Re: John Kerry really said this?
 

[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] Oh my

Re: John Kerry really said this?
 

Iraqis should be doing - that - refers to the sentence preceding the words where your quote began, which refers to transferring authority to Iraqis. It's an easy mistake to make - missing the reference - don't feel too bad about it.

Re: John Kerry really said this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who's Kerry? He used to be somebody?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
You know an interesting poll result I saw recently? A Time survey found that with as low as Bush's approval is and all that has happened, if voting again, Bush is only down by one point. 48 to 49. Way to go Democratic Party! Your best was someone who could barely beat a sitting president with a 40% approval rating. Well done!

Re: John Kerry really said this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kerrys right forearm has more brainpower then <font color="red"> ( ??? ) </font> Bush has altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]


And you're a judge of brainpower?

Oh, also, what's an "altogether?"

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: John Kerry really said this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
From Face The Nation...

--------------------------------------------------------
Kerry: 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.

Kerry: --Iraqis should be doing that.
---------------------------------------------------------

I realize that Bush has an impressive trail of idiotic statements like this to his name, but doesn't this one seem just a little more idiotic than your typical idiotic statement?

I realize that he was probably trying to say one of two things:

1) This is the type of thing that the old Iraqi Republican Guard would do.

2) The Iraqi military should be doing their own work.

However, I still think there is a small chance that he meant what he literally said: Iraqis should be terrorizing women and children.

This was the best that the democratic party had to offer?

[/ QUOTE ]

.....Clearly a poor choice of words on Kerry's part.

Sometimes looking beyond the exact words used into the context in which they are used will allow one to understand.

My interpretation of what he is saying is a combination or both a political and realistic point of view.

He is inferring that house-to-house in Iraq done by US soldiers can easily be viewed as a 'terrorist' act by the Iraqi's and many others in the world.

IMO, a poor &amp; innacurate use of the word terrorist on his part.

The realistic part of the statement requires one to put oneself into the occupants of the home being searched.

Given a choice, would you rather have someone who spoke your language and understood your customs searching your home in the middle of the night, or would you rather have a foreign occupier, with whom you could not communicate, and whom you feared perform the search?

Re: John Kerry really said this?
 

This breaking news just in: Kerry is almost as big an idiot as Bush.

In other breaking news, scientists discovered that the phases of the moon go through a predictable cycle approximately 28 days long, and the sun will set in the west this eventing.

Re: John Kerry really said this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why Kerry took so long signing form 180 to open up his military records in their entirety.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, at least he reported for duty.

Re: John Kerry really said this?
 

I have no idea how anyone in the right ever considered criticizing Kerry's military record when their candidate went AWOL... from the national guard. Kerry SERVED.

Re: John Kerry really said this?
 

Amen, sister. Not to mention that he used daddy's connections to get himself placed at the top of the list to get into the Air National Guard in the first place. And we won't even begin to talk about how he used daddy's connections and business partners to amass his fortune.

Re: John Kerry really said this?
 

This is been hashed over countless times on this forum but basically you're wrong. Bush served in the Natioanl Guard and was trained to fly fighter planes; he wasn't AWOL; he wasn't given preferential treatment; Kerry joined the Navy and had no expectation of fighting in combat in Vietnam (Kerry was quoted as saying so in a biography that he cooperated with the author on); during the Vietnam war enlisting in the Navy and the National Guard were options that people of draft age often chose as an alternative to combat in Vietnam while fulfilling their military obligations; the Navy was an option chosen by Kerry and Bush had the option to join the Navy as well.

The real irony is that in 1996 Clinton's draft dodging didn't matter to the Democrats nor did Dole's service record matter to the Democrats. In 2004 the Democrats triumphed Kerry's Vietnam service. In 2008 if Hillary is their candidate, perhaps against McCain, the Democrats will come out and state that a presidential candidate's service record is irrelevant and folks of your ilk would never acknowledge that McCain's service would make him qualified over a Democrat who didn't serve in the military. I'd like to see you tell a National Guardsman face to face that was trained to fly fighter planes that their service was less than honorable.