G#d Dammit Kerry! Words Matter!!!

[maxrandb]

Just made the mistake of listening to the first 1/2 hour of Limpballs show, and the entire session was devoted to exploiting John Kerry's words on FTN on Sunday.

Why are our Democratic leaders so "blanking" stupid??? Of course I know what John Kerry meant when he said; "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into 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 meant that it should be Iraqi's doing these patrols, and searches, etc. That does not change the fact that he said them, and he should know better. The right was salivating all day about how to use Kerry's own words against him.

Limpballs just played a tape of Kerry's words and made the argument that; "see, Democrats do hate the military. They think our military are the terrorist", and then he went back and played Kerry's 1971 testimony to congress. I AM an active duty troop, and I'm "effing" tired of the Republicans tying this "anti-military, anti-American Albatross" around the Democrats neck. Nice of John Kerry to give them the bird, huh?

My God, it makes me want to send "effing" Democrats to Newt Gingrich's vocabulary school. Words "effing" matter. Especially in the age of the 30 second sound-bite.

By not choosing his words more carefully, Kerry gave the right-wing another big, fat, juicy softball to hit out of the park.

Fighting the right-wing propaganda is hard enough, WITHOUT our own politicians providing them ammo.

One things for sure, you can't say of questioning Kerry's patriotism and support for our military..."that dog don't hunt".

Wake the "eff" up. Now we'll get an entire news cycle about Kerry accusing "our troops" or terrorizing woman and children.

Just "effing" stupid.

[emulatorloo]

1. how is limbag's bs game of quoting out of context JK's fault?

No matter what a Dem says. limbag will snip snip snip out of context and run w it.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Yep. Kerry already parses each sentence so as to be inoffensive...

and, as you point out, it's impossible to make it Limbaugh-proof.

[maxrandb]

9. It's Kerry Fault

because he should know that the words "Young American soldiers", and "terrorizing Iraqi children and woman", should not be used in the same sentence.

I agree with John Kerry. It should be the Iraqi troops and police raiding the homes of suspected insurgents, not our military.

Now he could have just said; "you know Bob. There is no reason that American troops should be the ones raiding the homes of suspected insurgents. That alienates our troops from the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people would be less alienated, less afraid, and less likely to have ill-feeling about American troops if the Iraqi troops were the ones to lead these searches". "Just the language barrier alone is bad enough". "You put the Iraqi troops in charge of this and it would help difuse some of the anger and resentment Iraqi's feel toward the American troops".

But No!!

In his desire to add some "drama" to his statement by using the word "terrorizing" he has just provided fodder for the right-wing.

[jobycom]

2. Poor Kerry

he gets blasted when he tries to appeal to the middle, he gets blasted when he doesn't. Sigh.

[rockymountaindem]

15. My thoughts exactly

Look at the firestorm around here when he says "mislead" instead of "lie".

[Greyhound]

28. You have to make a stand, state your views and than stick to them

until some facts dictate a change. He's been a politician for so long that he doesn't seem to even know where he stands.

[seabeyond]

43. that is total made up bullshit. n/t

[jobycom]

48. Or maybe some people listen to the media so much they don't hear

what Kerry is saying. He's been consistent from day one on most issues, including the Iraqi invasion. Go back and read his statements on the IWR, read his statements just before the actual invasion, read his statements now.

It's a sad day when even DUers fall for the Swiftboating crap.

[seabeyond]

42. he gets blasted for chosing his words carefully, lol lol. you guys

(not the poster i am responding to) are soooo bad. he gets blasted for saying something. blasted for not saying something. blasted for when he says something but everyone says he didnt say something

[phantom power]

3. On the other hand...

our troops ARE doing all of those things. It's the goddamned truth. If that's a bitter pill for naive Americans to swallow, well life is full of unpleasant truths.

[maxrandb]

11. And another unpleasant truth

is that by not choosing words more carefully, the result will be the neo-cons having a lock on power.

It may be the truth, but there are better ways to communicate the truth. It may be true that Bush is like Hitler. Go try to win a election with that argument.

A much more bitter pill for naive Americans would be 50 more years with these neo-con assholes in charge. Don't you think?

[phantom power]

16. Here's what I see...

The BushCo attack dogs like Limbaugh have demonstrated time and again that they will bash guys like Kerry, Murtha, Cleland, even McCain, no matter what word-smithing they choose, or what their honorable credentials are.

The Democrats have achieved no success whatsoever by parsing their words carefully, appealing to the mythical center, or any related tactics. In fact, the only recent successes we've had have been when we've essentially tossed all that aside and dared to just speak the effing truth, in raw form.

But my opinion aside, I'm curious: what words would you choose that would be more effective, and that are immune from a guy like Limbaugh?

[maxrandb]

21. Here's one example from a post above

Kerry could have said; "you know Bob. There is no reason that American troops should be the ones raiding the homes of suspected insurgents. That alienates our troops from the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people would be less alienated, less afraid, and less likely to have ill-feeling about American troops if the Iraqi troops were the ones to lead these searches". "Just the language barrier alone is bad enough". "You put the Iraqi troops in charge of this and it would help difuse some of the anger and resentment Iraqi's feel toward the American troops".

Could it be parsed, and picked apart by Limpballs?? Sure, but it would not be as easy as simply playing John Kerry saying "young American troops...terrorizing Iraqi woman and children".

and if you don't think that words matter, I think you are mistaken.

We've become the "instant gratification" nation. I could listen to someone for 20 minutes explaining to me what John Kerry really meant, or I could listen to his own words in a 30 second sound-bite.

Which do you think most Americans would choose??

Bottom line is that most Americans are just going to hear; "John Kerry...accusing...young American soldiers...terrorizing Iraqi womand and children"

[phantom power]

35. Words do matter. And provocative times call for provacative speech.

I no longer care how hard or easy it is for Rush to mis-use Democrat speeches. We got nowhere fast worrying about that, and in fact we might be better off today if we'd cared less about it 4 years ago.

Our country is in danger, from Iraq, from our own mis-managed economy, from the environment, and more than ever from terrorism. In large part because we've turned ever more of the world against us with our war-crimial conduct. We've become what we're supposedly fighting against. The barn is burning. And I think we're seeing that Americans sense all of this, even the "sound-bite" Americans. Tell them the truth, and they're ready to hear it. To hell with Rush and his demographic. They'll worship BushCo and bash Democrats until hell freezes over.

[ProSense]

37. Big woop!

"raiding the homes of suspected insurgents. That alienates our troops"

Limpy: he wants our troop to play nice with the terrorists, have tea with them.

This reminds me about the whole controversy about how to combat terrorism.

Do you really think Limpy give a s***?

[LittleClarkie]

50. Let's face it, Kerry wasn't talking to Rush

and Rush's listeners. If you're still listening to Rush at this point, you're pretty much a lost cause anyway.

Kerry was talking to intelligent people. And intelligent people will know what he meant.

It's like when I brought up that Hannity was making fun of Kerry re: thinking the election was stolen, ignoring his denial that he spoke those words exactly. I was told that Hannity didn't matter. Only the RightWing nutjobs listen to him anyway. I was told that I should stop listening to that crap.

So... Rush's words shouldn't matter either, should they? Only RightWing nutjobs listen to Rush, right? So why should it matter what he says?

And why do we agree with Rush when he paints our Dems as inconsistent, or cowardly? Is it Hackett's fault he was called a "puke" by Rush? Is it Reid's fault he is called "Dingy Harry" by Rush? So Rush pulls Kerry out of context, and that's Kerry's fault?

Good ideas don't always come in small packages. Should our Dems talk in soundbites, and not discuss big ideas for fear of them being twisted. Hell, they'll be twisted anyway.

I haven't seen Kerry's appearance yet, but the fact that he said that 80% of Iraqis don't want us in Iraq, and that soldiers shouldn't be scaring the crap out of women and children, makes me think that I'll have to find a video of that interview. Sounds like he said some good stuff. Sounds like he was speaking truth to power. And all folks could talk about yesterday was that he said something nice about Lieberman!? Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!

(I know I'm not talking to you exactly, Phantom. You sorta sound like you would agree with me. Your post just sent me off on my own semi-rant on the subject, is all. Hope you don't mind.)

[phantom power]

54. Yes, that's pretty much how I think about it.

I might even go one better. We should intentionally use provocative sound-bites. Here's one possible example: "Bush has turned our soldiers into terrorists!"

Is that exactly true, in all possible detail? No! But no short sentence regarding something as complicated as the war in Iraq is going to be utterly and completely true.

Is it going to offend the shit out of a lot of people? You bet. But they'll pay attention. And if there's a hard core of truth to it, they can go right ahead and be offended. Truth to power.

Is it going to be bad for troop morale? Probably, if they hear it. I've heard that the troops don't pay much attention to domestic politics, since they're rather busy. Troop morale is pretty low already, from what I hear. And really, I'm tired of our side having to apologize for pointing out the truth about the war-crimes of the GOP. It's about as sane as me having to apologize to the Mob for pointing out that they engage in organized crime, because it ruins the morale of their loan sharks on the street.

[LittleClarkie]

55. Someone said to me Saturday that Dean used this tactic

Say something kind of extreme to get yourself on the news, and then once CNN or somebody has you on the air, talk about what you want to talk about.

I dunno if it would work. But it's an interesting idea.

[phantom power]

57. It works great for the Republicans...

One thing to keep in mind, is you can do this and still tell the truth. I think the key to this kind of tactic is to not get all bound up worrying about telling every possible detail about what is true in the world. It's about capturing an important grain of truth. Inevitably, your opponents will become outraged and demand you explain yourself. But then you win! You have them on the defensive, and you get to explain your position in more detail.

[MH1]

22. You are right - it is THE TRUTH. And it is ABOUT F**KING TIME

that other SO-CALLED DEMOCRATS stand up for people like Kerry, Dean, Murtha, etc when THEY SPEAK THE TRUTH.

Instead of joining the Rovian attack.

Sheesh.


(edited for self-censorship. :-) )

[ProSense]

31. What's Limpy's position on Abu Ghraib? Cheney condones torture and

You are right: truth hurts.

Down with Rummy!

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Nobody should be doing it

[maxrandb]

19. Great Post

I think you just cut through all the BS, and make a great point.

Yes! Nobody should be doing it. But I'll tell you what. If it was my country and the choice was for my home to be raided by either a foreign occupying force with lethal weapons, screaming in a language I don't understand, or my own countrymen, who could at least comminicate with me, who do you think I would be more comfortable with.

And it surely makes no sense for a US Senator to say our troops are "terrorizing Iraqi woman and children". The troops are ordered over there by civilians that Americans elected. The bottom line is that words matter. You'd think the Democrats would understand that. For the past 30 years, the Repukes have developed their own language to use against anyone that opposes them. You can't really argue with their success, can you?

[blm]

6. Kerry said it should be Iraqis doing these patrols - and he always says so

since he first submitted his withdrawal plan last October.

Limbaugh can edit anything down, but he can't make it true in this case.

[Jane Austin]

26. Alas, no one will care whether it Kerry's position is consistent or right,

because he gave them a damaging sound bite to use.

When there is a damaging sound bite, that's all anybody will hear.

That's the way the game is played, and Democrats need to understand the rules of the game or let someone else speak who can do it without becoming the story themselves.

[bigtree]

7. John Kerry was right in '71 and he's right about our soldiers now

The fact that a talk show host wants to cover up the truth shouldn't dissuade anyone from speaking out about atrocities and misguided terrorism practiced by our soldiers where there is credible evidence.

The main reason for these 'patrols' is to keep the population at bay by demonstrating the force of our military. They have to keep projecting power outward to keep the population of millions from encroaching on their garrison, the 'Green Zone'. The rest of the motivation for these search and destroy missions is a foolish attempt to draw out and suppress opposition to the newly formed government. This is a dangerous, immoral, and counterproductive use of our military.

[Yollam]

8. If Kerry still spoke today the way he did in 1971, there would no problem

It's his inconsistency that makes him look bad. Kerry's testimony to Congress in 1971 was poignant and truthful. now he is trying to have it both ways, and that creates no end of opportunities to paint him as a "flip-flopper".


BTW, I object to the media's portrayal of Kerry as the de facto leader of the democrats, as well as Kerry's apparent intention to carry that mantle.

Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire essentially made the foolish choice to give him the nomination, and that ended when he threw the election in about October 2004, IMO.

If there is a clear leader of the democrats (and at this point there sadly is not), Kerry ain't it.

[emulatorloo]

12. that is just dumb. If limbag wants to chop people's quotes up, he will

kerry was consistent in his message, limbag is doing a dishonest cut and paste to make it appear kerry said things he didnt say.

limbag is threatened by kerry and dems.

[Yollam]

17. Limbaugh's job is to lie, that goes without saying

And his listeners are anti-Kerry from the get-go.

Kerry's inconsistency hurts his standing among democrats, not with the right or the center, who are not behind him to begin with.

Kerry would have lost in a landslide had he been running against a popular President.


And how do you figure that "How can we ask a man to be the last one to die for in an unjust war?" and "I voted for the Iraq War resolution, and given what I know about there being no WMD's I'd still vote for it again" are consistent?

[LittleClarkie]

47. Aye, but is he inconsistent, or have we just been convinced of this

by people like Rush?

Just because you can pull two quotes out of their context and make it SOUND like Kerry was saying two different things, doesn't mean that's what he was doing. I would reckon that if you took ALL his words as a whole, you'd find he was consistent.

His thoughts don't always fit into soundbites. His words are often not digested well by our MTV culture.

Rush will do this regardless. They all will.

They made a good man, Gore, look like a fool as well. I suspect they will do this no matter who is up on the stage. Durbin, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry. It doesn't seem to matter much.

What does matter is how much we go along with it.

[Yollam]

67. I couldn't disagree more.

"His thoughts don't always fit into soundbites. His words are often not digested well by our MTV culture.

Rush will do this regardless. They all will.

They made a good man, Gore, look like a fool as well. I suspect they will do this no matter who is up on the stage. Durbin, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry. It doesn't seem to matter much."

If Kerry is so damn brilliant, shouldn't he be aware of the MTV/soundbite/right-leaning nature of our media and ran his campaign accordingly? It's great if he has profound thoughts, but he still has to speak on the level of the average American. That is a skill that Clinton had the smarts to master, and Kerry did not.

I was on his side, and I thought he was inconsistent, and continues to annoy me with his flip-flopping (The election was stolen. Oh wait, it wasn't)

As for Gore, he ran a much better campaign. It's amazing he did as well as he did, what with his slightly prissy demeanor and with such an unappealing running mate while running away from Clinton. Imagine if his running mate had been someone like John Edwards, and he'd had Clinton on the campaign trail!



As for "going along with it", as long as there is money and media involved in elections, we will have no choice but to go along with it. It's not an option. It's a shame that a lot of the best candidates, like a Kucinich, will be doomed to fail because of it, but that's the way it is.

[BanzaiBonnie]

10. He did!

say that it should be the Iraqi military doing those type of patrols.

Realize that no matter what anyone says there will be those who take some phrase or statement and cut it, clip it, twist it and otherwise take it out of context.

One of the reasons I like to hang out around here is that MOST DUers are careful to put things in a context. No matter who said it.

[fedupinBushcountry]

13. So, are you saying

no Dem can talk. Because whatever any Dem says Limpballs will twist it, come on you know that.

Why are you listening to that scum, there are plenty of left to listen to, why give Limpballs anymore listeners.

[maxrandb]

23. Because Big Eddie is not on until 3PM

I only have two major talk stations here my area, and I listen to catch the traffic reports, and to hear what the "idjut" is saying.

From 12-3 I have a coice of either Limpballs, or Tammy (I'm really a Dem, but I love everything the neo-cons are doing, and write for Newsmax) Bruce.

Saying I have a choice between those two, is like saying I could poke my eye out with a rusty iron rod, or a sharp stick.

[roguevalley]

14. From Salon.com's the fix about Kerry's remarks concerning the

possibility of Joe Sleezyman becoming sec. of defense:

Joe Lieberman for secretary of defense?

Joe Lieberman spoke so glowingly about the war in Iraq the other day that we thought for a moment that he must be on the White House payroll. He isn't, of course, but could he be? On "Face the Nation" Sunday, Bob Schieffer said that he's heard from four different sources that George W. Bush is thinking about nominating Lieberman to serve as secretary of defense if Donald Rumsfeld resigns next year.

That's a scary thought for anyone hoping for a change of direction on Iraq. Scarier still is the way John Kerry, who wants to style himself as the Democrats' leading critic on Iraq, responded when Schieffer put the rumor to him. "Of course I'd support Joe Lieberman," Kerry said. "He's a friend and he's a very capable guy. But that's all inside Washington stuff, Bob. You know, what people really care about is how we're going to protect our country and get your troops home in a way that is successful."

How "supporting Joe Lieberman" addresses any of that, we're not exactly sure. It was Lieberman, after all, who talked so much last week about the "real progress" being made in Iraq and said he was "disappointed by Democrats" -- presumably, Kerry among them -- "who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago ... than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead."

Hopeless. Completely fucking hopeless.

[TayTay]

20. Again, I don't get it.

What was wrong with that? Leiberman is a Dem and to have had Kerry say that he wouldn't support Leiberman would have derailed the rest of the interview.

Who cares? Leiberman probably won't get appointed SecDef anyway. It's just more media diversion tactics to take the spolight off of the war in Iraq and the way this Admin has screwed it up from the very beginning.

[MH1]

39. Thank you - the Lieberman thing is one more Rovian distraction.

And some so-called Democrats seem to be falling for it.

Like someone else (you maybe) said in another thread, Kerry basically responded to the "would you support Lieberman" question by saying "Of course I would, I'm not an idiot*; now back to the topic of the interview..."

* idiot = "I wouldn't support a certain Democrat in that position so now let's spend a lot of time talking about that instead of important stuff."

But some want to play idiot and pretend this is something other than a Rovian distraction.

Sigh.

[seabeyond]

44. didnt he also say rummy should be out, anyone would be better, or

something like that. is salon giving the whole story, or another out of context like limbaugh, cause i know salon and rawstory dont report accurately on kerry. i dont buy what either put out on him

[TayTay]

18. So what?

His argument was true and he said plainly what the problem was.

That idiot Rush could have a made a laundry list sounds like a subversive attempt to brign down America.

I don't get why you're so angry. You know that the RW exists to distort and make shit up about Democrats. This would have happened if Kerry had gone in and read Dr. Seuss for 20 minutes.

It's not his fault that the RW distort everything nor can it be avoided. I wouldn't have changed a thing. To do less is just to pander anyway.

[Jane Austin]

24. I so agree with the OP on this.

In fact, I turned to Dearest Husband when Kerry said "terrorize" and remarked that there was the money quote; that we would hear it again tomorrow, Kerry using "Young American soldiers" and "terrorizing kids" in the same sentence.

It doesn't matter what Kerry's position is on the War. He may be right as rain and completely consistent, too, and it Will. Not. Matter. because no one will be talking about his position on the war, they will only talk about him calling American soldiers terrorists.

THAT is why words do matter, as the OP asserts. Because when you use the wrong words and give easy soundbites to the media, no one gives a flying flip about what you may MEAN, they will only hear and talk about what you said.

And yes, the right wing can and will twist and reframe everything any Democrat says, but unless the speaker uses ill-chosen words or phrases, they can't play back the tape of the Democrat actually saying it.

There's a huge difference in impact between Limbaugh and Co. whining again about what we say, and playing the tape of some Democratic speaker saying something that damns him with half the population.

[bluedawg12]

25. In today's wold we live and die by words i.e sound bites

This is fodder for the right.

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into 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."

it could have been so much cleaner and to the point.

“ And there is no reason, Bob, that young Iraqi soldiers can’t be trained to be the ones to inspect the homes of Iraqi’s for contraband. They know the customs, the religious customs. Our young American soldiers are sensitive to such things and are working hard to train the Iraqi’s to take over on this part of the mission.”

I agree with those who understand the importance of words.

It is lethal for democrats to imply that American soldiers terrorize anyone.

What is the point of this freaking line of thought?

Why not just say: It is better for the Iraqi's to deal with their own citizens they understand the culture better, and it is their own nation and people.

He sounds like he is back to the Mai Lai story, why does he do this?

Of course Limpbags, and KKKoulter, and Insanity, will use this to show how dems do not support the troops. That matters.

We keep losing the war of communication. Too many people have laughed at Lakoff and his points about sending a message with images, words, the semiotics of persuasion. great, these purist ideas are doing a lot to perpetuate that dems are soft, anti-war, and anti-military.

[maxrandb]

30. Thank you

If I were more eloquent, I may have been able to make my point better.

I've just seen this movie before! This is how the Right-Wing Noise Machine works. It will start with someone like Limbaugh. Then Drudge will put up a siren banner. Then maybe the Washinton Times will pick it up. If their lucky, Wolfie and Tweety will feature it on their shows.

Then they will begin clamoring that the "mainstream Libera media" is purposely ignoring a story about John Kerry accusing the troops of terrorizing Iraqi woman and children. The MSM, in an attempt to prove that they are not "liberal lap-dogs" will run it in newsprint, always with a qoute from an "outraged" conservative, and a Democrat who will say something like, "I respect John Kerry, but I think you may have a point there Mr. conservative Republican".

Suddenly, a quote taken out of context, spun, and spindle dried to the Repukes liking, makes it into our national media, and our national discourse.

"Been there, done that, got the T-shirt"

[seaglass]

33. And thanks for doing your part - you do understand that it also

takes Dems giving Limbaugh and all those others credence, don't you?

[bluedawg12]

38. Actually, thank YOU, for bringing this to our attention.

Words are very important, as we saw with the famous:
first I voted for it, then I voted against it.

If words weren't important, if conveying a message weren't important, then the good Senator would not have gone to the show for an interview. but he did. it was important.

In the Kennedy Nixon debate- Tricky lost because of the appearance of being shifty, sweaty and nervous, his voice was sort of deep and sinister. By comparison, Kennedy was smiling, articulate, confident, handsome, and more light hearted. A guy you could watch for four years on TV as Prez.

The killer, among the many, in '04, was the flip-flopper thing, the swift liars, and this: a poll that showed more guys would rather have a beer at a barbecue with shrub than with Kerry. Sadly, sometimes simply who comes off as likable makes all the difference.

Now, for this quote, I cringe because it will spread far and wide. It will re-enforce any who are teetering on the brink of defecting from the repugs that they cannot trust the dems. and that is counter productive.

[wisteria]

62. Your reading way to much into this. Oh hind site is ridiculous here.

How they came to draw those conclusions form this one sentence just shows how desperate they are. Its obvious he refers to perception - the perception we relay to the Iraqi civilians. Only these idiots would misconstrue such an important point as the one Kerry made and turn it into a smear of our troops.
Your are as bad as them if you don't give people enough credit that they are smart enough to figure this one out. Only their base will latch onto this one.

[ginnyinWI]

27. doesn't matter what Limbaugh says

He isn't going to convert any Dems, and I doubt any moderates, either. He's preaching to the choir--the RW of the GOP. Let him gas on--it has no effect.

[maxrandb]

32. Me-thinks we ignore the right wing noise machine tactics at our peril N/T

[ProSense]

34. How does giving credence to the BS help?

Kerry made the point that Rummy and Cheney condone torture as policy. The soldiers are terrorizing Iraqis. The Iraqis can police themselves.

[MH1]

41. Well, c'mon, we wouldn't want to highlight REPUBLICANS SUPPORT TORTURE

when instead we can join our friend Rush in attacking one of our own, would we?

:sarcasm:

[ktlyon]

29. same old thing .... The republicans have derailed the discussion

instead of talking about the horrific act of kicking in peoples doors and ordering them around at gun point we are in a discussion of the speaker's personal failings. Until the American people see threw this tactic this kind of thing will work. Speak the truth.

[wisteria]

64. WE NEED TO START BRINGING THE CULTURAL PERCEPTIONS

UP AND USING THEM TO OUR ADVANTAGE. This is one of the reasons the Iraqis want us out of their country.

[NoPasaran]

36. Limpball's audience

Limpball's audience is composed of two groups: liberals who listen because they enjoy being upset, and total rightwing fuckwits. Nobody's mind is being changed, why should anyone care what the king of the wingnuts spews about?

[bluedawg12]

46. NoPasaran- If the comments remain contained, and if

your analysis is true: pissed off libs and die hard repugs listen to Limpbags, OK, maybe less damage.

But, if it get's out and around, then it is simply handing bullet's to the repug enemy for his gun.

Look, Senator Kerry went on that show for a reason, he hoped to be persuasive, now saying that the interview that he agreed to give is not important is denial. I want to hear the truth, warts and all. This was a mistake and everyone makes mistakes, 'cept *.

Might as well face the music and expect the worst and hope for the best.

This is beyond damage control, we just did some hypotheticals on how he might have handled the swift-liars. it's up to him to dance out of this little corner. Because, his comments really piss me off. American troops are NOT...NOT...terrorizing Iraqi women and children.

They are doing their job. The man who sent them on the job is culpable and the ass hats that continue to support the same course, the same exact mission, are culpable. These young men and women are out there dying, not even in battle, but as IED fodder for simply stepping on soil with three bombs buried deep. Ex: the 10 dead Marines last week.

[NoPasaran]

53. Well, I think that whether or not it's their intent...

...Iraqi civilians are being terrorized as a consequence of some of the operations we are carrying out. I am sure that Kerry, as a Vietnam veteran, has some inkling of scenarios where heavily armed soldiers from an alien culture search peoples' houses and take away their menfolk to an uncertain fate. How could that NOT be terrifying?

Yes, they are doing their job. It's a very unpleasant job, both for them and for many of the people with whom they come into contact.

[bluedawg12]

56. More the reason to get out. n/t

[seito]

40. O.M.G.

Anyone's words can be taken out of context. Jesus Christ himself would sound like a terrorist after a few cycles in the spin machine.

It is not John Kerry that needs to wake up. JMHO

[wisteria]

66. You are exactly right- we need to wake up and call them out on this

There are many cultural differences that make it difficult for us to be perceived as nothing more than invaders. Instead of attacking the messenger-which is what the right wing figures we will do, we should be calling the repubs out for not taking this matter seriously and the administration for ignoring it.

[seabeyond]

45. g*d dammit murtha..... words matter

Murtha is "the biggest morale booster that the enemy has in Iraq"

limbaugh also said this about murtha. i suppose murtha could just not have spoken out a couple weeks ago, so limbaugh wouldnt have this ammunition on him. right?

[bluedawg12]

51. Aww come on, Murtha was cogent and articulate

Kerry's comment was not.

I think we all know the difference in what is being said here. it's not about Limpbag's. it's the entire world. news travels at the speed of light.Don't give the world, the entire media, fodder to attack you/us, your supporters.

If they attack Murtha, I can defend him with pride on his comments.

I have defended Sen. Kerry in the past. But, he makes gaffe's that simply do not help.

[Avalux]

49. A suggestion

If you are upset with Kerry, it would be more helpful to find a different way to criticize him.

Listening to Rush and then writing a vitriolic post won't garner the best responses if you're looking for a thoughful discussion.

Who really cares what Rush has to say anyway? Those who do are probably hopeless causes beyond our reach. We'll never convince them otherwise and neither will Kerry, no matter what he says.

[bluedawg12]

58. We care what the troops think when they hear this. n/t

[ProSense]

59. I don't care what anyone who believes that Limpy is sane thinks

Why insult rational people/soldiers?

I shudder to think that anyone who thinks Limpy is sane has a gun in his/her hand.

[seito]

60. Perhaps they wonder why Limpballs hates the troops...

Why else would he purposely mislead them?

[The Whiskey Priest]

52. That is in part why he didn't kick Bush's arse

so bad as to make it impossible for the thugs to steal the election.

[shadowlight]

61. I've read the quote,

and most of the posts.
John Kerry should know better.
He should have been more careful with his words.

[wisteria]

63. Oh come on. It is obvious that he was speaking of cultural differences

and how our soldiers are perceived. This is actually an issue and a reason why the Iraqi's want us out of their country.WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE OF PERCEPTION AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES REGARDS TO OUR SOLDIERS RATHER THAN ATTACKING THE MESSENGER. PERHAPS, KERRY WORD WAS RIGHT ON THE MARK.

[Fabio]

65. Is your post serious?

I mean honestly.