John Kerry's October Surprise

[Gigolo Jason]

John Kerry is at it again.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2006/10/john_kerry_stuck_on_stupid.html

My question is... How did Karl Rove get Kerry to f*** up this bad? The man is an absolute genius! :notworthy

October surprise?:laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6

[ArturoC]

Just heard about that on the radio.

Not sure what the big deal is... I don't care for that frankenstein anyway.

[steve210]

Where's you post about the pedophile Republican? :gesture:

[Btrthnezr3]

Hahaha...that was the COMPLETE wrong thing to say. Oh well.

[Btrthnezr3]

They're all crooks...how's that? They're all liars, they are all hippocrites and they are all human.

[steve210]

Don't get me wrong it's important to vote. Just don't be a straight ticket voter and just punch all Repub or all Demo. They all have issues.

[kstrs]

Where's you post about the pedophile Republican? :gesture:

In history's trashcan where it belongs... Unlike the political career of dnc posterboy Barney Franks, spoken like a dnc straight ticket kinda guy btw.

Kerry is a silverspoon dumbass & is (along with the legendary al bore) one of few who would've been a worse pres. than gw is turning out to be.

[paniro187]

and finally someone brings it up. I pose the question how many college graduates do you see joining the military??? Hom any people go to UT for four years then say "I"m going to the military" just sounds kind of funny huh. Oh well it was clearly a swipe at bush and i thought it was funny as shit after i thought about it for a sec.

[Patrick]

Charles,
Exactly!!
Hell, A LOT of the people I went through the Army with, went so they could get an education when they got out.

Just another example of a politician distorting the facts.

[paniro187]

how about when bush was at the podium a year ago or so and started looking under it and saying "I'm looking for wmds" this is the reason almost 3000 troops have been killed and he's making a joke about it. how about that for respect for the troops.

[TxVrod]

WMD's is the ONLY reason we're there, huh? Hmmm....

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Yep, John Kerry could have better articulated what he was trying to say...AND the Bush administration (or the "Spin Machine") is, as expected, spinning the HELL out of a statement. As Bill O'Reilly would say: Ridiculous? You be the judge...

I severly doubt an ex-marine, that has actually served on the ground, in war, that bases alot of his political prowess on his service, would make a derogatory statement directed at the military, particularly considering the current climate of things in the world. Not to mention the fact that the military is in more places than Iraq. If he was denigrating the military then he would have listed more than just Iraq...it was an obvious shot at Bush and his administration, particularly the "Defense" & "Intelligence" dept's...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

WMD's is the ONLY reason we're there, huh? Hmmm....

No longer but that was in fact the reason given for why we should have such ergency in going to war in Iraq. Remember Bush saying that we didn't have the time to be diplomatic and to play the UN's diplomatic games? All bOOlshyt...

[TxVrod]

Yep, John Kerry could have better articulated what he was trying to say...AND the Bush administration (or the "Spin Machine") is, as expected, spinning the HELL out of a statement. As Bill O'Reilly would say: Ridiculous? You be the judge...

You you know good and well that if the shoe were on the other foot, it would be the same sort of spin - if not worse.

[paniro187]

WMD's is the ONLY reason we're there, huh? Hmmm....well before the war this was the ONLY REASON to go once we didn't find those we wanted to free the oppressed iraqi people. c'mon vrod I know you didn't fall for it too. Not till after the fact did you see them even mention the iraqi people. I can't blame the iraqi people for not wanting us there. If anyone ever came to america and tried to change our way of life (take away womens rights and the whole lot) we would be fighting too. I understand taking a dictator out of power BUT I don't understand trying to change their way of life.

[TxVrod]

No longer but that was in fact the reason given for why we should have such ergency in going to war in Iraq. Remember Bush saying that we didn't have the time to be diplomatic and to play the UN's diplomatic games? All bOOlshyt...

I'm not arguing that there was some some misleading as the reason to go there. As for "lies", I don't think there were any. I do, however, believe that the source for the WMD information should have been more scrutinized. I also believe - contrary to the the NSC(?) report that they were there. There was just too ample of time to ship them to Syria or Iran. Links to Al Qaeda? Apparently not. Links to terrorism? I do believe so.

Fug the UN. Bunch of friggin crooks.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

You you know good and well that if the shoe were on the other foot, it would be the same sort of spin - if not worse.

I know and I would be saying the same thing...BOTH parties are full of politics, the shyt is ridiculous...fact of the matter is I am speaking on THIS topic here and NOW...

[TxVrod]

Word... which is why I just don't have a whole lot to say about it. It's all a bunch of BS.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I'm not arguing that there was some some misleading as the reason to go there. As for "lies", I don't think there were any. I do, however, believe that the source for the WMD information should have been more scrutinized. I also believe - contrary to the the NSC(?) report that they were there. There was just too ample of time to ship them to Syria or Iran. Links to Al Qaeda? Apparently not. Links to terrorism? I do believe so.

Fug the UN. Bunch of friggin crooks.

We had a discussion on this in another thread. Saddam did not support terrorists...he thought them a threat to his regime. He recognized that they had a common goal but in no way did he support them. Secondly, I find it funny that everyone talks about how he had chemical weapons but omit the fact that WE supplied him with them so that he could use them on the Iranians in the 80's with the Iran-Iraq war...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Word... which is why I just don't have a whole lot to say about it. It's all a bunch of BS.

I feel you, I kno we probably rarely disagree so I wasn't chargin' you up...I just get frustrated that these damn politicians care more about keeping their positions than they do about actual problems. I just wish people realized this and voted um the hell out of office instead of continuing to fall victim to the rhetoric...

[Gigolo Jason]

This statement is nothing more then one more treasonous act in a long line of treasonous acts by a man who does not understand what the words liberty and duty mean.

[TxVrod]

We had a discussion on this in another thread. Saddam did not support terrorists...he thought them a threat to his regime.

I thought it was Al Qaeda, specifically, who was referring too, not terrorists, in general.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

This statement is nothing more then one more treasonous act in a long line of treasonous acts by a man who does not understand what the words liberty and duty mean.

*buzz* WRONG

[paniro187]

This statement is nothing more then one more treasonous act in a long line of treasonous acts by a man who does not understand what the words liberty and duty mean.speaking of falling into the rhetoric.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I thought it was Al Qaeda, specifically, who was referring too, not terrorists, in general.

Here's a snippet from the Senate Intel Report for Post War Iraq:


Conclusion 1: Postwar findings indicate that the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) assessment that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida resembled "two independent actors trying to exploit each other," accurately characterized bin Ladin's actions, but not those of Saddam Hussein. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al-Qa'ida in particular. Postwar findings indicate that bin Ladin attempted to exploit the former Iraqi regime by making requests for operational and material assistance, while Saddam Hussein refused all such requests. Saddam thought al-Qa'ida was an effective organization and reportedly expressed some willingness to broadcast anti-Saudi speeches at the request of al-Qa'ida, but there is no evidence he did. Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa'ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin.

[Gigolo Jason]

*buzz* WRONG

Have you read his testimony before the senate foreign relations committee on April 22, 1971 or do I need to send you a transcript?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

speaking of falling into the rhetoric.

It's amazing is it not...?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Have you read his testimony before the senate foreign relations committee on April 22, 1971 or do I need to send you a transcript?

I need not read it to address the statement you decided to make not minutes ago...it was a less than thought out statement, IMO

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Have you read his testimony before the senate foreign relations committee on April 22, 1971 or do I need to send you a transcript?

PLUS,

Were it Treason, he'd have been indicted, would he not ?(His indictment would immediately be followed by an acquittal)

[Gigolo Jason]

I need not read it to address the statement you decided to make not minutes ago...it was a less than thought out statement, IMO

He also has published a book called "The New Soldier". That was a piece of work. Go read it, it will scare the sh** out of you and show you who this man really is.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

He also has published a book called "The New Soldier". That was a piece of work. Go read it, it will scare the sh** out of you and show you who this man really is.

I will not read it as I already do not care for John Kerry so I will not support him with funds BUT it was an opinion...who gives a shyt?

[Gigolo Jason]

Were it Treason, he'd have been indicted, would he not ?

In order to answer this we must first define treason.

Treason:

–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

—Synonyms
1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty.


John Kerry is a treasonous American. He has been so since 1970. He is right there with Jane Fonda as being two of the most treasonous citizens of the 20th century.

Good job John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry, keep up the good work.

[paniro187]

In order to answer this we must first define treason.

Treason:

–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

—Synonyms
1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty.


John Kerry is a treasonous American. He has been so since 1970. He is right there with Jane Fonda as being two of the most treasonous citizens of the 20th century.

Good job John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry, keep up the good work.ar you kin to rush or sean hannity???

[Gigolo Jason]

I will not read it as I already do not care for John Kerry so I will not support him.........

Oh really? Who DID you vote for in the 2004 presidential election?

We want to know who you really support?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

In order to answer this we must first define treason.

Treason:

–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

—Synonyms
1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty.


John Kerry is a treasonous American. He has been so since 1970. He is right there with Jane Fonda as being two of the most treasonous citizens of the 20th century.

Good job John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry, keep up the good work.

I see what you wrote, well copy & pasted, and though you obviously have a good resource in Dictionary.com (I use it too)...there is no substance to what it is you are infact offerring as an argument/defense/rebuttal. You said that his statement, from yesterday, was treasonous and yet I'm having hard understanding just how that statement would accomplish either killing the US's sovereign, is a violation of allegiance to ones country, or is a breach of faith (in one's country)...to construe the conclusion that you are based on the facts at hand is simply: ridiculous

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Oh really? Who DID you vote for in the 2004 presidential election?

We want to know who you really support?

Those that want don't always get...:icon_thum

[Gigolo Jason]

Easy, his statement from yesterday is a betrayal of trust. His statements in 1971 were a violation of allegiance.

As a stated earlier, if you read it, John Kerry has a long history of treasonous sedition.

Do you want a transcript from April 22, 1971?

[Gigolo Jason]

Those that want don't always get...:icon_thum

I rest my case.

[CBR RN]

http://audi.barrystuff.com/images/stuckInIraq.jpg

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Easy, his statement from yesterday is a betrayal of trust. His statements in 1971 were a violation of allegiance.

As a stated earlier, if you read it, John Kerry has a long history of treasonous sedition.

Do you want a transcript from April 22, 1971?

I would greatly appreciate the transcript...

Explain exactly how it was a betrayal of trust...of the nation?

[Gigolo Jason]

I would greatly appreciate the transcript...

Explain exactly how it was a betrayal of trust...of the nation?

It's self explanatory.

Enjoy

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082204F.shtml

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

It's self explanatory.

So said the gentleman who finds it impossible to prove an invalid point...


Enjoy

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082204F.shtml

Thanks for the transcript though :icon_thum

[Gigolo Jason]

Thanks for the transcript though :icon_thum

You’re welcome. It took me a minute to find the entire transcript and not just exerts with spin attached. That and I went to lunch.

You really should read his book "The New Soldier". He has a lot of "revolutionary" ideas in there. :icon_smil

Here is a website on it.

http://www.freekerrybook.org./

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

You’re welcome. It took me a minute to find the entire transcript and not just exerts with spin attached. That and I went to lunch.

You really should read his book "The New Soldier". He has a lot of "revolutionary" ideas in there. :icon_smil

Here is a website on it.

http://www.freekerrybook.org./

Ok so I've read it...could you now point out those items which you deem treasonous? (Bear in mind that this need be within the context of reporting to a congressional committee)

[Gigolo Jason]

Ok so I've read it...could you now point out those items which you deem treasonous? (Bear in mind that this need be within the context of reporting to a congressional committee)

Is it not treason for former American military personnel to have unsanctioned meetings on foreign soil with members of a foreign government that the USA is at war with?

The content and outcome of such meetings being contrary to the goals and policies of the US government and directly puts the lives of American soldiers on the front lines at risk.

Dear Cajun, please tell me that you do not think this is not treasonous?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Is it not treason for former American military personnel to have unsanctioned meetings on foreign soil with members of a foreign government that the USA is at war with? The content and outcome of such meetings being contrary to the goals and policies of the US government and directly puts the lives of American soldiers on the front lines at risk.

Dear Cajun, please tell me that you do not think this is not treasonous?[/

The situation illustrated in the above comment does merit treason, however, according to the document you presented me with...this meeting was both sanctioned AND presented to the US Senate in room 4221 of the New Senate Office in Washington D.C.

So dear Jason, please inform me as to what it is you are talking about?

Again, I ask you to list those items that are expressed within the statement in question that you deem treasonous?

[Gigolo Jason]

Answer my above question yes or no. Do you think it is treasonous for such things to happen?

EDIT: Work gets in the way of posting sometimes.

My reply is below.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Answer my above question yes or no. Do you think it is treasonous for such things to happen?

re-read my reply n *click* EDIT next to the Benjamin Franklin quote :icon_bigg

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Answer my above question yes or no. Do you think it is treasonous for such things to happen?

EDIT: Work gets in the way of posting sometimes.

My reply is below.

I feel you, we discussed that...same happens here...understandable, I realize this isn't our job, we just happen to both be combative n love debate...you see no one else involved lol:laughing6

[Gigolo Jason]

The situation illustrated in the above comment does merit treason,

I agree; it is treason because of his actions in Paris while being the head of the VVAW. He gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Kerry met with North Vietnamese Government officials the Viet Cong while in Paris. Kerry advocated Viet Cong leader Madam Binh's "Peace Proposal" upon his return from Paris. Kerry's acts were in direct violation of the UCMJ, the U.S. Code, and the U.S. Constitution.

Here is the quote from the Senate Transcripts

"My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned."

VVAW was a non-profit organization that had no government authorization or mandate.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I agree; it is treason because of his actions in Paris while being the head of the VVAW.

Why then was he not indicted for treason? There were more than enough witnesses necessary to prosecute (2). I would offer that the offence does not warrant TREASON. Sure I do not agree with them (his actions), but they simply do not fit the definition of treason. He did not levy war on the US. He did not adhere to the enemy, for example, declare allegiance to the enemy. And you cannot empiracally prove that he provided any aid and/or comfort to the enemy.

He gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Kerry met with North Vietnamese Government officials the Viet Cong while in Paris. Kerry advocated Viet Cong leader Madam Binh's "Peace Proposal" upon his return from Paris.

Again, I disagree with his actions but this is like burning the flag...it is absolutely wrong, completely pisses me off...but it is not TREASON

Kerry's acts were in direct violation of the UCMJ, the U.S. Code, and the U.S. Constitution.


Don't know about the UCMJ, but I am sure that if they had something on him...they would no doubt have reprimanded him for it. The Marines do not appreciate anti-patriotism OR anti-Marinism (if you will). Now as far as violations of the Constitution, I'll refer you back to my former statements...

[TxVrod]

Here's a snippet from the Senate Intel Report for Post War Iraq:

I'm not sure how I missed this, otherwise I would have replied sooner...

My take is that they were placing heavier emphasis on the distance between Hussein and Al Quaeda and less on the Islamic Extremists. Nonetheless, although I believe all Al Quaeda members to be terrorists, I don't believe all terrorists to be Al Quaeda, or even all Islamic Extremist. Did Hussein associate with AQ or Islamic Extremists? Evidently not. Did he support terrorism and harbor terrorists? I think that's likely. Now, whether he should have been the first target in the war on terror, I think not. There should have been more regional focus than specifically in Iraq.

I just don't think the Senate Intel Committee report is the end-all, be-all of this situation.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

My take is that they were placing heavier emphasis on the distance between Hussein and Al Quaeda and less on the Islamic Extremists.

Emphasis aside, the point stands that he thought them -al Queda AND Islamic Extremists- a threat to his regime. Having read the entire Senate Intel Report, I can assuredly say that Hussein did not actively support any terrorist organization.

Nonetheless, although I believe all Al Quaeda members to be terrorists, I don't believe all terrorists to be Al Quaeda, or even all Islamic Extremist

100% True- We have the Catholic Terrorists of Ireland (Irish Republican Brotherhood) or the (Supposed) Christian Terrorists of the Ku Klux Klan or The Russian Terrorists of the 19th Century (the Peoples Will) among many many others. Problem is, we are currently focusing on Islamic Extremists because they were the one's who infact attacked us. The are the only group of terrorists that we are currently concerned with, that is the reality.


Did he support terrorism and harbor terrorists? I think that's likely. Now, whether he should have been the first target in the war on terror, I think not. There should have been more regional focus than specifically in Iraq.

This is infact one of the premises disproved by the Senate Intel Report:


Conclusion 8: No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom


I just don't think the Senate Intel Committee report is the end-all, be-all of this situation.

Perhaps not, but it is the current precedent upon which any valid conclusions can be drawn. It is nearly impossible to suggest that there were any political agenda's at play here because the Senate happens to be majorily Republican.

I realize you will believe what you will, but facts are facts.

[TxVrod]

Nonetheless, we are there and cannot just pull out. Something has got to change.

I just get a little irritated with the premise that Bush "lied" to get us there when it was supported bi-partisanly (is that a word?) and even by other countries.

Emphasis aside, the point stands that he thought them -al Queda AND Islamic Extremists- a threat to his regime. Having read the entire Senate Intel Report, I can assuredly say that Hussein did not actively support any terrorist organization.



100% True- We have the Catholic Terrorists of Ireland (Irish Republican Brotherhood) or the (Supposed) Christian Terrorists of the Ku Klux Klan or The Russian Terrorists of the 19th Century (the Peoples Will) among many many others. Problem is, we are currently focusing on Islamic Extremists because they were the one's who infact attacked us. The are the only group of terrorists that we are currently concerned with, that is the reality.



This is infact one of the premises disproved by the Senate Intel Report:





Perhaps not, but it is the current precedent upon which any valid conclusions can be drawn. It is nearly impossible to suggest that there were any political agenda's at play here because the Senate happens to be majorily Republican.

I realize you will believe what you will, but facts are facts.

[Gigolo Jason]

Update:

Kerry apologized.

It is obvious that it was forced because not 24 hours before he stated that he apologizes to no one.

Kerry's political career is over after this statement. He is no longer on the speech mater’s circuit. He will have a challenger in his next election campaign because of this matter.

He is a Senatorial lame duck from this point forward.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

He is a Senatorial lame duck from this point forward.

As if to say he wasn't one before....:gesture:

[Gigolo Jason]

As if to say he wasn't one before....:gesture:

He wasn't before this.

Before this fiasco, he was a New England Liberal poster boy who was used for campaign fund raising by the DNC.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Nonetheless, we are there and cannot just pull out. Something has got to change.

Then we are in full agreement, atleast with regard to what would amount to leaving the country worse than how we found it. To pull out now would not only do great harm to our credibility and potentially create an even greater problem than we had before but would be a great disservice to our servicemen who have fought and died in this war AS WELL AS the Iraqi people.


I just get a little irritated with the premise that Bush "lied" to get us there when it was supported bi-partisanly (is that a word?) and even by other countries.

I never said, alluded to or even accepted that premise. But ommission of the truth is no excuse. I believe that he would not hear anything other than what would supplement his desire to go to war with Iraq. This is nothing more than opinion so it doesn't warrent rebuttal.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

He wasn't before this.

Before this fiasco, he was a New England Liberal poster boy who was used for campaign fund raising by the DNC.

To CaJuNsOuLjA:

HE WAS A LAME DUCK :gesture:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

omission*

[TxVrod]

No, I didn't mean you, personally.

Then we are in full agreement, atleast with regard to what would amount to leaving the country worse than how we found it. To pull out now would not only do great harm to our credibility and potentially create an even greater problem than we had before but would be a great disservice to our servicemen who have fought and died in this war AS WELL AS the Iraqi people.



I never said, alluded to or even accepted that premise. But ommission of the truth is no excuse. I believe that he would not hear anything other than what would supplement his desire to go to war with Iraq. This is nothing more than opinion so it doesn't warrent rebuttal.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

No, I didn't mean you, personally.

O aight...:icon_thum

[therky42]

http://www.thebuzz.com/cc-common/mlib/1020/11/1020_1162481268.jpg

[Gigolo Jason]

Latest word from John Kerry headquarters:

In a recent statement, a John Kerry spokesman explained that the Senator was FOR the joke, before he was Against it.

[pester]

Nonetheless, we are there and cannot just pull out. Something has got to change.

I just get a little irritated with the premise that Bush "lied" to get us there when it was supported bi-partisanly (is that a word?) and even by other countries.

problem is, other countries in the future will end up like france

they will be unwilling to suport us in any other conflict. that might happen