This guy hasn't changed his message since he slinked home from Vietnam with his tail between his legs.


From CBS's "Face the Nation":

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...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. [Iraqis should be terrorizing people in their homes?] 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.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you're not saying we should stop fighting these insurgents?

Sen. KERRY: Absolutely not. In fact, in my plan, I have said very specifically that we need to keep Special Forces capacity. We need to have the ability to go after hard intelligence. We need to chase down Zarqawi. But we do not need 160,000 troops running around the country as a whole, exposing themselves as they are, feeding the notion of occupation. Let me just emphasize this.

I think we can all agree that the Iraqis should be taking over more and more responsibility for their own security. But isn't there a better way to make the point than calling American soldiers terrorists?

The psychology of his statement is baffling. What exactly is he talking about? "Terrrorizing" women and children? Why would we transfer something like that to the Iraqi security forces? Isn't the point to go after terrorists?

If this is the opinion the Senator has of the job our brave troops are doing in Iraq it is slanderous and he should be called to account for his comments.

Hey Fossten. Who's this John Kerry guy? The name sounds vaguely familiar but...oh well, not important.

Monday, Dec. 5, 2005 11:43 p.m. EST
Michael Reagan: Dean 'Should Be Hung'


Michael Reagan, son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is blasting Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for declaring that the U.S. won't be able to win the war in Iraq, saying Dean ought to be "hung for treason."

"Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" Reagan told his Radio America audience on Monday.

Reagan was reacting to Dean's comments earlier in the day, when the top Democrat said that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

In a Texas radio interview, Dean predicted a rerun of the Vietnam debacle, where U.S. forces had to withdraw after Congress voted to cut support for South Vietnam's government.

"This is the same situation we had in Vietnam," the top Democrat said. "Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Dean said he favored a plan to immediately withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops - with all military personnel slated to be out of Iraq within two years.

Again and again, old John Kerry gives aid and comfort to the enemy. And people actually voted for this moron. He shamed himself then, and he shames us all now. What a loser. Come on Theresa, can't you keep your MANBITCH in check.

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/03/22/image607668x.jpg

...they had personally 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 fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Again and again, old John Kerry gives aid and comfort to the enemy. And people actually voted for this moron. He shamed himself then, and he shames us all now. What a loser. Come on Theresa, can't you keep your MANBITCH in check.

Speaking of which, Theresa is no longer using the name Heinz-Kerry. She's going simply by Heinz now. Gee, Johnny boy, are you in the doghouse? Are you going to have to get new checks?

Lol... You people want to hang Dean for his opinion? Guess what people, this is America and you are allowed to have an opinion different than the President. Besides, he is not the only American that sees Iraq as a no win war (you'll have to hang half the country. maybe more), history has shown that guerilla type warfare is practically impossible to beat.

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/03/22/image607668x.jpg

...they had personally 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 fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Do you think he made it all up?

Do you think he made it all up?Can you prove any of it?

Do you think he made it all up?

A large number of vets who WERE THERE say did. Now let's hear you discredit them.

Can you prove any of it?


No, I wasn't there. But I'll tell you one thing, war atrocities/crimes do happen and Kerry isn't the ONLY Vietnam vet with similar stories. If you think they don't, I want to live in your happy world.

A large number of vets who WERE THERE say did. Now let's hear you discredit them.


Don't want to discredit them, I would have to assume this happned everywhere throughout the war to do so, which I don't think it did.

No, I wasn't there. But I'll tell you one thing, war atrocities/crimes do happen and Kerry isn't the ONLY Vietnam vet with similar stories. If you think they don't, I want to live in your happy world.The only problem with Kerry's own stories were that they were made up. Read up on the medals he AWARDED HIMSELF by writing up phony stories and embellishing on the others.

So, personally, I don't believe a word that comes out of that guys mouth, not then and certainly not now.

Guess we'll just have to swift boat him again if he decides to run in '08.

No, I wasn't there. But I'll tell you one thing, war atrocities/crimes do happen and Kerry isn't the ONLY Vietnam vet with similar stories. If you think they don't, I want to live in your happy world.

Do I believe that atrocities happened?? Yes I do. Do I believe that they should have happened. No I do not. As far as other Vets stories of the atocities, they did not go to VietNam during the war and give the Vietnamese ammunition that they could use against our own people. They came home and told their stories to get the facts out without being a traitor about it. Kerry was right in being against atrocities commited by our people, but what he did about it was treason. He is a traitor. He caused harm to our POW's. He does not deserve anything from this country except a one way ticket to Vietnam. And I will personally pay for it.

Do I believe that atrocities happened?? Yes I do. Do I believe that they should have happened. No I do not. As far as other Vets stories of the atocities, they did not go to VietNam during the war and give the Vietnamese ammunition that they could use against our own people. They came home and told their stories to get the facts out without being a traitor about it. Kerry was right in being against atrocities commited by our people, but what he did about it was treason. He is a traitor. He caused harm to our POW's. He does not deserve anything from this country except a one way ticket to Vietnam. And I will personally pay for it.


Maybe I misread you, but Kerry gave ammunition to the Communist Vietnamese so they could shoot American troops?

Maybe I misread you, but Kerry gave ammunition to the Communist Vietnamese so they could shoot American troops?He did worse than that! That is why they honor him in a museum in North Vietnam.

Come on. Do some searching. The guy is a scumball.

He gave psycological information to the enemy to use against our own captured soldiers. There was more than 1 returned POW that has stated that when they were shown clips of John Kerry and Jane Fonda cavorting with the enemy that they almost lost hope and had comrades who did lose hope. Say what you will, Kerry is a traitor. It has been proven by his actions. Past and present. And most likely in the future.

Don't want to discredit them, I would have to assume this happned everywhere throughout the war to do so, which I don't think it did.

Kerry is ASSUMING that our soldiers are terrorists RIGHT NOW. He has absolutely no evidence that what he's stated is actually happening, yet he's reverting back to his old pattern from 35 years ago: Criticize, demagogue, lie, tell tales.


No, I wasn't there. But I'll tell you one thing, war atrocities/crimes do happen and Kerry isn't the ONLY Vietnam vet with similar stories. If you think they don't, I want to live in your happy world.

First of all, prove it before you make claims. You sound just like Kerry now, who by the way is the ONLY VIETNAM VET CRITICIZING OUR TROOPS WITH FAKE STORIES.

Second of all, you could live in my happy world if you'd just have a little faith in our troops to do the right thing.

Did you vote for him?

Kerry is ASSUMING that our soldiers are terrorists RIGHT NOW. He has absolutely no evidence that what he's stated is actually happening, yet he's reverting back to his old pattern from 35 years ago: Criticize, demagogue, lie, tell tales.

My orignal quote which started MonsterMark, Buford and yourself was in response to Kerry's Vietnam quote. I havent followed Kerry since he lost the presidency, he is old news to me.

First of all, prove it before you make claims. You sound just like Kerry now, who by the way is the ONLY VIETNAM VET CRITICIZING OUR TROOPS WITH FAKE STORIES.

Kerry wasn't the only vet to come back with stories of war crimes during the Vietnam War and I don't think he was accusing every soldier of being a barbarian. Hundreds of bastard Vietnamese children had by American fathers in Vietnam pretty much state that the raping of Vietnamese women at least happened. Unless you assume that they must all be whores willfully opening their legs to any American. As far as him criticizing the troops in Iraq of barbarism, if that is true then he better have definite proof or he'll look like an a-hole.

Second of all, you could live in my happy world if you'd just have a little faith in our troops to do the right thing.

I'd rather not live in ignorance and be sad than idle my time away in blissful ignorance.

I do have faith in our troops and I do believe they will make the best of a bad situation, they are unfortunate pawns and I feel for them everytime I hear another soldier was killed. I have never attacked the people serving in Iraq.

Did you vote for him?

Yes, unfortunately I had to choose between the lesser of two evils, or waste my vote on Nadar.

Yes, unfortunately I had to choose between the lesser of two evils, or waste my vote on Nadar.You had a chance to vote to protect this country at all costs with all its resources (military, economic, political) or vote for the guy that would hand over our protection to countries like France.

You blew it.

You had a chance to vote to protect this country at all costs with all its resources (military, economic, political) or vote for the guy that would hand over our protection to countries like France.

You blew it.

Lol...... Like I said, 'lesser of two evils', Bush wasn't instilling faith in me, so I had to take a gamble.

And you'll be the one swallowing it if Bush doesn't pull through. Better pray.

Rush Limbaugh today...
Liberalism is the easiest, most gutless choice anybody can make. Courage is speaking for freedom while faced with tyranny, not speaking for tyranny while living in freedom

And More...

and these people are advocating tyranny by suggesting Saddam shouldn't have been deposed, maybe we shouldn't even proceed with this trial, that Iraqis were better off.

I mean, these are the people that claim, folks, to have all these interests in human rights and civil rights and freedom and love and tolerance, and they're willing to consign the Iraqi population back to this thug dictator and all of his evil and all of his horrors -- and at the same time they want to be called courageous for doing so! Well, this is the exact opposite of courage. Courage is when you are tyrannized, when you're living in tyranny, and you dare speak up for your own freedom.

Add Carter, and Bill Clinton as well. Carter in many ways is difficult to distinguish from Ramsey Clark, because Carter is out there currently constantly embracing dictators, from Castro to that pot-bellied little fool in North Korea, Kim Jong Il or Kim Jung Il, Kim Il Jung, whatever they go by. They're always just out there traveling the world denouncing us. Clinton himself often comes close, but he pulls back. He'll go over to Dubai and rip the soldiers. He will not call them terrorists, but he'll demoralize them and attempt to make illegitimate their effort, then he'll come back and change his mind when he's speaking to an American audience. I guess he thinks this is courage, too, telling an audience what it wants to hear, even trying to triangulate the war. Then in the meantime, you've got Joe Lieberman who is the black sheep of this party because he speaks the truth and defends his country, but he's totally ignored. He's an outcast in his own party. Instead, you've got people like Cindy Sheehan and John Murtha, lauded, praised, because they undermine the war -- and in the process, undermine their country. Then you've got the media, nothing more than the Democrat National Committee house organ, the Democrat National Committee Times, the Democrat National Committee NBC, the DNC-ABC, and it's sickening. It is just sickening -- and they must pay a price.

Howard Dean for declaring that the U.S. won't be able to win the war in Iraq, saying Dean ought to be "hung for treason."

Jay Leno this evening, referencing Dean:

"If anyone knows anything about not winning, it is the democrats."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gif

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: [T]here 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 -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.

Wolf Blitzer said to Ken Mehlman, "What's your response to this?"

MEHLMAN: John Kerry was on Face the Nation this past weekend and he talked about American troops terrorizing Iraqi people, going into Iraqis' homes. I thought that was an incredibly irresponsible comment. I thought that Nancy Pelosi's echoing the retreat and defeat strategy that was laid out earlier was also wrong. I think Democrats all around the country need to stand up and be counted.

BLITZER: Getting a quick reaction to my interview only within the past few minutes where the chairman of the Republican Party Ken Mehlman who took a strong swipe at John Kerry for comments he made on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer this Past Sunday. David Wade, a spokesman for John Kerry, just sent us over a statement saying: "Ken Mehlman's filthy and shameful lie about a decorated combat veteran is disgraceful. Political hack Ken Mehlman and draft dodging, doughnut-eating Rush Limbaugh have something in common, neither of them know anything about how to make American troops safe. John Kerry will continue to speak out about how to succeed in Iraq and protect brave American troops."

Wow. What a 5th-grade level insult. That's all the LibDems can do: call names and insult. They can't defend themselves in the arena of ideas. Kerry thinks he's better than everyone else, we should all bow before his Excellency. I want to know which part of Mehlman's statement was a lie.

Here's another take on that interview:
Rush "Ass Cyst" Limbaugh Attacks Vietnam Vet, Calls For Radical Change in Military Policy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/rush-ass-cyst-limbaugh-_b_11802.html

Sometimes you just have to just laugh at Rush Limbaugh. Here's a guy who dodged the Vietnam War draft by citing a cyst on his ass (no joke), and yet who accuses Vietnam War heroes essentially of treason. Today, Limbaugh's attack is on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). You remember him – he's that guy who actually went over and served in Vietnam, while Limbaugh sat home, dropped his pants, and pointed his draft board to a cyst on his own ass in order to avoid serving his country.

Limbaugh is actually claiming that Kerry called American troops terrorists this weekend on CBS. Boy that would be real bad...if it were even close to true. So let's go to the transcript, shall we, to see if old Rush "Ass Cyst" Limbaugh is telling us the truth:

KERRY:... 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...

Yes, that's right – Limbaugh and other right-wing outfits claim that means Kerry is calling American soldiers terrorists. Clearly he's not – he said "there is no reason" for them to be required to do that as the war intensifies. He went on to say that it is time for the Iraqis to enforce their own security.

And that begs a question: does Ass Cyst Limbaugh – the same guy who avoided combat – actually WANT American troops to start "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children?" Because that's what he is actually endorsing. I don't know about you, but I'd bet military commanders in the field would think that's a bad idea.

Actually, we don't have to bet - we can just look at the record and see that yes, top military commanders agree with Kerry - not with Ass Cyst Limbaugh. For instance, back in 2003, the UK Guardian reported that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, head of the allied forces in Iraq, "said the US had decided to revise its strategy and limit the scope of raids after being warned they were alienating the public." He said, "It was a fact that I started to get multiple indicators that maybe our iron-fisted approach to the conduct of ops was beginning to alienate Iraqis. I started to get those sensings from multiple sources, all the way from the governing council down to average people."

Earlier this year, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. military was rightly questioning its own raid strategy – as Kerry alluded to – because:

"The raids turn up little and leave hard feelings among civilians who resent foreign soldiers bursting into their homes, breaking doors and gates and pointing guns at their heads. They resent these men catching their wives and daughters in their bedclothes. They resent them barking orders, telling them to get on the ground, invading their homes, emptying drawers and turning over mattresses."

So let's be clear: what Ass Cyst Limbaugh is doing is both lying about Kerry, and frontally endorsing a radical change in U.S. military policy whereby our soldiers actually do start terrorizing people. He is doing this, even as our own military says that would be a mistake.

But then, Ass Cyst Limbaugh always talks with such confidence that maybe we should we should call him Sgt. Ass Warts Limbaugh, issue him a weapon, put him in uniform, and send him over to actually implement his new house-to-house urban combat raid strategy. He seems so excited and supportive of it – and so determined to have the U.S. military commanders adopt his ideas - I'll bet he's ready to go serve his country, right?

Don't hold your breath - you can bet if we tried that, he'd simply start crying in fear, beg for mercy, and then desperately unveil his fat ass and point to it as an excuse to once again avoid actually living by his own rhetoric.

draft dodging, doughnut-eating Rush LimbaughWhat I love is Rush is thinner than that moron Wade who makes the comment. Your right, childish it is.

Huffington's article is a joke. Phil, why don't you try doing your own research. I actually heard what was said, and she's a liar. Kerry actually SAID "terrorizing." If that doesn't mean terrorism, WHAT DOES? And Kerry actually said Iraqis need to be doing the terrorizing! Rush never endorsed it, in fact, he disputed that the soldiers are actually doing it! And Kerry claimed something he has no evidence of. He was simply mischaracterizing our troops' actions.

What a bunch of scumbags. Figures you'd come to their defense. You don't even know what you're doing.

Dean and Kerry 'Pearl Harbor' Our Troops
Michael Reagan
Thursday, Dec. 8, 2005



Sixty-four years ago today, December 7, the United States was stabbed in the back and 2,338 Americans were killed in a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.

Last week, American servicemen and women serving in Iraq, and those here at home recovering from terrible wounds were also stabbed in the back.

In 1941 it was the Japanese wielding the knife; last week it was Howard Dean and John Kerry and fellow members of the dominant left wing of the Democrat Party who plunged the dagger in America's back.

Dean wielded the knife during a Texas radio interview when he had the gall to declare that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," thereby telling the parents of those brave men and women who were killed fighting for the country, or the American troops now facing death every day in Iraq, that it was all a waste of time.

In my book that's just plain treason and I told my radio listeners that Dean should be arrested and hung for treason, or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war.

But Dean wasn't finished. He went on to say: "This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Aside from the fact that Dean's arithmetic is off - some 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, not 25,000 - we didn't lose a war we were winning on the battlefield because we were stubborn. We lost it because members of Dean's party in Congress de-funded the war effort and demanded that we do what he and his defeatist party are once again demanding – that the United States cut and run.

I have a suggestion for Howard Dean. He should do what I did a week ago – visit the amputees at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He can try to tell them that the limbs they sacrificed on the field of battle were sacrificed in vain – thrown away in a war that we cannot win. I also suggest that when he does so he had better do what he wants the U.S. to do – cut and run for his life.

Then we have the junior Senator from Massachusetts, Sen. John F. Kerry, who is becoming a serial backstabber.

Kerry, you will remember, stabbed his Vietnam comrades in the back when he accused them of committing atrocities during that war. Well, he just did it again on CBS Sunday, telling Bob Schieffer of "Face the Nation" there was no reason for U.S. soldiers to continue "terrorizing" Iraqi children, and saying: "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."

He then suggested that it should be the Iraqi soldiers doing the terrorism: "Whether you like it or not," he said, "Iraqis should be doing that."

Perhaps the Senator from Hanoi should take one of those senatorial junkets to Iraq and tell our courageous men and women over there, facing death and dismemberment every day, that they aren't really there to help guarantee the Iraqi people freedom, but to commit acts of terrorism.

Then we have the Nancy Pelosis and Barbara Boxers and the rest of the bug-out-of-Iraq brigade sending a clear message to the suicide bombers and other terrorist thugs to just bide their time and wait until their party manages to sabotage the war effort and the U.S. withdraws with the job half done. Then they can come in and show the world the real meaning of terrorism as they enslave and brutalize the Iraqi people.

What these people are doing is undermining the morale of our troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. There's a word for that – it's called treason.


© 2005 Mike Reagan.

Here's another take on that interview:
Rush "Ass Cyst" Limbaugh Attacks Vietnam Vet, Calls For Radical Change in Military Policy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...-_b_11802.html

Sometimes you just have to just laugh at Rush Limbaugh. Here's a guy who dodged the Vietnam War draft by citing a cyst on his ass (no joke), and yet who accuses Vietnam War heroes essentially of treason. Today, Limbaugh's attack is on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). You remember him – he's that guy who actually went over and served in Vietnam, while Limbaugh sat home, dropped his pants, and pointed his draft board to a cyst on his own ass in order to avoid serving his country.

There is no way that you could possibly believe that John Kerry is a war hero. Just because he was cited (due to his own recolection of events that are not proven), does not mean that he is a hero. Maybe Rush Limbaugh is not theright person to be making comments about traitors, but the facts seem to prove that Kerry is in no position to make any comments about our forces in the middle east. He was a coward then, he is a coward now.

Maybe Rush Limbaugh is not the right person to be making comments about traitors...


There's no reason to say that. Truth is truth, and anyone can point it out. Don't fall for Huffington's BS accusations. Everything she says has very little truth in it.

Believe me when I say that I am in agreement with a lot of what Rush Limbaugh say's and none of what Huffington says. My only point is that after being excused for whatever reason from military service, Rush may not be the perfect person to be saying anything about Kerry. But Rush speaks the truth about Kerry and I can therefore forgive his lack of service in this instance. As a matter of fact, I can forgive anybody for speaking against that traitor. Kerry is at the very top of my list of the most despised and despicable people on earth, closey followed by either of the Clintons.

John McCain: U.S. Still Torturing Terrorists


Sen. John McCain claimed Wednesday that the U.S. is still torturing terrorist detainees, even as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits with European leaders to assure them that the practice is banned under U.S. law.

"We've got to stop this torture," McCain told radio host Don Imus.

"If you torture somebody, they're going to tell you what they think you want to know in order to make the pain stop," he complained.

The Republican maverick said the U.S. can't win the propaganda war "if people believe throughout the world that you are practicing cruel, inhuman, degrading mistreatment or torture on the people that you capture."

"Right now," McCain complained, "we have prisons, apparently, set up in different places in the world where we're keeping people for years."
His comments come as Dr. Rice meets with European leaders to assure them that claims about ongoing torture are baseless.

"The United States does not condone torture," she told a German audience on Tuesday. "It is against U.S. law to be involved in torture or conspiracy to commit torture. And it is also against U.S. international obligations and the President has made it very clear that U.S. personnel will operate within U.S. law and within our international obligations."

Rice also indicated, however, that interrogations conducted in the foreign prisons referenced by McCain have been productive, telling reporters, "The intelligence we gathered has helped to stop terrorist attacks and saved innocent lives in Europe - as well as in the United States and other countries."


This man needs to be muzzled. He has no evidence, only supposition. His statements are emboldening terrorists and hurting our troops.

This man needs to be muzzled. He has no evidence, only supposition. His statements are emboldening terrorists and hurting our troops.[/COLOR][/B]He might as well run as a Democrat because he doesn't stand a chance as a Repub now.

[SIZE="4"]This man needs to be muzzled. He has no evidence, only supposition. His statements are emboldening terrorists and hurting our troops.[/COLOR]

Lol... It's safe to say if anyone speaks out, no matter who they are, what credentials they have, they'll basically be labeled a traitor.

Lol... It's safe to say if anyone speaks out, no matter who they are, what credentials they have, they'll basically be labeled a traitor.Not correct. All we are asking for is proof. If you are going to make an accusation, back it up. If you read what McCain said, he said 'apparently' we are holding people. OK, if that is 'apparently' the case; places, names, pictures, ala Abu Graib would be appreciated.

Is Mccain hurting or helping our War on Terror. I would argue he is hurting it. Maybe he doesn't even realize it. His problem is he doesn't if he is conservative or liberal. He sail swings whichever way the wind blows. He would make a terrible C.I.C.

...We live in a media age.

When "statesmen" go public and make claims that damage the image of our country, they are immediately picked up by the foreign media and used for propoganda purposes. These people need to be very careful when stating things in public and take into account the positives and negatives associated with any comment. This is especially true during periods of war.

And while most American's don't feel like we're in a War, we are. Not just in Iraq, but around the world right now.

if wishes where horses beggers would ride. non veitnam vet 62 to 65. have yet to see the wounded of any war treated right by this or any adminestration of this era. if bush didn't want to secure the oil we would and could fight those that want to do us harm . a hell of a lot better and not make new ones of the people that live thru what is going on in iraq and a:q:q:qanstan. i am very pro military and belive that give them the equipment and freedom to use it right and let god seperate the good and bad. jd

if wishes where horses beggers would ride. non veitnam vet 62 to 65. have yet to see the wounded of any war treated right by this or any adminestration of this era. if bush didn't want to secure the oil we would and could fight those that want to do us harm . a hell of a lot better and not make new ones of the people that live thru what is going on in iraq and a:q:q:qanstan. i am very pro military and belive that give them the equipment and freedom to use it right and let god seperate the good and bad. jd

So, what exactly is your point,
That the military has their hands tied?

And how would the Iraqi infastructure be able to redevelop if it's oil wells and refineries were allowed to be destroyed by terrorists? I guess then we could have Haliburton rebuild them all. :N

if wishes where horses beggers would ride. non veitnam vet 62 to 65. have yet to see the wounded of any war treated right by this or any adminestration of this era. if bush didn't want to secure the oil we would and could fight those that want to do us harm . a hell of a lot better and not make new ones of the people that live thru what is going on in iraq and a:q:q:qanstan. i am very pro military and belive that give them the equipment and freedom to use it right and let god seperate the good and bad. jd


Dude, you just admitted you're a traitor. You dare imply that Bush has special interest foremost in mind and that securing America is not the main reason we're in this war!? You're crazy, Bush has secured America, his contract with America say's so, we can't be attacked the borders are closed etc etc. <---Sarcasm

how many years has this been going on ? and how many grunt lifes are you willing to supply for this operation? why not fight the damm invasion of this country and the drugs that are here now. jd

Dude, you just admitted you're a traitor. You dare imply that Bush has special interest foremost in mind and that securing America is not the main reason we're in this war!? You're crazy, Bush has secured America, his contract with America say's so, we can't be attacked the borders are closed etc etc. <---Sarcasm
The increasingly exagerated sarcasm is usually a sign of intellectual exhaustion and defeat. Unable to develop an argument that actually can withstand scutiny or be defended, now you just make "sarcastic" statements that can't be directly debated.

If that is what he was trying to say, that would just make him wrong-
not a traitor.


Bush had nothing to do with the Contract With America. I don't even think he had run for office when that was developed by Newt Gingrich.

how many years has this been going on ? and how many grunt lifes are you willing to supply for this operation? why not fight the damm invasion of this country and the drugs that are here now. jd

So you think that we should pursue an isolationist policy? You think we can make ourself safe by simply putting a fence along the Southern border?

negative. but we have to get our house in order before we lose what we have. then are not able to help others and it isn't far off. but bush can't and won't act like it is happening . could it be that those in real power won't let him ? a serious question to ponder. but some people can't read the writing on the wall until it falls on them. over and out. jd

The increasingly exagerated sarcasm is usually a sign of intellectual exhaustion and defeat. Unable to develop an argument that actually can withstand scutiny or be defended, now you just make "sarcastic" statements that can't be directly debated.

If that is what he was trying to say, that would just make him wrong-
not a traitor.


Bush had nothing to do with the Contract With America. I don't even think he had run for office when that was developed by Newt Gingrich.

Sarcasm is all I have left, even when the rights hypocrisy is laid out plainly for all to see, I'm (or any 'left minded person' in here) still the lying jerk somehow.

negative. but we have to get our house in order before we lose what we have. then are not able to help others and it isn't far off. but bush can't and won't act like it is happening . could it be that those in real power won't let him ? a serious question to ponder. but some people can't read the writing on the wall until it falls on them. over and out. jd

Can you be a little more specific, because I don't want to presume to know exactly what you're saying.

I do agree, it iis critical that we do get our house in order. But that doesn't mean we have the luxury of waiting to act on other fronts before that happens. Ideally, through the perceived "peace" of the 90s, the government would have been reorganizing itself to address the gathering threats. But, sadly, no one was interested doing that.

Sarcasm is all I have left, even when the rights hypocrisy is laid out plainly for all to see, I'm (or any 'left minded person' in here) still the lying jerk somehow.

Well, I personally haven't called you a liar or a jerk.
I just think you're often wrong.

Big difference.

good republican come back to lay the blame some where and on someone else. jd done and gone

good republican come back to lay the blame some where and on someone else. jd done and gone

And what a lame, thoughtless comeback from the guy who speaks in cliches.

The problem I had with Kerry was that, after listening to all his speeches and reading all the interviews, he came off as a total phoney. He said one thing during the campaign, but his voting record told a totally different story.

Limbaugh picked up on this a few weeks ago, and it's something I've been saying for a long time: to a large extent, liberal politicians at the national level don't want people to know they're liberal because if people knew they were liberal, no one would vote for them. Its total dishonesty. So, they have to make stuff up or embellish or use "nuance", like Kerry did.

The most honest liberals out there today are probably Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. They're against the war, for a complete and immediate pull-out, higher taxes, more social welfare programs, etc. And they let people know it. I think that's great because its their honest position -- they're being truthful. If you agree with them, fine, you can support them, and if you don't you don't (fortunately, most people disagree with them). Folks like Kerry or Hillary are really against the war, but they dare not say it publically, which leads to my charge of dishonesty. Say whatever you like about Bush, but he tells you his honest position on issues. Unlike a lot of the liberal politicians, he doesn't use a poll to tell him what his position should be.

The problem I had with Kerry was that, after listening to all his speeches and reading all the interviews, he came off as a total phoney. He said one thing during the campaign, but his voting record told a totally different story.

Limbaugh picked up on this a few weeks ago, and it's something I've been saying for a long time: to a large extent, liberal politicians at the national level don't want people to know they're liberal because if people knew they were liberal, no one would vote for them. Its total dishonesty. So, they have to make stuff up or embellish or use "nuance", like Kerry did.

The most honest liberals out there today are probably Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. They're against the war, for a complete and immediate pull-out, higher taxes, more social welfare programs, etc. And they let people know it. I think that's great because its their honest position -- they're being truthful. If you agree with them, fine, you can support them, and if you don't you don't (fortunately, most people disagree with them). Folks like Kerry or Hillary are really against the war, but they dare not say it publically, which leads to my charge of dishonesty. Say whatever you like about Bush, but he tells you his honest position on issues. Unlike a lot of the liberal politicians, he doesn't use a poll to tell him what his position should be.

Well said.

See, Deville, HE didn't use sarcasm.

The other thing that I didn't like about Kerry was his mindset on terrorism. He viewed it as mainly a law-enforcement problem and not a real war like Bush did. I think approaching the issue from a law-enforcement standpoint is wrong, especially in light of the terror attacks starting from the US barracks bombings back in the Reagan administration. September 11, 2001 brought into sharp focus the nature of the enemy and the nature of this fight.

I think Kerry's law enforcement approach stems from the fact that he basically thinks like a diplomat and not a warrior. His father was in the US Foreign Service, and he now serves on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Yes, I know he served in Vietnam, but if you look at his total life story from start of college to today, his military service is more of an anomoly. He was against the Vietnam war both before and after he served, and he was against the first Gulf War in 1991. Diplomats like to search for, well, diplomatic solutions to problems with dialogue and avoid conflict, and that is what you see in Kerry's behavior and approach to issues. While that approach can work in many instances, it won't work with terrorists because they don't think that way... they want to kill us. You cannot negotiate with these bastards, you simply have to kill them before they kill more Americans.

The other thing that I didn't like about Kerry was his mindset on terrorism. He viewed it as mainly a law-enforcement problem and not a real war like Bush did. I think approaching the issue from a law-enforcement standpoint is wrong, especially in light of the terror attacks starting from the US barracks bombings back in the Reagan administration. September 11, 2001 brought into sharp focus the nature of the enemy and the nature of this fight.

DEAD FACT.

Not correct. All we are asking for is proof. If you are going to make an accusation, back it up. If you read what McCain said, he said 'apparently' we are holding people. OK, if that is 'apparently' the case; places, names, pictures, ala Abu Graib would be appreciated.

Is Mccain hurting or helping our War on Terror. I would argue he is hurting it. Maybe he doesn't even realize it. His problem is he doesn't if he is conservative or liberal. He sail swings whichever way the wind blows. He would make a terrible C.I.C.

Your RWWs heads are so far up your a-s-s you wouldn't recognize "proof" if it slapped you in the face. The pictures in the newspapers and the court-marshalls of the military personnel for tortuing prisoners isn't enough for you?? The only explanation for your position is pure unadulterated IGNORANCE. Go buy a clue, dude.

McCain is about the only republican I have any respect for because he tells it like it IS. He's seen the inside of POW prisons. He knows what it's like on the inside. Unlike GW and Cheney who've never seen combat action. WTF would they know about how to execute a war?? Not a friggin thing. And Iraq is PROOF of THAT! Even GW is slowly coming to that realization, why can't you??

The pictures in the newspapers and the court-marshalls of the military personnel for tortuing prisoners isn't enough for you??. Having a doggy bark at you is torture but having your head chopped off in front of a video camera is not. Give me a frikkin break.

As far as McCain, he understands that it is important for the world not to view the US as torturers. I would be willing to bet that the US has the best facilities and treatment of ANY prison camp for terrorists in the world. For terrorists being the KEY word.

Let's break this down.

Your RWWs heads are so far up your a-s-s you wouldn't recognize "proof" if it slapped you in the face.
Ad hominem attack.


The pictures in the newspapers and the court-marshalls of the military personnel for tortuing prisoners isn't enough for you??
Debatable, weak fact assumes photos are of actual torture. Humiliation, maybe, but not torture.


The only explanation for your position is pure unadulterated IGNORANCE. Go buy a clue, dude.
Ad hominem attack.


McCain is about the only republican I have any respect for because he tells it like it IS. He's seen the inside of POW prisons. He knows what it's like on the inside.
But he's never seen the inside of Club Gitmo or any of our OWN so-called prisons, so how does that qualify him to accuse his own country?


Unlike GW and Cheney who've never seen combat action. WTF would they know about how to execute a war?? Not a friggin thing.
Ad hominem attack, ignorant neglect of the fact that GENERALS are running the war.


And Iraq is PROOF of THAT! Even GW is slowly coming to that realization, why can't you??
Baloney fed you by the traitor leaders and swallowed whole.

It's interesting how you sit back and watch TV and that automatically makes you smarter and more qualified to pass judgment on Iraq than the people who are ACTUALLY OVER THERE.

Unlike GW and Cheney who've never seen combat action. WTF would they know about how to execute a war?? Not a friggin thing. And Iraq is PROOF of THAT! Even GW is slowly coming to that realization, why can't you??


Cheney was Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War, and worked extensively with Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf and Gen. Colin Powell to plan and execute the operations. To say Cheney has no experience on how to execute a war is simply flat wrong.

Cheney was Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War,Well I guess that deserves an *owned* smiley!:D

. Having a doggy bark at you is torture but having your head chopped off in front of a video camera is not. Give me a frikkin break.

As far as McCain, he understands that it is important for the world not to view the US as torturers. I would be willing to bet that the US has the best facilities and treatment of ANY prison camp for terrorists in the world. For terrorists being the KEY word.

I don't think he was referring to a dog barking when he implied the Abu Gharib pictures. Forcing someone to stand naked on a bucket while doing an impersonation of a crucifixion is torture, making a bunch of guys get naked and pose in homosexual sex 'styles' while taking pictures of them is torture. Putting a leash on a naked guy and making him crawl around like your dog is torture. The pictures exist for you to see.

Who's saying that the beheadings of American's is not?

I don't think he was referring to a dog barking when he implied the Abu Gharib pictures. Forcing someone to stand naked on a bucket while doing an impersonation of a crucifixion is torture, making a bunch of guys get naked and pose in homosexual sex 'styles' while taking pictures of them is torture. Putting a leash on a naked guy and making him crawl around like your dog is torture. The pictures are there for you to see.

Who's saying that the beheadings of American's is not?I'm saying that if you believe putting a naked guy on a leash is torture, I say torture them all. Man, when the US gets hit again, I can't wait for what the lefties will have to say.

Of btw, here is what ABC news said about Cheney (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Inauguration/story?id=421666&page=1) in an article today.


But before becoming Bush's vice president, Cheney may have been most familiar to the public as defense secretary under the former President Bush. In that post, he earned widespread praise for his handling of the Gulf War in 1991.

I'm saying that if you believe putting a naked guy on a leash is torture, I say torture them all. Man, when the US gets hit again, I can't wait for what the lefties will have to say.

Of btw, here is what ABC news said about Cheney (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Inauguration/story?id=421666&page=1) in an article today.


But before becoming Bush's vice president, Cheney may have been most familiar to the public as defense secretary under the former President Bush. In that post, he earned widespread praise for his handling of the Gulf War in 1991.

Man, you paint a horrible picture of America.... If America gets hit again (while we're in Iraq), who is to blame, the lefties or the Bush admin thats currently in charge of protecting America?

. Having a doggy bark at you is torture but having your head chopped off in front of a video camera is not. Give me a frikkin break.


Having your head chopped off in front of a video camera is MURDER. Big friggin difference genius.

Let's break this down.


Ad hominem attack.


Cop-out.


Debatable, weak fact assumes photos are of actual torture. Humiliation, maybe, but not torture.


Cop-out.


Ad hominem attack.


Cop-out.


But he's never seen the inside of Club Gitmo or any of our OWN so-called prisons, so how does that qualify him to accuse his own country?


Cop-out.


Ad hominem attack, ignorant neglect of the fact that GENERALS are running the war.


Cop-out.


Baloney fed you by the traitor leaders and swallowed whole.

It's interesting how you sit back and watch TV and that automatically makes you smarter and more qualified to pass judgment on Iraq than the people who are ACTUALLY OVER THERE.

LAME Cop-out.

Cop-out.

Just an idea-
perhaps you could try making a statement, and then going on to support the statement with actual facts.

The temper tantrum routine gets tiresome.

Just an idea-
perhaps you could try making a statement, and then going on to support the statement with actual facts.

The temper tantrum routine gets tiresome.

He's been told that before. That's why he goes away for weeks at a time, then shows up with a bunch of fury and name-calling, then disappears again. Flash-in-the-pan.

He's been told that before. That's why he goes away for weeks at a time, then shows up with a bunch of fury and name-calling, then disappears again. Flash-in-the-pan.

Kinda like a drive-by shooting! :)

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Saturday, Jan. 21, 2006 11:03 a.m. EST

Bob Schieffer: Osama bin Laden Used John Kerry's Talking Points

9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden may have borrowed some of Sen. John Kerry's talking points for the audiotaped message he released on Thursday - veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer said Saturday.

Asked whether bin Laden had expressed "almost the same" sentiments that Kerry did during an appearance on Schieffer's "Face the Nation" broadcast in December, the CBS anchorman told WABC Radio's Mark Simone: "Well, he did. That's exactly right."

Back then, Kerry complained to Schieffer: "There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids."

In his message, bin Laden also complained that the U.S. was terrorizing Iraqi innocents, saying that "the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents" show "there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands."

Schieffer said he wasn't sure whether bin Laden was consciously borrowing from Kerry, but he added it was possible.

"You can never know about things like that," he told Simone. "But these people seem to have tremendous access. And television being what it is, and now with satellites and so forth, these things go all over the world. Perhaps he did."

He did worse than that! That is why they honor him in a museum in North Vietnam.

Come on. Do some searching. The guy is a scumball.

As much as I don't like Kerry, let's at least have the truth:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/museum.asp

He did worse than that! That is why they honor him in a museum in North Vietnam.

Come on. Do some searching. The guy is a scumball.

As much as I don't like Kerry, let's at least have the truth:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/museum.asp

Some more truths and false info on Kerry:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/kerry.asp

The intent was to honor Kerry and that is what they did. Like snopes said, there are more pictures.

The intent was to honor Kerry and that is what they did. Like snopes said, there are more pictures.

Snopes said that there were other pics that showed him in anti war protest activities and these are not shown, nor any mention of them made. This is simply a case of people wanting to believe something that is not true, and I have a real problem with that. I am not going to defend Kerry as I do not like him or what he stand for (his views on our troops are dead wrong), but blantant lies are wrong as well.

I am not going to defend Kerry as I do not like him or what he stand for (his views on our troops are dead wrong), but blantant lies are wrong as well.

They are also pictures of Jane Fondal. The Vietcong celebrate her as well.

After Kerry spoke this blasphemy "VIETNAM WAR VETERAN JOHN KERRY'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971" the guilt must have been unbearable so he went 'looking' for missing POW's in '94 at the bequest of Clinton. I say that was a little more than 20 years too late Mr. Kerry.

Gee. Kerry admits to meeting the communists during the war but there are no pictures of it. When they do get a picture of Kerry meeting with the leaders of the communist party that put it up in their museum. The pieces fit, eh?

When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A.
Senator covered up evidence of P.O.W.'s left behind

by Sydney H. Schanberg
February 24th, 2004 1:00 PM

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.
The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago— shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report—when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs. {snip.} Full article here (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0408,schanberg,51276,1.html).

As much as I don't like Kerry, let's at least have the truth:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/museum.asp

The truth is that this thread exposes Kerry's most RECENT statements, which show that he hasn't changed a bit from a military-hating pacifist and traitor. Your link doesn't address the topic at hand.

The truth is that this thread exposes Kerry's most RECENT statements, which show that he hasn't changed a bit from a military-hating pacifist and traitor. Your link doesn't address the topic at hand.

Never said or implied that it did, that is the reason I specifically quoted one segment that MonsterMark said.

When Osama uses your comments as talking points, you have to know you are on the wrong side of the equation, don't you? Oh never mind.

This is simply a case of people wanting to believe something that is not true, and I have a real problem with that. I am not going to defend Kerry as I do not like him or what he stand for (his views on our troops are dead wrong), but blantant lies are wrong as well.

:I Your honesty and sincerity is appreciated, it's a rare thing from the RW side of the "isle" here at LvC.


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Saturday, Jan. 21, 2006 11:03 a.m. EST

Bob Schieffer: Osama bin Laden Used John Kerry's Talking Points

9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden may have borrowed some of Sen. John Kerry's talking points for the audiotaped message he released on Thursday - veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer said Saturday.

Asked whether bin Laden had expressed "almost the same" sentiments that Kerry did during an appearance on Schieffer's "Face the Nation" broadcast in December, the CBS anchorman told WABC Radio's Mark Simone: "Well, he did. That's exactly right."

Back then, Kerry complained to Schieffer: "There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids."

In his message, bin Laden also complained that the U.S. was terrorizing Iraqi innocents, saying that "the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents" show "there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands."

Schieffer said he wasn't sure whether bin Laden was consciously borrowing from Kerry, but he added it was possible.

"You can never know about things like that," he told Simone. "But these people seem to have tremendous access. And television being what it is, and now with satellites and so forth, these things go all over the world. Perhaps he did."

"There you go again", twisting facts to fit your fictitious view of the world.

Kerry's statement, "There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids." is taken completely out of context. The FACT is, US soldiers HAVE been raiding Iraqi homes, sometimes at night (there is video proof of this), breaking down doors, waking the family up looking for insurgents. Kerry's use of the word "terrorizing" expresses the feeling the children and women (and probably the men as well) must feel being awaken when the US troops bust through the front door while they are asleep. How would YOU feel if someone broke down your door, woke you and your family up and stuck a gun in your face while screaming in a foreign language?? I'd imagine "terrorized" is one of the words you'd be thinking.

Now the words Osama used, "the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents" show "there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands." just shows he's a madman. US soldiers have NOT been raping Iraqi women (nor did Kerry EVER imply that was occuring). Although Saddam did, the FACT is the U.S. Army and it's agents have NOT (again, nor did Kerry ever imply that).

This is just another prime example of the RWWs here a LvC reaching for any twisted propaganda they can lay there hands on (any coincidence this originated from NewsMax.com??) to smear a decorated US veteran, motivated by thier hatred for him. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, as you are giving a bad message to our current troops serving in combat that they will be smeared and disrespected in a similar manner if/when they return from service. Some example of "supporting our troops" you are giving here. :mad: HYPOCRITES.

Your honesty and sincerity is appreciated, it's a rare thing from the RW side of the "isle" here at LvC.

Did Kerry meet with North Vietnamese officials during the Vietnam War? Do you believe he shook hands with them? Do you believe pictures were taken? Do you believe he provided aid and comfort to our enemy?

Kerry is a self-aggrandizing hypocrite whose prescribed policy of 'GIVING' Iran nuclear materials is proving how dangerous [read~stupid] he really is and how close we came to making the world's most colossal blunder.


BTW, run a spell check on JohnnyBz00LS. :eek:

Are you hiding something from us Johnny? :D

:I Your honesty and sincerity is appreciated, it's a rare thing from the RW side of the "isle" here at LvC.




"There you go again", twisting facts to fit your fictitious view of the world.

Kerry's statement, "There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids." is taken completely out of context. The FACT is, US soldiers HAVE been raiding Iraqi homes, sometimes at night (there is video proof of this), breaking down doors, waking the family up looking for insurgents. Kerry's use of the word "terrorizing" expresses the feeling the children and women (and probably the men as well) must feel being awaken when the US troops bust through the front door while they are asleep. How would YOU feel if someone broke down your door, woke you and your family up and stuck a gun in your face while screaming in a foreign language?? I'd imagine "terrorized" is one of the words you'd be thinking.

Now the words Osama used, "the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents" show "there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands." just shows he's a madman. US soldiers have NOT been raping Iraqi women (nor did Kerry EVER imply that was occuring). Although Saddam did, the FACT is the U.S. Army and it's agents have NOT (again, nor did Kerry ever imply that).

This is just another prime example of the RWWs here a LvC reaching for any twisted propaganda they can lay there hands on (any coincidence this originated from NewsMax.com??) to smear a decorated US veteran, motivated by thier hatred for him. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, as you are giving a bad message to our current troops serving in combat that they will be smeared and disrespected in a similar manner if/when they return from service. Some example of "supporting our troops" you are giving here. :mad: HYPOCRITES.

That's right, Johnny, you just keep on defending Kerry, the TRAITOR. We know you voted for him.

Funny sense of logic, accusing me of not supporting the troops because I criticize someone who's badmouthing the troops?

You're the one using twisted thinking.

BTW, run a spell check on JohnnyBz00LS. :eek:


Cheap shot because you know he is right................ You're the moderator that has said "I do not condone personal attacks" (something along those lines) yet you do it. Shenanigans!

That's right, Johnny, you just keep on defending Kerry, the TRAITOR. We know you voted for him.

Funny sense of logic, accusing me of not supporting the troops because I criticize someone who's badmouthing the troops?

You're the one using twisted thinking.

Say what you will, but he is right and he proved it using your own article. I'm sure with similar twisting and innuendo, someone could say Saddam has used similar talking points with Bush, does that make it fact? No.

Cheap shot because you know he is right................ You're the moderator that has said "I do not condone personal attacks" (something along those lines) yet you do it. Shenanigans!

It's a joke. Geesh. I didn't command the computer to do it. I was just responding to Johnny and did a spell check and it turned up. Funny as hell is all it is. No personal attack. Learn the difference. I know the Left is humorless but at least give it a shot.

It was not a cheap shot and had nothing to do with whether he or I am right or wrong.

BTW, to make it official. I did not write the spell-check program. Happy?

:"There you go again", twisting facts to fit your fictitious view of the world..

Actually, it was Bob Schieffer, CBS Liberal, who made the statements.

:Kerry's statement, "There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids." is taken completely out of context. .

How it is out of context? He said it. He used the word "terrorizing," a word which couldn't be more inappropriate.

:The FACT is, US soldiers HAVE been raiding Iraqi homes, sometimes at night (there is video proof of this), breaking down doors, waking the family up looking for insurgents..

They aren't insurgents, they're terrorists. And looking for them ISN'T an act of terrorism. Once again, the Liberals "moral equivalence" rears it's ugly head.

: Kerry's use of the word "terrorizing" expresses the feeling the children and women (and probably the men as well) must feel being awaken when the US troops bust through the front door while they are asleep. How would YOU feel if someone broke down your door, woke you and your family up and stuck a gun in your face while screaming in a foreign language?? I'd imagine "terrorized" is one of the words you'd be thinking..

Actually, they may have been thinking " Sh!t we're caught!"

:Now the words Osama used, "the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents" show "there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands." just shows he's a madman. US soldiers have NOT been raping Iraqi women (nor did Kerry EVER imply that was occuring). .

Maybe not this time, but he did testify in front of Congress that rape was happening in Vietnam, committed by US troops. Have you forgotten?

:This is just another prime example of the RWWs here a LvC reaching for any twisted propaganda they can lay there hands on (any coincidence this originated from NewsMax.com??) to smear a decorated US veteran, motivated by thier hatred for him. .

We don't have to twist Kerry's words, we need only quote them accurately, as was done here.

:You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, as you are giving a bad message to our current troops serving in combat that they will be smeared and disrespected in a similar manner if/when they return from service. .

Yes, by Democrats like Kerry.

:Some example of "supporting our troops" you are giving here. :mad: HYPOCRITES.

What better way to respect the troops then by exposing those that smear them?

US soldiers have NOT been raping Iraqi women (nor did Kerry EVER imply that was occuring). Although Saddam did, the FACT is the U.S. Army and it's agents have NOT (again, nor did Kerry ever imply that).

Yes he did, yes he did, YES HE DID!!! He didn't STATE IT VERBATIM. He IMPLIED it by calling them terrorists.

You need to stop equivocating. You think you can redefine the meaning of "imply," "terrorizing" and "terrorist?" Fat chance in this forum.

Stephanopoulos Overlooks Huge Hypocrisy in Kerry’s Domestic Spying Position
Posted by Noel Sheppard on January 23, 2006 - 14:26.


ABC’s George Stephanopoulos invited former presidential candidate John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) on “This Week” yesterday to discuss a variety of pressing issues facing the nation. Primary amongst them was how the senator felt about domestic spying, and current revelations revealed in a New York Times article last month. During the discussion, Kerry made a rather glaring contradiction (hat tip to reader “JDW”) that should have set off alarm bells in any investigative reporter. Instead, Stephanopoulos gave Kerry a pass.

As the discussion moved in the direction of NSA wiretaps, Stephanopoulos played a clip of Karl Rove saying: “President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats -- some important Democrats clearly disagree.” Stephanopoulos said: “He must have had you in mind. You've called the program a clear violation of the law.” To which Kerry replied: ‘We don't disagree with him at all. It is a violation of law and we don't disagree with him at all and this is exactly what Karl Rove does.”

Stephanopoulos then asked: “How can you think it's a violation and not disagree?” In the middle of a long answer, Kerry said: “We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer, but we put a procedure in place to protect the constitutional rights of Americans and what I believe, George, and I believe it deeply, is you can protect the United States of America without devoiding, without ignoring the constitution of the country.”

As this exchange ensued, Stephanopoulos said: “So you're open to changing the law.” To which Kerry replied: “Of course, if you need to protect, but show us how you can't do what you need to do today. They're never done that. There's nothing in the FISA law that we passed that suggests the president has this power.”

Then came the contradiction. Stephanopoulus asked: “So if you think this is a clear violation of the law why not move to cut off funding for the program?” And the senator responded, “That's premature.”

Excuse me? This program is "illegal," is a "violation of the law," was supposedly never approved by Congress, but it would be “premature” to stop funding it?

Now, one would expect a truly adept investigative reporter and astute commentator to have jumped on this. Instead, Stephanopoulos’ next question was: “You know, I want to get to, I want to get to Abramoff in a minute. Let me ask you a little bit more on this, on this. You say it's premature to cut off funding for the program. Al Gore says it may be an impeachable offense and he's called for a special counsel to investigate the entire matter. Do you agree with that?”

Hmmm. So rather than focusing on this glaring contradiction and hypocrisy, George wanted Kerry’s opinion about whether this was an impeachable offense? Excuse me? Wouldn’t you first want to establish why it’s premature to cut off funding for an “illegal” program that is a “violation of law” before you move on to discussing impeachment? Wouldn’t it be absurd for Congress to discuss impeaching a president for a program that it continued to fund after its existence and illegality were identified?

I guess in Stephanopoulos’ world, the answer is “No!”

'There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids'

J. Kerry

Main Entry: ter·ror·ize
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"Iz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
1 : to fill with terror or anxiety : SCARE
2 : to coerce by threat or violence


Survey says: 'To Scare'


I do not see any implication of raping, murdering, airplane hi-jacking etc.

Also, more importantly, what is a guy that died in an earth quake and then died of kidney failure making speeches for?

Duplicate.

Yes he did, yes he did, YES HE DID!!! He didn't STATE IT VERBATIM. He IMPLIED it by calling them terrorists.



Can you stomp your feet a little harder and hold your breath just a LITTLE longer? LOL. It must really suck for you, Bryan and RB3 to be filled with so much hate.

Look, NOBODY here, or in the DNC thinks we should stop "spying on terrorists" in order to provide at least some sense of security for our homeland soil, despite you and your other RWW friend's sick and twisted perception of reality. All that we are asking for is that BuSh and the NSA play it by the lawbook. There is NO reason that BuSh and the NSA has to circumvent THE FISA LAW and trample our civil liberties to play their little spy games. You RWWs, and the MSM have spun this whole thing way out of wack and are trying to make it look like dems, liberals, Kerry et al are anti-secure America. That is flat wrong. You are trying to make it look like the NYT are criminals for outing the NSA illegal spying program. If BuSh and the NSA had been playing it by the lawbook, there would NOT have been any story to begin with! Don't blame us in the middle and left for your CIC's lack of brains for shooting himself in the foot.

Can you stomp your feet a little harder and hold your breath just a LITTLE longer? LOL. It must really suck for you, Bryan and RB3 to be filled with so much hate.

Hmmm...I'm filled with hate am I? That will be news to all the people who know me. I guess you're basing that on me constantly referring to "RWWs", "crapservitives," calling people who dare to disagree with me "sick and twisted," misusing people's Christian names by calling them B(u)S(h) or Shrub, or.... oh no wait, that's you.

Look, NOBODY here, or in the DNC thinks we should stop "spying on terrorists" in order to provide at least some sense of security for our homeland soil, despite you and your other RWW friend's sick and twisted perception of reality.

Oh really? Guess you haven't paid attention then to the posters and Democrats who say that Bush, not bin Laden, is the real threat and the real terrorist.

All that we are asking for is that BuSh and the NSA play it by the lawbook. There is NO reason that BuSh and the NSA has to circumvent THE FISA LAW and trample our civil liberties to play their little spy games.

No, actually, your side has been asking he be impeached for attempting to defend the country. There is EVERY reason for Bush in specific instances to “circumvent” the FISA law when that law interferes with his constitutional authority and hampers his constitutional responsibility to repel foreign threats. The threat of Islamic terrorism isn't a "little spy game" and the fact that your side continues to trivialize it as such is why you keep losing elections.

You RWWs, and the MSM have spun this whole thing way out of wack and are trying to make it look like dems, liberals, Kerry et al are anti-secure America.

No the Dems, Liberals, and Kerry et al are doing that to themselves, by dismissing the security of the United States as a "little spy game." And you've got it backwards on the MSM...they've been on your side, attempting to gin up outrage for this phony scandal, but the public isn't buying it.

That is flat wrong. You are trying to make it look like the NYT are criminals for outing the NSA illegal spying program.

The Times is reported to be under investigation by the Justice Dept. The disclosure to the Times was clearly illegal, under a 1998 law I already posted in another thread on this topic.

If BuSh and the NSA had been playing it by the lawbook, there would NOT have been any story to begin with!

There also wouldn't have been if the NYT hadn't disclosed classified information.

Don't blame us in the middle and left for your CIC's lack of brains for shooting himself in the foot.

You're just upset since this latest political stunt has backfired on your side, and the public heavily supports Bush on the NSA issue.

But Andrew McCarthy in National Review said it today more eloquently than I could hope to, in summarizing the President's spirited defense of his actions:



January 24, 2006, 8:27 a.m.
Spirited Defense

President Bush takes the NSA “scandal” head-on.

Maintaining that his administration was engaged in a "terrorist surveillance program" rather than, as his critics scoff, "domestic spying," President Bush offered a spirited defense of the electronic eavesdropping he authorized the National Security Agency to undertake after the 9/11 attacks. His remarks came in the course of a wide-ranging speech on Monday at the University of Kansas.

The president continued to stress that the program involved not systematic monitoring of ordinary Americans — the image doggedly promoted by much of the mainstream press and leading Democrats. Instead, it is a constantly reviewed initiative that targets persons reasonably believed to be members of our wartime enemy, al Qaeda, and its affiliated organizations in the broader firmament of militant Islamic organizations.

The communications on which the NSA is focusing, the president asserted, are international in nature. They have stoked controversy because one end or the other of some of those conversations (whether phone or e-mail) is in the United States. The interception of such conversations potentially implicates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) if Americans are intentionally targeted for surveillance (as opposed to being overheard coincidentally in the course of monitoring aliens overseas) or if the conversations are intercepted inside the United States.

Where FISA applies, it calls for the executive branch to get court permission before it may listen — permission which can be withheld if a judge is not satisfied that the government has demonstrated "probable cause" that the target is an "agent of a foreign power" (a term of art that covers international terrorist organizations). The NSA, however, is conducting its surveillance on the authority of the president, not the federal judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court established by FISA.

The president reiterated two basic arguments in support of the NSA program which have been posited by the Justice Department and administration officials. The first relies on the inherent constitutional authority of the president under Article II of the Constitution. The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the constitutional officer singularly obligated to conduct foreign affairs and protect the American people from external threats. Consequently, federal courts have long recognized the president's inherent authority to conduct monitoring to protect national security — at least when a foreign threat is involved.

Critics argue that the passage of FISA has altered the constitutional field. That contention, however, has two insuperable obstacles. First, the Constitution cannot be altered by a statute — it is the supreme law of the land. This is why (as I argued on Monday), acts of Congress have long been subject to being held invalid if they violate the Constitution or attempt to modify its structure. Presidents used national-security surveillance authority for many years before there ever was a FISA. If presidents had that power in the first place because of Article II, Congress can do nothing to take it away.

Second, in 2002 — even after nearly a quarter century of FISA's operation — the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review (the highest and most specialized court ever to review a FISA case) indicated that presidents maintain inherent constitutional authority despite the terms of FISA. Thus, administration critics are simply wrong when they argue that compliance with FISA is the sine qua non of lawful eavesdropping in the national-security arena.

The other point President Bush emphasized in his Kansas speech concerns the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress right after 9/11 and reaffirmed a year later. That enactment is, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of war against al Qaeda, and is sweepingly general in its terms. The president contends that this generality was intentional. As he put it, "Congress gave me authority ... but it didn't prescribe tactics."

In a full-blown war, and against an enemy that is savage, stealthy, and stateless, this is prudent. It affords the executive branch maximum flexibility to counter and outmaneuver al Qaeda without the suggestion that it must return to Congress each time war-fighting innovations are called for by battlefield conditions. It also avoids the illogic of educating the enemy about our methods and our sources of information — an education that would be inexorable in any system that required seeking legislative approval for each individual incident of war-fighting.

Opponents contend that electronic surveillance does not come within the broad terms of the AUMF, which says nothing about eavesdropping. Signals intelligence, however, is a rudimentary component of military operations. Congress cannot tell the president he can deploy force but not monitor the enemy any more than it could tell a pitcher he can throw the ball as long as he doesn't wind up.

More to the point, as President Bush argued, his interpretation of the AUMF finds support in the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. As is the case with electronic surveillance, the AUMF does not explicitly authorize the detention of American citizens as enemy combatants. Yet, in Hamdi, the Court read the AUMF to permit such detentions because they are a fundamental incident of waging war. Penetrating enemy communications — even if they involve Americans — are no less fundamental.

The president presented his defense with great confidence — and with good reason. Not only does he have strong arguments in his favor. It was also worth noting that, though he spent nearly an hour after the speech taking questions from the crowd of 9,000 students and other spectators, there was not a single question about the NSA program.

This "scandal" obviously piques the interest of the media. But what if they throw a scandal and nobody shows up?

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

You are trying to make it look like the NYT are criminals for outing the NSA illegal spying program.

I see. So you don't think that it's illegal to out NSA programs, but it IS illegal to out a non-covert agent?

I know you posted on this subject, Johnny. You can't have it both ways.

Hypocrisy.

Also, more importantly, what is a guy that died in an earth quake and then died of kidney failure making speeches for?Show me a picture with him holding up a current edition of USA Today or a video of him break dancing. Somehow, an audio tape just doesn't cut it. {Easy to fab}. What, no electricity in the bat cave to make a video?

It must really suck for you, Bryan and RB3 to be filled with so much hate.No hatin here. Some strong dislikin, but no hatin.:D

You are trying to make it look like the NYT are criminals for outing the NSA illegal spying program.Looks like you unloosed a doozy there, eh Johnny?

NYT = criminals. As we'll soon find out.

BUSH = CRIMINAL? We'll soon find out.