuel from this supposedly safe-guarded reactor, with the goal of produced a nuclear weapon by April, 1991. The program was only halted after Coalition air raid destroyed key facilities on January 17, 1991.

After the first Gulf War, on April 3, 1991, the U.N. adapted ceasefire resolution 687. As part of this agreement, Iraq was required to destroy, under international supervision, all chemical and biological weapons and stocks of agents and all related development, research, and manufacturing facilities. In the following years, however, Iraq would not cooperate with inspectors. At the end of the second Gulf War, U.S. forces found over 500 chemical weapons proving that Iraq never destoyed their WMD in violation of this ceasefire agreement.

On January 28, 1998 the Senate passed Concurrent Resolution 71 “condemning Iraq’s threat to international peace and security.” Among the co-sponsors of this bill were Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Bob Graham, Patrick Moynihan, Robert Byrd, Patrick Leahy, and Christopher Dodd. This resolution “urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” In defense of President Clinton’s inclination to use military force in Iraq, Daschle said this resolution would “send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law.”

On February 10, 1998, Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, published a task force report compiled from information obtained from Arab opposition movements as well as from British, German and Israeli intelligence sources. The report said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at that time including anthrax, nerve gas, and mustard gas. It also claimed that some Iraqi nuclear materials were being held in Algeria. Yossef Bodansky said a chemical weapons factory was being built at that time, with the help of Iraqi experts, south-west of Sudan’s capital Khartoum for Islamic terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden. This 1998 report concludes, “And so, the US is planning an instant-gratification bombing campaign that would neither destroy Iraq’s WMD operational capabilities nor touch its main WMD production lines in Libya and Sudan.”

By late February 1998, U.S. forces in the gulf region had reached more than 40,000 and were reinforced with British and other allied contingents. The U.S. military build-up was due to Iraq’s obstruction of U.N. (UNSCOM) weapons inspections. On February 18, 1998 President Bill Clinton said, “If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” Five days later, however, Kofi Annan struck a deal with the Iraqi dictator that once again allowed U.N. inspectors permission to inspect. As the crisis receded, U.S. forces were drawn back down to their pre-1997 levels. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan’s offer, Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good.

On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The chemical weapons factory the U.S. hit was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. Thomas Pickering, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, told reporters, “We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, El Shifa officials, early in the company’s history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq’s VX program.”

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998) stated “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This legislation also allocated $97,000,000 to aid Iraqi democratic opposition organizations.

On September 24, 2002, the British government released a report titled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government.” It was the judgement of the British government that Iraq had: continued to produce chemical and biological agents; tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons; sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa; and had learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and had already begun to conceal sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors.

During the 9/11 hearings, former Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified that the manager of a chemical weapons plant in Sudan (which was funded by Osama bin Laden and later destroyed by U.S. cruise missiles on Aug. 20, 1998) met in Baghdad with an Iraqi nerve gas expert.

On May 17, 2004, the U.S. military said a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent had recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy. The discovery of nerve gas was followed by a second revelation from the military that another shell, equipped with mustard gas, had been found two weeks earlier.

On January 25, 2006, Former Iraqi General Georges Sada gave an interview to FOXNews regarding Iraq’s missing WMDs. Sada, a top military advisor and the number two man in the air force, claims that Iraq’s chemical weapons were moved to Syria prior to the war. Georges Sada is the author of the book called, “Saddam’s Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein.”

WMD found in Iraq. On June 21, 2006, Senator Rick Santorum (R, PA) called press conference and stated, “We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons.” Reading from a declassified report Santorum said, “Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.”

Life in Iraq under Saddam
Saddam pursued a long-term program of persecuting the Iraqi Kurds, including the use of chemical weapons. During the Iran/Iraq war, Saddam appointed his cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, as his deputy in the north. In 1987-88, al-Majid led the “Anfal” campaign of attacks on Kurdish villages. Amnesty International estimates that more than 100,000 Kurds were killed or disappeared during this period.

The Baath Party was the only legal political party in Iraq. It pervaded all aspects of Iraqi life. Membership, was necessary for self advancement and conferred benefits from the regime.

Army officers were an important part of the government’s network of informers. Suspicion that officers had ambitions other than the service of the President led to immediate execution. It was routine for Saddam to take pre-emptive action against those who he believed might conspire against him.

As well as ensuring his absolute control inside Iraq, Saddam tried to make Iraq the dominant power of the region. In pursuit of these objectives he led Iraq into two wars of aggression against neighbors, the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait.

Human rights abuses under Saddam:

4000 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib Prison in 1984.
3000 prisoners were executed at the Mahjar Prison between 1993 and 1998.
About 2500 prisoners were executed between 1997 and 1999 in a “prison cleansing” campaign.
122 male prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/ March 2000. A further 23 political prisoners were executed there in October 2001.
In October 2000, dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process. Some were accused for political reasons.
Women prisoners at Mahjar were routinely raped by their guards.
Methods of torture used in Iraqi jails include using electric drills to mutilate hands, pulling out fingernails, knife cuts, sexual attacks and ‘official rape’.
Prisoners at the Qurtiyya Prison in Baghdad and elsewhere were kept in metal boxes the size of tea chests. If they did not confess they were left to die.
Saddam issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties for criminal offences. These include amputation, branding, cutting off ears, and other forms of mutilation. Those found guilty of slandering the President could have their tongue removed.

Saddam’s son Udayy maintained a private torture chamber known as the Red Room in a building on the banks of the Tigris disguised as an electricity installation. He ordered the Iraq football team to be caned on the soles of the feet for losing a World Cup match. He created a militia in 1994 which used swords to execute victims outside their own homes. He has personally executed dissidents, for instance in the Shia uprising at Basra which followed the Gulf War.

Members of Saddam’s family were also subject to persecution. Some 40 of Saddam’s relatives, including women and children, were killed.

The Fedayeen (Uday Hussein’s militia) assassinated opposition figures, broke the backs of those accused of lying to the government and chopped off tongues, fingers, hands and heads. Sometimes victims were decapitated and the heads were delivered to their families.

On April 9, 2003 U.S. forces entered the city of Bagdad. CBS News reported, “With the regime’s feared security forces nowhere to be seen, Iraqis dared to cheer U.S. troops and attack the symbols of Saddam’s rule. They danced in the streets, waving rifles, palm fronds and flags, and defaced posters of the longtime Iraqi president…”

The Oil-for-Food Program was established by the United Nations in 1995 and it terminated in late 2003. Its intent was to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs. The program was introduced as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the economic sanctions aimed at demilitarizing Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. Under UN supervision, the Oil-for-Food program became a major financial scandal allowing Saddam to pocket billions of dollars through kickbacks and other illicit deals. In addition to the billions of dollars Saddam received illegally under Oil-for-Food, many more billions were gained by smuggling oil to neighboring countries outside of the program. During this period, the United States Navy searched thousands of ships bound for or departing Iraq as part of its Maritime Intercept Operations and the enforcement of U.N. economic sanctions.

Much of the recent controversy surrounding Abu Ghraib has made only vague reference to the prison’s nightmarish past. Under Saddam Hussein, some thirty thousand people were executed there, and countless more were tortured and mutilated, returning to Iraqi society as visible evidence of the brutality of Baathist rule instead of being lost to the anonymity of mass graves.

In October of 2003, an Iraqi torture tape was obtained by the media. On the tape, what appear to be Fedayeen Saddam members and Republican Guard troops are shown administering cruel punishments, including chopping off fingers, cutting off tongues, breaking a wrist with a heavy stick, and throwing people off a multi-story building. Also depicted is a beheading by sword, which takes several attempts to complete.

In July of 2004, the Iraqi National Olympic Committee put on display torture devices which were used by Uday Hussein to punish soccer players who failed to perform to expectations. Journalists were shown medieval-style torture equipment, including an “iron maiden-like” casket with metal spikes fixed to the inside. Talip Mutan, an Olympic Committee official said, “There were torture camps of Uday Hussein where sportsmen and women had been murdered or tortured, beaten and left to rot. Your worst nightmares came true in those camps. Using an iron maiden, Uday used to punish not only athletes but also everyone who made him angry. Tortured people were kept in it for hours. When he was nearly dead, he would be brought out…” Also on display was a chain whip with steel barbs the size of a tennis ball attached to the end. Uday would also beat them with iron bars, tan the soles of their feet, and drag them on pavements until their backs became bloodied, then dunk them in sewage to ensure the wounds became infected.

Recommended Reading
The Clinton Administration’s Public Case Against Saddam Hussein
The Saddam-al Qaeda link
12 Iraqi War Myths from www.TheReligionofPeace.com
Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
Debunking 8 anti-war myths lied about the conflict in Iraq
WMD Stockpiles Or No Stockpiles: 11 Reasons Why We Were Right To Hit Iraq
The Mother of All Connections (between Iraq and al-Qaeda)
Life Under Saddam Hussein (White House press release)
See men shredded, then say you don’t back war
IRAQ- some links to terror by ‘backhoe’
Links to articles connecting Saddam, Al Qaeda, and terrorism by ‘peach’
The Connection : How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (book by Stephen Hayes)
Saddam: King of Terror (book by Con Coughlin)
WMD: The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein (movie/documentary)
Translating the Iraq Documents (blog by jveritas)
Regime of Terror: Documenting Saddam Hussein’s Support of Terrorism (blog by Mark Eichenlaub)

K

Posted by: Kuzriel at November 2, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #192837

Obviouslly you haven’t read the indictment.
Obstruction of justice by lying to grand jury
false statements to FBI by with holding documents
Perjury to grand jury

I quote:
Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s ongoing investigation has not determined that the public exposure of Plame’s name violated any criminal statutes. No one has yet been charged specifically for leaking Plame’s identity….n 5 September 2006, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Novak’s “primary source” for the disclosure of the identity of Wilson’s wife as a CIA operative, publicly identified himself, after seeking permission to do so from Special Counsel Fitzgerald, to whom he had identified himself as the likely person at the start of the investigation.
else where :
Valerie Plame Wilson was publicly revealed to be a CIA “operative” in a newspaper column[1] by Robert Novak on July 14, 2003 based on information given him by Richard Armitage.
And:
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA case officer, dismissed the damage caused by outing Valerie Plame. “The revealing of Valerie Plame’s true employer,” he wrote, “has in all probability hurt no one overseas. You can rest assured that if her (most recent) outing had actually hurt an agent from her past, we would’ve heard about it through a CIA leak. Langley’s systemic sloppiness—the flimsiness of cover is but the tip of the iceberg of incompetence—has repeatedly destroyed agent networks and provoked ‘flaps’ with some of our closest allies.

so strike 3 for you.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #192851

K, Two things:

1. Iraq was and remains a sovereign nation that we invaded without just cause. None of what you copied and pasted changes that.

2. Libby (Chief of Staff to the Vice President to the United States and special assistant to the President of the United States) has been indicted. The charges are lying to the Grand Jury (2 counts), lying to the FBI (2 counts) and Obstruction of Justice (1 count). Nothing else you’ve copied and pasted changes that either.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #192854

Jeff

Libby has been charged. He has not been found guilty. I predict he will be aquited. He was charged because there was an error in the dates provided in his testimony. That is all. Wilson outed his wife Plame well before the other junk came up. There are the facts.

Posted by: tomh at November 2, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #192855

So if the community of nations sees a rogue state and a state violates its peace treaty we let them pass on Soverenty I believe 11 resolutions against them and breaking terms of a treaty justifys war in most peoples book - Including the Laws of Land warfare (Heague conventions) or must I show you those too.
Again Libby’s charges have not gone to trial and they have nothing to do with the reality of Plame. Even though Armatage has admitted doing so, after getting permission from the CIA, as he knew it - Fitz says he will not indite.
Inning over - game over
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #192860

kuzriel

Excellent job in the documentation.

Jeff Seltzer

Check Who’s Who and find out about Joe Wilson and other names in his Who’s Who listing.

Posted by: tomh at November 2, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #192886

K-

I like the fact that it, at least, looks like you have researched this. But, seriously, does the website you copied all this from have an executive summary there somewhere you could have used instead?

Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #192893
Check Who’s Who and find out about Joe Wilson and other names in his Who’s Who listing.

We’re getting a bit off the point. K stated, rather categorically, that:

Libby was charge with lying to a grand jury, not the FBI

This is false. That is all. I did not make a statement (prior to her saying this) that I had an opinion on the Plame matter. She made a false statement. I countered with the documentation proving it was a false. If you can’t even admit THAT, you’re beyond hope.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #192914

DavidL has no clue what he is talking about. The men and women of our modern military are highly trained ands skilled. A recent study that the men and women of the military are better educated than 74% of the civilian population. The run the ultimate in technology, things we cannot even imagine. In the military you choose, voluntary, to take training in almost any profession you can imagine. Their oppoprtunities are the No. 1 reson so many are VOLUNTEERING to join the military.

DavidL your intellect is dificient!

Posted by: MarkG at November 2, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #192921

Thank you, John Kerry.

Posted by: TDV at November 2, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #192936

The websites yes they are there and I did use rather long quotes. But there were two points being made. You proved one of them:

“I’m sorry but I have more important things to read than your long ASS post”
All I did was quote what most people refuse to read.
I read then Libby inditement It was not like Jeff said, the FBI charges were not the main charge and given the fact that Armatage “confessed” I doubt if we will see the trial the Dims want to see or the results. Sorry Jeff no trial no guilt. Not even a plea in the making. Better luck next time.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #192946

K,

You really are in denial. Regardless of what Armatage said or did, Libby has been indicted. On what do you base your statement that “the FBI charges were not the main charge?”

(Last time I looked, I didn’t see a relative weighting criteria in the indictment. *snark*)
Libby does face up to thirty years in prison and up to 1.25 million in fines (although will likely receive a lesser term or be pardoned if found guilty).

doubt if we will see the trial the Dims want to see or the results. Sorry Jeff no trial no guilt. Not even a plea in the making. Better luck next time.

No trial? Uh, better tell it to the Judge and the Grand Jury. The trial that you say isn’t happening starts on January 16, 2007…

Oh, sorry K, I forgot: You just make stuff up as you go along…

What color is the sky on your planet?

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #192960

By the way…

Are ALL prominent Republicans homofaguals?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061103/ts_nm/religion_evangelical_scandal_dc_2

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #192969

Sorry about that, slip of the mouse…

I meant to say hydrant squattin’, toe jammin’, meat munchin’ pickle chuggerser, uh, “gay.”

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #192970

Gosh - I thought it was Dims that supported “gay rights” - Just another wishful thinking.

Jef you have all the makings of another novelist I know. What legal training do you have - yes there is an indictment and a trial date set - it will go away because the council will ask that charges be dismiss because he knows Libby was not involved. Further, if your idea flys the judge can throw out the case on his own, at any time, there can be a motion to dismiss at any time. If they get far enough a long 12 Jurors can say not guilty. Until the jury says “guilty” he is innocent of any wrong doing, under our legal system - press trials don’t count neither does your feelings.
By the way the charge that takes president is “obstruction”. That was the class “A” felony involved and that obstruction was lying to the grand jury. Reading it closely it appears that he refused to give information that Fitz though he should have and Libby thought the whole communication with any member of the white House is privileged. Still we don’t know the case against him - The real facts - like we don’t know Judy Miller’s source and what she testified to. Grand jury sessions are secret and any leak of information is illegal. We’ll see - at the trial if it happens - January is a long way off.
But I make things up, I guess I’m in good company by your standards - and my sky is steel blue-gray today - weather is turning. Spring is coming in 4 months and Santa will bring this Yid a present early.
Thank you Mr. Kerry - keep up your good work.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 2, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #192974
yes there is an indictment and a trial date set - it will go away because the council will ask that charges be dismiss because he knows Libby was not involved.

You have evidence of this? Or are you making it up as you go along?

Further, if your idea flys

My idea?

the judge can throw out the case on his own, at any time, there can be a motion to dismiss at any time. If they get far enough a long 12 Jurors can say not guilty. Until the jury says “guilty” he is innocent of any wrong doing, under our legal system - press trials don’t count neither does your feelings.

I didn’t say he was guilty, I said he was indicted. Quit moving the goalposts to make yourself appear less ignorant.

By the way the charge that takes president is “obstruction”. That was the class “A” felony involved and that obstruction was lying to the grand jury. Reading it closely it appears that he refused to give information that Fitz though he should have and Libby thought the whole communication with any member of the white House is privileged. Still we don’t know the case against him - The real facts - like we don’t know Judy Miller’s source and what she testified to. Grand jury sessions are secret and any leak of information is illegal. We’ll see - at the trial if it happens - January is a long way off. But I make things up, I guess I’m in good company by your standards - and my sky is steel blue-gray today - weather is turning. Spring is coming in 4 months and Santa will bring this Yid a present early.

You keep bringing up all this crap to obscure the fact that you were dead wrong when you said he wasn’t indicted for lying to the FBI. It’s there in black and white (counts 2 and 3).

You make stuff up to support your preconceived viewpoint.

(Everyone here can see that you know… whether they’re on your “side” or not.)

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #192975
I thought it was Dims that supported “gay rights”

Oh, but I do! What I don’t support is hypocrisy. This gaybird is one of the biggest homophobes out there, and all the while, it looks like he’s riding the baloney poney with a prostitute. How many sins is that exactly? You got your adultery… You got your lust… You got your pride… You got your general penis manipulating behaviors… You got your weekly phone conferences with Bush (not that he likes bush that much… get it?)… just like Foley, another “family values” conservative caught with his hand in the penis jar… sad - for you and your party.

Good thing I don’t follow your sky-god cult, otherwise I’d be up at night worrying for your souls.

I personally don’t give a crap if the guy takes it from another guy every damn day. What I hate is that he preaches that it’s wrong all the while glad handing another guys tool… He must be one self hating sonofabitch. Either that, or he’s your avergae Republican pol.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #192983
Yup, just when the lights are being ready to be turned off, just at that new Democratic stationary is set to be delivered to Nancy Pelosi….this…

This is going to sting…

But maybe not as much as this:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

Yeah, Kerry’s comments are hurting us…sheesh…I’d say Bush and his Republican lap dog’s actions are hurting us.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 2, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #192998

kuzriel, I’m glad you countered about the NSA wiretaps and the fuss being created by the Dems and the Press about its legality. A Federal Appeals Court is now hearing arguments about Democratic Representative Jim McDermott’s case in which he gave illegally taped recordings of Newt Gingrich’s personal phone conversations with Rep. Boehner to the Press. The convicted Dem’s argument to the Appeals Court is that he should not face punishment for his crime because it would seriously hamper the abilities of the Press to obtain needed public information. His lawyer was joined by lawyers of eighteen Press agencies including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the Associated Press, NY Times, and Washington Post, who wrote briefs to the Court. Isn’t it amazing that the News Agencies could back a Dem who releases illegally taped phone conversations about Republicans, however, they can’t back the law enforcement agencies trying to protect Americans from terrorists? The reason stated is that punishment issued toward people who illegally obtain information could hamper the abillity of the Press to do their jobs! Far be it from the Press to think about hampering law enforcement from doing their jobs by taking away their most reliable sources to combat terrorists! What hypocrites!!

Posted by: JD at November 3, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #193016

Kerry is an effete aristocratic snob who always thinks he is the smartest person in the room, a condition shared by many non-conservatives. (I won’t use the “L” word anymore because it is too offensive to non-conservatives).

What’s really funny about this is that Kerry botched a joke about the stupidity of President Bush. How stupid do you have to be to botch your own joke? And what was the joke, anyway? Since when is insulting the intelligence of our Commander-in-Chief during wartime rib-ticklingly funny?

Oh, it was a botched joke “misrepresented” by the press, right? Whenever most people botch a joke, they correct themselves immediately and say something like “Oops! I meant to say …” But Kerry didn’t do that. He didn’t correct himself immediately after saying “You get stuck in Iraq.” The so-called “correction” came later, after his handlers went into Damage Control mode and invented a NEW “joke” that was as almost as unfunny as the original.

Kerry said exactly what he believed. He has had nothing but contempt for the military throughout his entire political career, which started BEFORE he joined the military and went to Viet Nam.

What’s really puzzling to me is why non-conservatives are running away from Kerry. After all, Kerry is only saying what most non-conservatives really and truly believe. Non-conservatives HATE the military, make no mistake about it.

Posted by: Chris at November 3, 2006 6:31 AM
Comment #193032

Funny when Bush mispeaks it is because he is a dimwit, a moron, etc. Democrats gleefully pounce on his every lip slip as if it is an indicator of his ability to perform his job. With Kerry however it is no big deal, just an accident, which should have no bearing on the public’s opinion of him. You can not make up any better example of the hipocrasy that is the Democratic Party. Let’s face it the fact that the Dems let that dolt stump for them just shows their complete lack of anything resembling strategy either to win elections or govern this country.

Posted by: Manonfire at November 3, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #193038

fire,

Kerry made one bad joke. Bush has made hundreds of “Bushisms” and started a war that he then screwed up horribly and hundreds of thousands of people are now dead. But to the (r)wingers that’s equivalent. Oh wait, sorry I forgot you guys can’t handle multisylabic words, Darn, that means words with lots of sounds and the other word means they’re the same thing…See what happens when smart people try to talk in a way that the (r)wingers can undersatnd?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 3, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #193039

I believe Mr. Kerry was for the troops before he was against the (Kerry’s own words) “raping, child killing, terrorizers of children in the night” troops!?

Yeah, the democrats will keep us safe all right. But after they surrender to the terrorists and the terrorists start blowing us up again over here, then what will they do? France if fighting them in the streets and is so “politically correct” they don’t dare mention that they are waging a nightly battle with radicalized Islamic youth in the streets. And our democratic party friends want us to be more like the “enlightened” French who are gradually losing their nation to an Islamic invasion of intollerant Muslims.

Posted by: Stephen at November 3, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #193048

Boy, you people sure get testy when you’re about to get your ass handed to you.

The people of this country have awakened from their patriotic slumber and discovered who they’ve left in charge:

A kleptocratic, autocratic, authoritarian, hypocritical bunch of opportunistic homosexual pedophiles

You’re going to lose and you’re going to lose big. THEN the fun begins.

Let me ask you one quick question before it’s all over:

Who will you give credit to when the world doesn’t come to an end in the next two years?

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 3, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #193071

Kerry knew what he was saying. He said it before.
He will say it again.

Funny how you Liberals buy the whole “It was just a joke” bit.

If it was a Republican you would be yelling for his resignation.
BTW - I have not heard 1 person calling for Kerry to resign.

Posted by: Ramius at November 3, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #193087

Ramius (the dead Goa’uld or the traitorus CCCP sub captain? or did you mean Remus?) said:

“Funny how you Liberals buy the whole “It was just a joke” bit.”
By that do you mean did I read a copy of the prepared speech, which had been released for publication prior to the speech, and which had the joke as it was supposed to have been said?

“If it was a Republican you would be yelling for his resignation.”
If poor delivery was reason for resignation then Bush would have been long gone. If insults were a reason for resignation then Bush would never have been elected.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 3, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #193096

My, my what a way with words and what a sharp wit, Jack.
Infact I don’t know anyone who has referred to patriotism as a slumber. Quite the opposite. The phrase ” I am afraid all I did was wake the sleeping Giant.” came from the commander of the Japanese fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor. or is this another Kerry joke?
k

Posted by: kuzriel at November 3, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #193144
I don’t know anyone who has referred to patriotism as a slumber.

K, the things you don’t know could fill a hole with no bottom.

Now follow these instructions carefully (I know their complicated):

1. Go to www.google.com

2. Type in the words “patriotic” and “slumber”

3. Press Enter

4. Notice how many people have used these words in combination.

5. Consider how easy it’ll be next time to not look like a moron before you open your mouth.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at November 3, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #193185

I want to put to rest this idea that “Kerry voted to send the troops over there…” The Bush administration, after transparently manipulating evidence regarding WMD, pushed for a resolution in Congress to authorize force if Saddam didn’t comply with UN resolutions. Bush claimed that force would only be used as a last resort after all diplomatic options were exhausted. Congress was hard pressed to not vote with the administration, as a vote against was tantamount to calling Bush a liar, which had not been proven yet. (Note that Karl Rove and his minions have never hesitated to call someone a liar, all the while lying themselves, but that’s another story.) Bush promptly took that resolution and marched off to war after declaring Saddam out of compliance, even though inspectors stated repeatedly that he was in compliance as far as they could tell. People like Kerry did not vote to send troops overseas, they voted to give Bush the bargaining tool of the threat of force, on the condition he use it only if absolutely necessary. If any of you really thinks, given the history of how this unfolded, that Bush went into Iraq based on an honest assessment, then you are living in a fantasy world. Bush betrayed the trust placed in him by Congress and his administration is solely to blame for the current fiasco there. If I hear one more right-winger shuck the canard that these Congresspeople “voted to send troops” I swear I’m gonna have to stop this car and come back there. Now settle down, kids.

Posted by: mental wimp at November 3, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #193189

jeff- I followed your instructions and all I found were sales on slumber bags. Not really a point here but before you call a good American a moron you should make sure that it’s not in fact you that looks like the moron.

Posted by: andy at November 3, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #193200

I didn’t find anything either Jeff. I will refrain from using such stinging language and remind you that your “Freudian slip” is forgiven and next time you get called on a mistake you will be a man and admit it.
(PS my IQ tops out at 250, My military scores average 485 0ut of 500, I have 3 Phd’s 4 masters, I’m a licensed lawyer, accountant a chemical engineer and Physician’s Assistant. I served 11 years in the US army, speak 5 languages (among them Arabic and Hebrew) I have studied 14. I finish 10 newspapers a day: Arabic, Polish, Hebrew, Russian and Persian (Farsi). I teach 3 classes a week just to name a few - moron, a bit slow at times because of my health, but smart enough to know talking points and phoney stories. By the way my wife speaks and reads 6 languages and teaches Sociology and ethics for journalists. My daughter had graduated Nursing school at the U of Texas as Suma cum laude. My oldest son is a translator in 4 languages in Disney World and my Little son has a Dell franchise in Austin. Want any more?
Moron indeed.
k

Posted by: kuzriel at November 3, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #193201

Mental,
Then all the intelligence agencies in the world were manipulated by Bush?
My, my, my we have to keep this kind of putz in office if he can do all the thing you blame him for.
I forgot he’s being manipulated by Cheny and others.
Joke’s on your party then.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 3, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #193234

Jeff

“(I know their complicated):”

I would check your grammar before you call someone else a moron.

Posted by: Keith at November 3, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #193235

Breaking News:

Democrats: ‘No comment’
on terrorists’ endorsement
DNC, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy decline
to discuss jihadists’ vote of confidence

This should make the dims proud, party of jihad!

www.worldnetdaily.com

extra, extra, read all about it, pulosi nowhere to be found.

film at eleven.

Posted by: lm at November 3, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #193242

It is mind-boggling that Democrats are comparing the Iraq War / War on Terror to the mess in Vietnam, and placing Kerry out there as their great war hardened expert on the military and the intelligence of today’s troops! We’ve been at war in both Afghanistan and Iraq for four years, have freed both countries from their repressive regimes, and have lost less than 3000 soldiers in the process. During the Vietnam War under Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s leadership we lost more than 58,000 troops, and did not overthrow communist North Vietnam. At the loss of less than 1,000 troops per year in both Iraq and Afghanistan, my calculations say that we would have to be fighting in both countries at the same level of losses for the next sixty years to equal the casualties of LBJ with his brilliant Democratic military “strategory”! John Kerry and most of the Senate Democratic leadership are proteges of the JFK / LBJ Democrats who came to power by the tune of a 65% plus majority caused by nothing more than an emotional American JFK sympathy vote. They have no credentials when it comes to war, or the military. It has taken Republicans forty years to whittle away that whopping 65% JFK / LBJ tear-jerking landslide of the sixties. Finally, since 1994 the country had gotten back on track. If Americans let the LBJ proteges take back the House and Senate in times of war, they are the ones who are stupid, not the U.S. troops!

Posted by: JD at November 3, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #193249

Kuzriel-

What are the 4 necessary elements of any cause of action? Anyone with legal training should instantly know the answer.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 4, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #193255

Of a tort: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship creating a duty on the part of the attorney, (2) breach of the duty, (3) constituting the proximate cause of the client’s injury, and (4) damages.
Of a contract:
1. Agreement
A. Offer
(1) Offeror’s serious intent to be bound
(2) Reasonably certain and definite terms
(3) Communication to Offeree(s)
B. Acceptance
(1) Offeree’s serious intent to be bound
(2) Communication to Offeror
2. Consideration
3. Legal Capacity (of Offeror and Offeree)
4. Legal Purpose
5. Genuiness of Assent (No fraud, duress, undue influence, etc.)
6. Form (kinds of contracts requiring writting to be enforceable)

Theories of Criminal justice: punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.

There are four kinds of elements in a criminal act: the act itself, the actus reus, guilty act; the requisite culpable mental state, the mens rea, guilty mind; the result, and the attendant circumstances
Shall I go on??? What is the matter, am I on trial here? I have nothing to prove - I am a real person with papers to prove it and a public record. But I won’t name drop or offer any advice.

Let me ask you something. In Islamic law what is the place of the non-muslim and the dhimmi?
How does Jewish Law handle the concepts of non-Jewish in law?

K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 4, 2006 3:11 AM
Comment #193256

No longer a Vietnam protestor John Kerry is now an Iraqi war protestor. Marvelous. Just what we need a U.S. senator working for the enemy. He was in Vietnam in order to promote his self image to run for political office and now he is bad mouthing the Iraqi war in order to make political gains in his not so distant presidential primary future. I hope the American voter will see him for what he has become a male Hanoi Jane or should I say a Hanoi John???

Posted by: l. Hanna at November 4, 2006 3:19 AM
Comment #193271

Kuzriel

“How does Jewish Law handle the concepts of non-Jewish in law?”

I’m not sure if this was rhetorical or not, but I’ll answer it any way. Jewish law is only applicable to Jews.

We firmly believe that there may be muliple truths and other faiths are allowed to belief anyway they want.

Posted by: Keith at November 4, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #193282

The essence of the other and how law applies to them is key to understanding a given approach to life. Just as there are 7 basic laws that govern true faiths. Beyond that how each faith acts towards the other determines the validity of the path. Belief and deeds cannot be separated. One can learn most of the 7 categories by historical observation; but, it is the source of these laws and their corollaries that allow us to see how one society acts towards another or doesn’t. And that determines or makes up a “world view” which decides which is correct spiritually.
There are laws in Judaism that allows non-Jews to practice certain things and others - Like entrance to the Temple and sacrifice that are forbidden. Islam demands certain behaviours for the non-muslin and for the dhimmi _ they are not the same. In Islam there is another category - an apostate. How do societies deal with those who were once one faith and become another. This is also a key to spiritual growth of a nation.

Ponder a bit, you will see its importance and what is in-store for us if we chose the path of history.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 4, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #193287

K-

Nice copy and paste job.

The first element of a tort is not an atty-client relationship. That is not the “duty” that must be shown to exist. You flubbed it from the get-go.

And your bait questions about non-domestic law have nothing to do with me or the point I was making.

You may manage to fool some people, but not me. Good day to you and your padded “resume”. I see absolutely zero incentive for me to speak on this subject any further.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 4, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #193308

I kne you say cut and paste - You dims are all alike attack the person when you can’t attack the facts. Then you run and hide. Too bad you didn’t learn anything - even law. But what do I care I don’t have to pad anything not even a resume. Tell you what look for yourself, I don’t hide behind a handle like you>
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 4, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #193315

Kuzriel

Kevin23 whould acknowledge the Biblical adage that “the truth shall set you free”. I enjoy your input and on most occasions agree with you. There are some people in society that do know whether thay belong in Mensa or Asnem.

Posted by: tomh at November 4, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #193325

Kuzriel-

You couldn’t even answer the most basic and fundemental of legal questions. You’d find the answer on page 1 of any legal elements book…you know, the first book they give you in law school. I love that you confused a legal duty with atty-client privilege though. That’s precious. But it will also get you laughed right out of any law class. And rightfully so.

Anyone with even the smallest amount of legal experience sees through your BS from a mile away. I’m done feeding trolls. Good luck convincing some of the other dummies who believe literally anything their told.

What a waste of my time this was.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 4, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #193333

Tort : (example) or don’t you know logic, mathematically : = our conclusion may be stated like this. You are 18 to 25 and unable to combine disciplines or reach conclusions - don’t try hypos because you limited knowledge. When you ask a question be able to be exact and to the point. As I have showed you the law uses several groups of 4’s.
You call it a waste of your time - so why do you prolong your participation in a discussion where you are opinionated against?
I tell you why - you are the saviour of misguided, to the point of criminality. Make sure that the Arsh you carve for yourself is a solid one and not the flushing kind.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 4, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #193334

I dont speak broken English. How is it someone with 75 PHD’s and 63 Masters degrees, as well as a law degree, 6 MBA’s and a medical license can’t put together a coherent sentence?

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 4, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #193336

Boy the your smart - exaggerateingly so. Tell me child I’ve seen plenty of English errors in your posts, in spite of being raised where English is your only language. You can’t answer basic questions let alone give answers. You rely on talking points and refuse to read farther than your nose, or does it share your Arsh.
Like all you libs you can’t speak from fact only wishes. The point my friend is you hate the Armed Forces, Conservatives, republicans and Bush. Kerry has lied continually for over 35 years and that hurts Americans - at home and abroad. You wouldn’t know the difference between a Kurd, a Sunni, a Sh’ia or a Druze. And you cannot stand up for people who protect your rights.
k

Posted by: kuzriel at November 4, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #193396

guys

It wouldn’t be a bad idea to critique the message and not the messanger. Watchblog was created to encourage debate and personal attacks are not allowed. I’d hate to see both of you get a warning from the editor….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 5, 2006 7:29 AM
Comment #193438

SE-

I made no personal attacks that were not based entirely on specific answers to specific questions. The responses to me were completely assumptive and based on nothing except the mere fact that I dared to call into question a ridiculous sounding resume.

Maybe you shouldn’t lump me together with people who spout the kind of baseless, blind and ignorant hatred that you’ll find evidenced in K’s last post.

At least I ask honest questions and limit my criticism to the answers actually provided to me in writing. That would be attacking the message for its own sake.

And I am amazed that you, whose only contribution to any debate is to call anyone who dissents from the president’s platform the equivilent of a traitor because they aid terrorists, are the one whose worried about stifling debate. I doubt very much that Watchblog was created with the intentions of fostering your style of “debate”, either. That being said, I’m not the one complaining. I can handle it.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 5, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #193451

I am retired military who was in Iraq.So you want to debate the IQ of the troops?Wow,that’s what I call REAL support!BTW,I was in the ME while all those UN Resolutions were being broken.I remember very well those aircraft having SAM’s shot up at them,and also coming back with AAA holes in them.Shooting at one of our aircraft is an act of war in itself.It’s funny how people overlook that,though.We cursed the French,Russians,and Germans on a daily basis,becuase we all knew that Hussein had them in his back pocket.We are at war with RADICAL Islam,you now,the religion of peace that the Muslims practice?Do you really think if we kiss them and hug them everyday,that they will stop hating us?Give me a break!Hooah! That is all.

Posted by: eagle275 at November 5, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #193475

I responded to the attack that I was a moron and a lier in my quotes. I am far from either. My education is a matter of public record as is by qualifications to attack Kerry’s quotation and the Democratic stance in the middle east, having lived there 25 years of my 64 and the fact that I am a native speaker of three of the languages used there. English is not my mother tongue and I think I do well.
I responded against the idea that troops were somehow stupid. I responded to the attack against “our violation of Iraqi sovereignty and kept things general until the personal attack of moron, then lier. Even then I tried to be charitable to some one who doesn’t know me, my achievements or views. It was quite sophomoric to throw out an ambiguous question and accuse me of copy-past, not only missing the point but being a person of questionable integrity, and still holds that idea without investigation. By the way the vary thing I accused Kerry of.
k

Posted by: kuzriel at November 5, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #193477

By the way the word Arsh is Arabic for throne.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 5, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #193482

Kerry should be ridiculed for making a stupid comment. The rest is pure speculation. A real lawyer would know that too.

And K, your copied and pasted “answer” was in a completely different punctuation style and had very different syntax then every other post you write. What’s an objective observer supposed to think?

Look, I’m no grammer or spelling nazi. I do believe that comprehendability is an absolute necessity to commanding respect, however. And when the very same post goes on at length providing educational credits, any reasonable person should expect at least a moderately high amount of eyebrow raising. Anyone with half of the education you mentioned should also completely sympathize with those who would want to protect the sanctity and respectability of their degrees, and keep them from being associated with public postings filled with unnecessary hate and incompetently targetted overgeneralizations all expressed in almost irreconcilable broken english.

Even if I’m wrong, I’m more than comfortable standing behind my evidenced assertions. And if you want to get back to the point of the thread: Kerry screwed up, and were I a Mass resident, I’d be inclined to vote against him next election solely because of the national respect that he lost. Then theres the fact that he’s liberal as hell on most issues…that’d seal the deal for me.

But all this adds up to only what it adds up to. Nothing more. You do my party a dis-service when you take your eyes off the ball in the name of attack. I’d rather save my energy for when it may do some good, and not make generalizations about my adversaries unless it is, in fact, the popular sentiment and not an extremist position.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 5, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #193486

Kevin,
incomprehensible English - to yo maybe - others got the point and the content. Further, in many places I have lived a man who only speaks English would be considered a bore and stupid. I have tried to communicate in a language not my own. I would think that members of American society, especially those who preach toleration and the like would make an effort to understand me. I guess I forgot the lesson of Antiocus IV - the universal man only appreciates the universal man and holds everyone else in contempt.
So you tell me unless I achieve the English skills you have - I should shut-up. Your opinions have lacked merit in history and literature. Further, you have distorted the idea of sovereignty under international convention or UN Charter. Further, Kerry said something wrong as well as untrue, but in-keeping with his character, as reviled in the 35 years hes been around.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 5, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #193490

If you actually read my “long assed (by the way not a word or a phrase) post” you will find that I said that ” I quote”, I did not say “kuzriel says”. So There is another misrepresentation of truth.
And you had no right or privilege to call me a moron because I didn’t conform to your ideas.
I believe that a blog should discuss the issue not be a site for vent therapy or an attempt to covert.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 5, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #193531

Kuz-

I never once used the word “moron” … and I never said you had to “shut up”. And how my opinion that Kerry’s comment would only effect Kerry himself “lacked merit in history and literature” and “distorted the idea of sovereignty under international convention or UN Charter” is beyond me.

I guess at this point I’m just intrigued to see what you’re going to come up with next. Maybe link me to Lee Harvey Oswald?

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 6, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #193543

You chimed in after Jeff called me a moron by calling me a lier, Which you continue to do. That means you not only agree with Jeff but you add another layer, Then you attack my credentials without evidence and without reading this blog’s discussion. By the way a man’s use of language is relevant to his goal in a discussion, his knowledge and culture.

” I guess at this point I’m just intrigued to see what you’re going to come up with next. Maybe link me to Lee Harvey Oswald?”

This is a key to your “feelings” not the evidence. You are showing the world that you hold me in contempt as well.
all this has nothing to do with the topic, only a personal attack, to quote:
Anyone with half of the education you mentioned should also completely sympathize with those who would want to protect the sanctity and respectability of their degrees, and keep them from being associated with public postings filled with unnecessary hate and incompetently targetted overgeneralizations all expressed in almost irreconcilable broken english.
and:
And when the very same post goes on at length providing educational credits, any reasonable person should expect at least a moderately high amount of eyebrow raising.

You A.s.s. u and me too much. In my experience most people I know have many academic credentials. One of my teachers was a medical doctor who also received a degree in Nuclear technology, Engineering and was a rabbi (not the watered down version of America).
Another lady I worked with finished her degree in sociology and history. Became a wife, mother and grandmother. At the age of 69 became a medical doctor. To this day no-one knows the number of languages she speaks. She served as interpreter in our hospital ( by the way 28 languages are used here and no one in the staff is mono-lingual (not perfect in any language but enough to communicate).
My current teacher speaks 4 languages, is a renown physicist and chemist and teaches at my former institution in Israel. Two years ago he became a patient attorney and just finished another PhD in Chemical engineering. (A side note he holds a rabbinical education that is considered very high by any standard - He is a Dyan (actually what is called an Av-beth din, the head of a Jewish court.) Currently we are both involved with drug trials for a cure for aids in Taiwan, Israel and Honduras.
So again your experience is limited and you assume too much without real investigation.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 6, 2006 7:14 AM
Comment #193573

Kuz-

I realize you have many limitations, but the very lines you quoted from me show me to be specifically attacking the words you put forth in writing. Your inability to even grasp the rules for participation is astounding. And everything else is completely irrelevent. Keep coming with it though. I’m thoroughly entertained. It is sort of like watching a monkey try to pick a lock.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 6, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #193577

kuzriel,

“You A.s.s. u and me too much. In my experience most people I know have many academic credentials. One of my teachers was a medical doctor who also received a degree in Nuclear technology, Engineering and was a rabbi (not the watered down version of America).”

Nobody cares. Because the anonymity of the Internet is virtually complete, you could be my aunt Irene for all we know.

I could cut and paste a resume from anywhere and post it here, and all you have is my words.
The bottom line is that all that you are entitled to here, is your opinion, and you can’t assume that you are entitled to have us believe you are who you say you are.
We have a few people post here whose native tongue is not English, and we also have Americans whose grammar and spelling are atrocious.
This is the Internet, you know, the “World Wide Web”.
Frankly, unless I have met you, I don’t care who you say you are.

Get over it, and move on.

Posted by: Rocky at November 6, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #193578

Kevin you have proved again that you are the bigoted a-hole. I don’t care if blog watch bans me. Your attacks are personal and have no place here. I read the rules for participation, you haven’t contributed anything towards the discussion nor the purpose of this blog.
You possibly know nothing beyond confrontation and twisting someone’s words - not posts but phrases you don’t like. If you represent liberalism then I feel sorry for America if they are sucked into supporting the Dims.
k

Posted by: Kuzriel at November 6, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #193585

Is anyone else humming Cyndi Lauper right now?

“I see your true colors, shining through…”

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 6, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #193598

Rocky,
I care if I’m called a moron or a lier. My name is all I have and I respect myself enough to put forward an opinion based on evidence and truth - not a “joke” gone bad or some unsubstantiated comment. That is ultimately the point here -
Kerry lied for over 35 years about the military and has spoken wrongly against them. He pissed me off because I was a trooper and have had family in the American military. If one does not speak respectfully of anyone without investigation all we have is speculation and its cousin imagination - not truth.
I don’t call a Muslim a rag-head or a Christian an imperialist. But I will attack the verbal diarrhoea based on nothing but feeling. Including an attack of my honesty.
A monkey try to pick a lock.
I’ve known animals with more integrity and sense than some have shown me.
Further, check:
tallcomanche.org/January_1972
texasrepublic.org/sanhedrin.html
chron.com/content/chronicle/world/96/07/01/israelwomen.html
lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v02/0100.html
profile.military.com/member/view.do?memberId=2243561
www.tallcomanche.org/Medics.html
k

Posted by: Kuzriel at November 6, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #193637

Kuzriel,

“I care if I’m called a moron or a lier.”

No offence meant, but grow up.

Your name and your experience mean nothing here. All that matters is your opinion. This is, after all, a discussion group, and though some people do get carried away sometimes, I try to treat other people as I want to be treated.
You should do the same.

As I said before, I personally don’t care about your references. It doesn’t matter to me who, or what, you are. All you are entitled to here is your opinion, and you need to understand that.

Respect for that opinion may, or may not, come later.

Posted by: Rocky at November 6, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #193638

Kuzriel,

By the way, at least half of your links were dead.

Posted by: Rocky at November 6, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #193679

Checked them my self just now and they worked fine.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at November 6, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #193686

Kuzriel,

Kerry is indeed a moron, I wouldn’t have voted for him if he was the only candidate running from either party.
That said I thought that in the 2004 election there wasn’t a lesser of two evils.
We, here in America, have become complacent in the nomination process.
This is the country that gave us JFK, and Jefferson, and Washington, and Lincoln.
Bush and Kerry were the best the Democrats and Republicans could come up with?
I think too much emphasis is placed on what our candidates say, and too little is placed on what they do.
I agree with Jack, the Republicans don’t deserve to win, but then, neither do the Democrats.

Posted by: Rocky at November 6, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #193690

Rocky,

This is the country that gave us JFK, and Jefferson, and Washington, and Lincoln.

Go ahead and mention Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln, but leave out JFK. He was a total failure. Barely won his election, and then couldn’t get any of his give-away programs through Congress. The only successful thing he did was get assassinated which caused a landslide sympathy vote for LBJ and the Dems in Congress. LBJ then propelled us into Vietnam, while passing JFK’s give-away programs, (with the help of a 65% Democratic majority in Congress), like a Texas farmer feeding his pigs at the trough! Four years of Vietnam caused him to tuck tail and not even attempt a try at re-election. Come on, putting JFK in there is a joke. You should have used Ronald Reagan!!

Oh, and the Republicans do deserve to win!

JD

Posted by: JD at November 6, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #193692

JD,

During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK averted the biggest threat this country has ever faced, and probably will ever face.
I don’t know how old you are, but I lived through it.

Sorry, Reagan was a B actor that knew how to deliver lines.
As far as the Cold War, he had help from the Pope and Lech Walesa fighting the Soviet Union over Poland, and Afghanistan had drained most of the Soviet resources.
It didn’t hurt we were able to outspend the Soviets as well.

If the Republicans deserved to be re-elected, why all the brouhaha?

Posted by: Rocky at November 6, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #193694

Kuzriel,

“Checked them my self just now and they worked fine.”

I copied and pasted them into my browser and got mixed results.
Perhaps you neglected to give the whole address?

Posted by: Rocky at November 6, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #203829

Twenty years of struggle against AIDS. Grassroots campaign against AIDS. The struggle to find a cure for AIDS has contributed to other areas… WBR LeoP

Posted by: Leo at January 18, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #381297

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 5:44 AM
Post a comment