Monday, December 05, 2005

John Kerry: American Soldiers Are Terrorists

Lifted word-for-word from Captain Ed:

John Kerry appeared yesterday on the CBS talking-head show, "Face The Nation", to discuss the war in Iraq with Bob Schieffer. Just as in his speeches on the Viet Nam War, Kerry has slipped into deep Left-speak in an attempt to gain national traction for his pose as a party leader. In fact, in language reminiscent of his infamous "Genghis Khan" speech before the Senate in April 1971, he yesterday referred to American soldiers as terrorists -- and then suggested that we leave terrorism to the new Iraqi army.

From page 3-4 of the CBS transcript, emphasis mine (h/t:CQ reader Dave Z):
SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay the course because, he says, real progress is being made. He said this is a war between 27 million Iraqis who want freedom and 10,000 terrorists. He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?

Sen. KERRY: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, `Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...


Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.
Kerry thinks that the American soldiers are the terrorists in Iraq, applying that unique gift of his for moral relativity once again to indict an entire deployment of soldiers as criminals of the same order as our enemy. And Bob Schieffer sat there, without even raising an objection to Kerry's smear. Had Kerry not shown a long track record of this kind of rhetoric in the past -- and had to answer for it repeatedly during last year's presidential election -- one could possibly believe it came out as a slip of the tongue. However, he obviously has never stopped believing that the American fighting man and woman represents the same relative evil as the Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, and al-Qaeda.

The Democrats need to answer for this outrage. Is it really the party position that American soldiers terrorize Iraqi civilians? Do they want the Iraqis to do it instead of us? Kerry has unmasked himself and his fellow anti-war zealots for the hypocrites they are.

More from Ace:
The Democrats and the media want Bush to lose this war, for political reasons. They want to pressure him to cut and run and allow Iraq to be the war-torn terrorist haven they need it to be in order to prosper.

But they cannot advocate this cut and run strategy if we're winning the war. They cannot press for the withdrawal of all troops from a war when actual victory is perhaps just a year away.

So they need to claim that the war is "unwinnable." If the war is unwinnable, of course, there's hardly anything lost by withrdawing now. In fact, if the war truly were unwinnable, it would be prudent to get out early, rather than throwing living soldiers after the dead.

This requires them to deny all progress being made in Iraq, denigrate the fantastic job our military is doing in hunting down and killing terrorists who would otherwise be committing terrorist actions directly against US interests, claim that Iraq's constitutional, elected government is actually worse than Saddam's dictatorship, etc. Only with this false predicate -- "We're losing now, and we will lose in the future" -- can they advance their defeatist agenda, and disguise the true reasons for wanting a bug-out (they have to defeat Bush politically before he achieves victory militarily in Iraq).

Their careers, political and media, depend upon an American defeat in Iraq.

And from Tamy Bruce:
Let the enemy be mislead by the cut-and-run Leftists and Democrats in this country. Let them underestimate the will of the people. Monica Lewinsky's fat and sloppy boyfriend is no longer running this country, and the cowards like him, equally fat and sloppy, will not determine our future.


Blogger Zafrod said...

See, this is exactly the kind of nonsense word-play the Conservative Right has been using to undermine real issues. Kerry used the term "terrorize" in it's literal form... to instill terror. Have you seen video of American soldiers searching Iraqi homes? The Iraqis are, always, terrified. It was an appropriate word to use. You're simply hijacking the quote by claiming that he meant to call American soldiers terrorists, which has nothing to do with the content of the quote. The thrust of the quote was to say that Iraqis should be handling these searches, not Americans, which given the popularity of American soldiers in Iraq, is a damn salient point.

Cripes, engaging with the brainwashed social conservatives is like having an argument about semantics with a 12 year old.

8:39 PM  
Blogger dw said...

I don't give a rat's ass what Kerry meant. The fact is his words were hurtful in the same way his words in 1971 were an attack on our military then. The point is, Kerry was once again demonizing US troops, and hurting morale. It was a stupid thing to say!

And that's rich that a leftie would call me brainwashed - you blame Bush for everything wrong in the world, you think he's too stupid to walk and talk at the same time yet smart enough to manipulate an entire nation into believing whatever he wants. Bush says '16 words' that turn out to be true (British intelligence still stand by their reports that Iraqi agents were shopping for uranium in Niger) and use them to scream "Bush lied kids died." for the following three years straight. That's the thing about you liberals - every argument is about semantics: Democracy = socialism; Bush = Hitler; suicide bomber = resistance; lie = being incorrect; traitor = patriot.

8:45 AM  
Blogger dw said...

Almost forgot: choice = killing unborn human beings; and reality = whatever the hell you want it to be.

8:47 AM  
Blogger Zafrod said...

I'm not a lefty. I'm a registered Republican whose embarassed by the issue-dodging that is way too prevalent in my party. You're a bunch of cheerleaders who've forgotten that we elected this Republican majority on a platform of anti-corruption and transparency.

8:59 AM  
Blogger Zafrod said...

Transparency is not the responsibility of the minority party. That's a cop-out. The current administration, and the current administration alone, is responsible for the lack of transparency it allows, which is unprecidented in redent history.

The "Party of 'No'" is another attempt to marginalize anyone who disagrees with the administration. The Democrats, and may I be forgiven for having to say it, have been far more rational than the Republicans. I want to hear less bumper-sticker slogans and more answers.

"Mr. President, how do you respond to Middle-East experts who say that a civil war in Iraq is now unavoidable, and our continued presence will only serve to make the situation worse when it does finally occur?"

"Cut and Run. Party of No. Hate our Freedom."

Sorry. Doesn't cut it for me. I don't belong to the Democrat party. Frankly, I don't care what they do. I expect honesty and transparency from my party, however, regardless of what others do.

9:05 PM  
Blogger dw said...

"The Democrats, and may I be forgiven for having to say it, have been far more rational than the Republicans."

You've got to be kidding me. What is their plan then if not Vietnam II? How is the head of the DNC saying we can't win being rational? What middle-east experts are you talking about? The talking heads on TV? Give me a break. The democrats won't even listen to their own former candidate for Vice President when he has gone to Iraq himself and seen for himself what it is like there. They refuse even to listen to the terrorists themselves like Zawahiri and Zarqawi when they parrot the same lines. They don't listen to people who have actually been on the inside of the terrorist organization. Experts indeed. Have you actually read what Iraqis are saying? Why do Iraqi elections have 80% turnouts under threat of being blown up? When is the last time we had that kind of turn-out in the US?

And as for being a "cheerleader," that's bullshit. See for example this post. I'm plenty fed up with the republican leadership, too, but the democrats need to figure out who's side they are on and start acting like it. The 2006 elections will be a cakewalk for republicans if democrats keep calling for "redeployment" and making every judicial nominee's confirmation hearing all about abortion and only abortion. And Kerry's use of the word "terrorize" was not taken out of context - it was another attempt to put our soldiers on the same level as the terrorists who blow up children and cut off heads. It was another exercise in moral equivalency.

10:37 PM  
Blogger dw said...

When Republican politicians ran for office, they made campaign promises: drill for oil in ANWR so we can be less dependent on foreign oil, fix Social Security, simplify the tax code, make the 2003 tax cuts permanent, make government smaller, etc. These promises have been broken.

But what the democrats have been doing is treasonous when they say our military is broken, that they terrorize children, that they act like nazis or "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

But you talk about transparency - without competition there is no transparency. I do not want the republican party to have a monopoly, and that is why I am so pissed off at the democrats. Do you think any corporation or other institution would be transparent if there were no competition? No choice or option to go somewhere else for goods and services? Why do you think there is so much corruption in African governments? When a company comes in, it gets exclusive rights - monopoly power - and in exchange the corrupt government gets huge kickbacks. Foreigners invest in US markets because of their depth, competitiveness and transparency, even though goods and services produced in the US are more expensive than developing countries. If only the UN were half as transparent as any US institution, including our government, the world would be a better place.

10:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home