Share your thoughts...or, in the case of moonbats, your unintelligble grunts!
Just remember, you brought it up... Jason over at "Generation Why" had this up earlier and I commented there. But for those who may not include Jason's site in thier rounds, I'm gonna do a no-no and repeat it here; simply because It's how I feel about John F'ing Kerry.
John Kerry is lower than whale crap in my book. Can I be any plainer? He is a despicable human being, who is personally bound by no morals, no ethics. He is an opportunist who will say whatever grabs attention regardless of whether there is a shred of truth or not. Most liars will incorporate at least a little truth to improve believability. Kerry has lied so much, he cannot keep his lies assimilated in his worthless mind. As far as military service is concerned, John F’ing Kerry is one veteran who I will boldly say has disgraced his uniform. I have no appreciation for Kerry’s service whatsoever. CPT Calley, who was courts marshaled and convicted of the Mi Lai massacre, served more honorably than did Kerry. There is but one thing that is important to John Kerry – John Kerry. He has one positive attribute, though; he makes Ted Kennedy look good.
Jonathan, please don't ban me for the cut'n'paste.
Soldier, I seriously doubt you have to worry about me banning you. 
I don't mind the cut-and-paste comments from one blog to another. Not at all, from anyone. I know, it's considered a violation of Netiquette and blogosphere manners, but of all the things I'm anal retentive about...that ain't one of them!
Old Soldier,
Why don't you gather your thoughts and try and tell us how you REALLY feel about John F'ing Kerry?
Don't be so vague 
I think you're wrong. He didn't call them terrorist, he said they shouldn't be doing a job that Iraqis could be doing, had the Bush administration done everything right in the first place (i.e. giving proper training to Iraqi troops for their own self-sufficiency). It's crazy "hearing what you want to hear" attitudes that got us into Iraq in the first place.
Alex,
First of all, welcome.
Secondly, are you hooked on phonics, friend? This isn't "hearing what you want to hear", but "reading the man's own words."
If I wanted to "hear" anything, I'd "hear" Kerry reading his prepared statement where he slandered his colleagues in Vietnam by accusing them of atrocities that he never saw...because they didn't happen. See the link where it references his famous "personally raped, etc." speech? I heard him utter those damnable lies!
So you'll have to forgive me if I choose not to accept your attempt to rehab his shotty image when it comes to defense matters. The man's anemic record speaks for itself.
I'm reading it the same way Alex does: Kerry did not call our troops terrorists. He refers to soldiers "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women." That, to me, doesn't begin to equate our military with Al Qaeda.
Admittedly, it was a poor choice of words, including the root word "terror" which is so packed with meaning these days. Kind of like when Bush called the war a "crusade," although I personally suspect Bush meant it that way.
Fact is, having a bunch of military enter your home in the middle of the night would be terrorizing. You don't have to be Iraqi to understand this. Again, that doesn't mean the troops are terrorists, only that their actions result in terror. Can you see the difference? It's a matter of finding fault with the action rather than the person. Because the action is part of a failed policy which the military is duty-bound to perform.
I'm reading it the same way Alex does
Color me unsurprised. Man, an ed-yoo-kashen just ain't wut it yoosed to bee.
Admittedly, it was a poor choice of words
He must have gone to the Dick Durbin school of sh#tty analogies.
Because the action is part of a failed policy
I know what you mean. Toppling a bloodthirsty brutal tyrant, holding elections, drafting a Constitution, giving Iraqis a taste of freedom, bringing Shias and Kurds and even a sizeable chunk of Sunnis together for this process...sheer failure, I tell ya! At this rate, Bush may screw up even more and start a domino effect of democracy through the rest of the Middle East!
Oops...I forgot about Jordan, Palestine talking with Israel, Syria's pullback, Saudi Arabia and Egypt inching a little bit more towards freedom and elections! Damn that Bush!
Color me unsurprised. Man, an ed-yoo-kashen just ain't wut it yoosed to bee.
Now I'm wondering about the call on the front page of this site to "Please be civil." I guess that doesn't apply to republicans. Color me unsurprised.
He must have gone to the Dick Durbin school of sh#tty analogies.
You mean the one that taught W to call the war on terror a crusade? Your objection to some bad analogies versus your acceptance of others is telling.
Toppling a bloodthirsty brutal tyrant, holding elections, drafting a Constitution, giving Iraqis a taste of freedom, bringing Shias and Kurds and even a sizeable chunk of Sunnis together for this process...sheer failure, I tell ya!
Your claims are misleading. One Iraqi leader claimed that the current state of house searches, death squads, disappearances and torture are as bad as during Saddam's day.
Of course, the US can stay and slog it out, working to keep this fragile coalition of Sunnis, Shites and Kurds together. But they can't expect this government to hold it together very well if they leave. That's why it's a failed policy.
I guess that doesn't apply to republicans
Or Libertarians, either. Or did you not read that part, either?
Sarcasm is welcome, Paul. I wouldn't attribute that to a lack of civility. You should see some of the moonbat guano I've had to clean up in here. THAT, my man, is uncivil.
You mean the one that taught W to call the war on terror a crusade
No, I mean the one where Durbin the Turban compared our soldiers (you know, the ones you guys claim to support?) to Pol Pot, Nazis, Stalin, etc. You don't remember seeing that in the news? Probably because the MSM didn't carry it much, until the blogosphere and Internet ran with it. The MSM didn't touch it until he apologized.
Also, a crusade is "a series of actions advancing a principle or tending toward a particular end." Sounds like a reasonable description of the war on terror to me. If you mean that crusade is a "holy war", I don't have a problem with that either, considering the bloodthirsty savages that want your left-wing ass and my right-wing ass equally dead are Islamic fascists.
Ooooo...that was soooo P.I. for me to point that out, wasn't it?
Note to self: care about that.
But they can't expect this government to hold it together very well if they leave. That's why it's a failed policy.
We still have soldiers stationed in Germany, since the end of WW II. Damn that FDR and Truman for their shitty policies!
Sarcasm is welcome, Paul. I wouldn't attribute that to a lack of civility. You should see some of the moonbat guano I've had to clean up in here. THAT, my man, is uncivil.
I understand. I'm a father, and the "he started it" excuse is quite familiar to me.
No, I mean the one where Durbin the Turban compared our soldiers (you know, the ones you guys claim to support?) to Pol Pot, Nazis, Stalin, etc. You don't remember seeing that in the news?
Yes, of course I saw that in the news. The MSM didn't blank that story from where I was standing.
What I was referring to, with perhaps a bit too much sanctioned sarcasm to be intelligible, was the fact that Bush and other admin officials use terrible metaphors from time to time too, such as Bush's "crusade" comment which did more damage to our war effort than anything Kerry has said. I'm wondering if you're as incensed at Bush's poor word use as your are at Kerry's, or if your complain is purely partisan.
Also, a crusade is "a series of actions advancing a principle or tending toward a particular end."
Damn, and you complain about my ejucation. So you know, the word "crusade" comes from some terrible wars in the middle ages where European armies conquered the holy land for a time to save it from the infidels. Considering how important that the general Muslim public not believe that the US is at war against Islam in general, I would say that describing the war on terrah as a crusade was probably the most unfortunate use of words to take place in the last 5 years.
We still have soldiers stationed in Germany, since the end of WW II.
Very bad comparison, as I would hope you know. Our military in Germany is not holding that country together, and is not the constant target of insurgents fighting against an occupation. In fact, there was never a single insurgent attack in Germany against our military after VE day. Ever. Wow, that really was a bad comparison.
I'm wondering if you're as incensed at Bush's poor word use as your are at Kerry's, or if your complain is purely partisan.
It's purely partisan.
Damn, and you complain about my ejucation
NOW you're catching on! Nice one!
So you know, the word "crusade" comes from some terrible wars in the middle ages where European armies conquered the holy land for a time to save it from the infidels
Really? You didn't gather that I understood that definition, too, from the part where I said "If you mean that crusade is a 'holy war'"? Sorry if I assumed too much of you.
Very bad comparison
I was illustrating your absurd and ludicrous position with absurdity of my own. That you failed to recognize it simply reinforces my belief that you're actually a moonbat (really, man, the Sheehan and Dean and Moore thingee kinda gave that away), only a bit more coherent than the usual suspects in here.
It's purely partisan.
So you have no real interest in anything beyond your side getting ahead, and all this indignation about John F'ing Kerry is really just you playing a game. I see. Damn, from reading your bio (which had a lot of parallels to my own, including upbringing and the libertarian part), I really thought you might be a thoughtful person. Sorry, my mistake.
Really? You didn't gather that I understood that definition, too, from the part where I said "If you mean that crusade is a 'holy war'"? Sorry if I assumed too much of you.
You downplayed that definition, and failed to provide the historical context that gives the word it's larger connotation. So no, you didn't show that you understood the depth of Bush's gaffe.
I was illustrating your absurd and ludicrous position with absurdity of my own.
Yes, I gathered that, but the comparison was completely irrelevant as I showed, and served to prove no point. Was that your objective?
”And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs.”
Paul, your explanation, concerning Kerry’s poor choice of words, certainly seems plausible solely in this context. But unfortunately, John I-actually-voted-for-the-87B-before-I-voted-
against-it Kerry has a disgraceful record where the military is concerned, going back to his Vietnam service and then his abysmal Senate record of consistently voting against appropriations for military equipment and funding. With severe regularity Kerry votes “aye” for any social program and “nay” for any military program. He also has a documented history of lying to a congressional hearing on atrocities in Vietnam and then touting those same accusations out to the media. John Kerry earned every one of the bad feelings that we older Vietnam veterans have for him. His Winter Soldier fiasco included “soldier witnesses” who later were proven to have never been in Vietnam and in one case never served in the military. But what are a few minuscule facts to an aspiring politician. John Kerry has absolutely no credibility when it comes to his relationship to the military.
As for this specific occasion, I have heart burn with the comment being phrased more as an indictment or accusation. No matter what, the soldiers are always in the wrong until irrefutable evidence is given and that is never given the light of day by the MSM. Is there any wonder why we (conservatives and military) are so skeptical where the MSM and statements like Kerry’s are concerned. That combination has worked hard to foster the skepticism.
Unfortunately that skepticism will make it extremely difficult for any reasonable or plausible explanations to be fielded by the left and received as genuine by the right. Right, wrong or indifferent; that’s the way it is.
Old Soldier, that's a very well stated point. I don't agree with all of the facts, but it seems very well thought out. Nice one.
Particularly, I don't know that Kerry has consistently voted against military funding. The "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is strictly a GOP talking point. There was a very valid reason why Kerry was in favor of funding the military in Iraq but opposed to giving Bush a blank check without any accountability, and particularly without any means to fund the war.
I voted for Kerry last year, the first democrat I've voted for in decades. It was certainly a "lesser of two evils" vote, a decision I stand by more today than a year ago. Not that Kerry has gotten better per se, but Team Bush has definitely gotten worse.
This comment of yours I think hits the nail on the head regarding Kerry and his comments about the war:
Unfortunately that skepticism will make it extremely difficult for any reasonable or plausible explanations to be fielded by the left and received as genuine by the right.
Sad but true.
First of all there is a significant difference between “Crusade” and “crusade”. Yes, IAW the PC Police, Bush messed up using that term; might be the reason he never used it again. However, John Kerry just keeps stepping in crap no matter how many times he is corrected.
”In fact, there was never a single insurgent attack in Germany against our military after VE day. Ever. Wow, that really was a bad comparison.”
I guess that depends upon your definition if “is”. According to many WWII European Theater Veterans, and quite a few historical accounts, there were many “loyalist” attacks against the occupational forces for some time well after VE Day. The attacks were sniper actions, ambushes, and traps with explosives – kinda like al-Qaeda, come to think of it; mostly SS Waffen, though. You're going to have to do better than that to remain believable.
According to many WWII European Theater Veterans, and quite a few historical accounts, there were many “loyalist” attacks against the occupational forces for some time well after VE Day.
Funny, I've read the exact opposite. Since I cannot prove a negative, maybe you can provide something to show that allied forces were fighting a "loyalist" opposition after VE Day.
I'd love to, but he died in 1981. My father-in-law was a Field First (Sergeant) in the Engineers in Patton's III Corps and was part of the initial occupational force in Germany. He related many "insurgent" type attacks for almost a year after VE Day. They were not as wide spread as we face in Iraq, but nonetheless, they occured. I've also read about it in some historical accounts written by returning occupational soldiers. I do not have references handy and unfortunately I have to prepare to hit the road (business trip). I'm sure there are accounts available via web searches.
Yeah, Old Soldier, well what does your old man know? It's not like he was in Germany after the fall of Hitler!
Oh...he was? Uh...well, what does he know anyway?!? Paul would rather take nameless, faceless, liberal revisionist historians' words over those who were really there.
Hmm...sounds an awful lot like today, doesn't it?
Yeah, Old Soldier, well what does your old man know? It's not like he was in Germany after the fall of Hitler!
Jonathan, fact is, I've Googled this and have come up empty in looking for examples of insurgent strikes in Germany against the allies. Maybe you can find something, since you obviously know it to be true. Can it be possible that Old Soldier's Old Man was the only one who knew about this, and that now that he's gone, this is lost to posterity?
Paul would rather take nameless, faceless, liberal revisionist historians' words over those who were really there.
News flash for you slow kids at the back of the class: All of you are nameless and faceless. See, this is the internet, not the real world. If it were the real world, I would appear to have an eyes, nose and mouth, rather than be represented by black and white text. That's how you can tell in the future.
And Jonathan, based on your performance today in defending your claims, you enjoy much less credibitlity than the "anonymous man on the street," since I know you're committed to spinning the GOP line, as you've admitted. It's time to face the facts there, buddy.
So forgive me for not accepting your claims carte blanche.
Commenting by HaloScan
