Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Kerry Breaks the First Rule of Holes
John Kerry brought in a metaphoric Cat D-9 to the press conference he held in order to dig the hole deeper. Even Democrats should shudder when they recall they made this guy their candidate for President two years ago. Video here, if you have the stomach for delusional faux outrage.
Here's a statement not apologizing he released and my responses in pale blue.
If anyone thinks a veteran [he is referring to himself] would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. [Are we crazy to think that veteran John Kerry would criticize in 1971 the million plus who served in Viet Nam?] This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. [I have to agree--a Democrat makes a stupid statement which reveals the truth of the Democrat position (here their contempt for the United States military) and the Republicans play recordings of the statement] I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks [Is it an attack merely to replay someone's recorded statement? I think not] that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. [Ah the chickenhawk gambit--always effective]
I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. [How could it be lying about Kerry to replay his recorded words? It can't. Kerry is incoherent here] It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have. [A combo chickenhawk/they're lying about me to replay my recorded words]
The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, [liberating 25 million from a Hitler like despot is betraying our ideals?] killed and maimed our soldiers, [I thought the Jihadists and insurgents did that] and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. [So if we don't fight against the Jihadists waging against us, we'll win?] These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor. [They all had body armor, but some was only rated IIIA not III or IV--big whup]
Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men [what?] because they're afraid to debate real men. [like Kerry?] And this time it won't work because we're going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan [we're still fighting in Afghanistan along with our NATO allies as many Democrats have wanted us to do everywhere] and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq. [We've won in Iraq; the Iraqis may lose the advantage we've given them, but that will be their fault not ours]
Here's a statement not apologizing he released and my responses in pale blue.
If anyone thinks a veteran [he is referring to himself] would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. [Are we crazy to think that veteran John Kerry would criticize in 1971 the million plus who served in Viet Nam?] This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. [I have to agree--a Democrat makes a stupid statement which reveals the truth of the Democrat position (here their contempt for the United States military) and the Republicans play recordings of the statement] I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks [Is it an attack merely to replay someone's recorded statement? I think not] that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. [Ah the chickenhawk gambit--always effective]
I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. [How could it be lying about Kerry to replay his recorded words? It can't. Kerry is incoherent here] It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have. [A combo chickenhawk/they're lying about me to replay my recorded words]
The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, [liberating 25 million from a Hitler like despot is betraying our ideals?] killed and maimed our soldiers, [I thought the Jihadists and insurgents did that] and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. [So if we don't fight against the Jihadists waging against us, we'll win?] These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor. [They all had body armor, but some was only rated IIIA not III or IV--big whup]
Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men [what?] because they're afraid to debate real men. [like Kerry?] And this time it won't work because we're going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan [we're still fighting in Afghanistan along with our NATO allies as many Democrats have wanted us to do everywhere] and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq. [We've won in Iraq; the Iraqis may lose the advantage we've given them, but that will be their fault not ours]
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 5:04 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
R,
On Monday, on my way to LaGuardia, I tuned into a discussion between three people whom I did not recognize, the subject of which was Bill O'Reilly's appearance on David Letterman, which I did not see, and their discussion of Iraq. There were a number of audio clips.
For once I was in agreement w/ Mr. O'Reilly. (Heavens to Murgatroyd, mark the day on your calendar.) Apparently, Mr. O'Reilly now believes the invasion of Iraq was a mistake (We do not agree here as I thought it would be a mistake b/f it happened.) but that we may not w/draw from Iraq until some type of stability is achieved. (W/ which I do agree.) He kept asking: "Do you what to win in Iraq?"
Roger, I take exception to your statement that "we won in Iraq." Whether "we won" has yet to be determined. Obviously, we won the military conflict but that prospect was never in doubt. The question remains as to whether the U.S. will achieve its political goals in Iraq. Of course, what those goals were and are seem to shift if one were to listen to this administration's pronouncements since March of 2003 and b/f.
As you know, I am extremely pessimistic that the Iraqis will be able to transition into a stable democracy instead Believe that Iraq will succumb further into the downward spiral into chaos, will we, nill we, we being the United States.
Now, I think the administration is finally considering the idea of involving Iraq's neighbors, none of whom wish to see Iraq devolve into a failed state for concerns that range from the political--Saudi Arabia and Jordan, inter alia, do not wish to see a strong Shiite puppet state of Iran in Iraq; Turkey does not want an independent Kurdistan--to humanitarian--Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan are already dealing w/ Iraqi refugees. It's one thing to shelter the intelligencia and middle class who have fled Iraq's violence. It's quite another to have your borders overwhelmed by a massive exodus. On that subject, I understand that Saudi Arabia is pushing ahead w/ its plan to build an electrified fence along the entire length of its 560 mile/900km border w/ Iraq.
You state: "We won in Iraq; the Iraqis may lose the advantage we have given them, but that will be their fault, not ours."
Again, if you define winning in the narrow context of prevailing in the war w/ Saddam's armed forces, we won, but again that end was never in doubt. I would use the word "squander" rather than "lose" but do place the blame soley on the Iraqis. It is not as if they had history and a tradition of republican government on their side.
The United States invaded Iraq and deposed a despot and his psychotic sons. This would seem to have been a good thing. The Iraqis must assume responsibility for their own self determination. Nevertheless, we, as a country, may not absolve ourselves of responsibility for the current situation and whatever may follow, for good or ill, b/c we, as a country, are responsible for whatever happens. W/o our intervention, it never would have occurred.
T.
On Monday, on my way to LaGuardia, I tuned into a discussion between three people whom I did not recognize, the subject of which was Bill O'Reilly's appearance on David Letterman, which I did not see, and their discussion of Iraq. There were a number of audio clips.
For once I was in agreement w/ Mr. O'Reilly. (Heavens to Murgatroyd, mark the day on your calendar.) Apparently, Mr. O'Reilly now believes the invasion of Iraq was a mistake (We do not agree here as I thought it would be a mistake b/f it happened.) but that we may not w/draw from Iraq until some type of stability is achieved. (W/ which I do agree.) He kept asking: "Do you what to win in Iraq?"
Roger, I take exception to your statement that "we won in Iraq." Whether "we won" has yet to be determined. Obviously, we won the military conflict but that prospect was never in doubt. The question remains as to whether the U.S. will achieve its political goals in Iraq. Of course, what those goals were and are seem to shift if one were to listen to this administration's pronouncements since March of 2003 and b/f.
As you know, I am extremely pessimistic that the Iraqis will be able to transition into a stable democracy instead Believe that Iraq will succumb further into the downward spiral into chaos, will we, nill we, we being the United States.
Now, I think the administration is finally considering the idea of involving Iraq's neighbors, none of whom wish to see Iraq devolve into a failed state for concerns that range from the political--Saudi Arabia and Jordan, inter alia, do not wish to see a strong Shiite puppet state of Iran in Iraq; Turkey does not want an independent Kurdistan--to humanitarian--Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan are already dealing w/ Iraqi refugees. It's one thing to shelter the intelligencia and middle class who have fled Iraq's violence. It's quite another to have your borders overwhelmed by a massive exodus. On that subject, I understand that Saudi Arabia is pushing ahead w/ its plan to build an electrified fence along the entire length of its 560 mile/900km border w/ Iraq.
You state: "We won in Iraq; the Iraqis may lose the advantage we have given them, but that will be their fault, not ours."
Again, if you define winning in the narrow context of prevailing in the war w/ Saddam's armed forces, we won, but again that end was never in doubt. I would use the word "squander" rather than "lose" but do place the blame soley on the Iraqis. It is not as if they had history and a tradition of republican government on their side.
The United States invaded Iraq and deposed a despot and his psychotic sons. This would seem to have been a good thing. The Iraqis must assume responsibility for their own self determination. Nevertheless, we, as a country, may not absolve ourselves of responsibility for the current situation and whatever may follow, for good or ill, b/c we, as a country, are responsible for whatever happens. W/o our intervention, it never would have occurred.
T.
# posted by 
: 9:44 AM
: 9:44 AM
Thanks for the long thoughtful posting. I have to disagree that it was in the bag we would militarily defeat Iraq. Would you have imagined that Afghanistan would defeat the 20,000 tanks and 7,500 helicopters of the Soviet Union? I thought they were doomed. They won. I want Iraq to prosper. I want them to be a shining example rather than another reminder that too many Muslims don't seem to be joining the 21st century well and are willing to kill for the Sunni/Shia divide. Absurd. As Shawn Colvin sings--Sunni came home with a vengence.
Post a Comment
<< Home
