Let me get this straight

[WilliamPitt]

Almost 3,000 people get killed on September 11, sending a shockwave of horror through the country that still has not dissipated. Bush's strangely high approval ratings are evidence enough of this. Kerry makes a statement saying, basically, "Fuck terrorists." And a bunch of people in this circular-firing-squad of a forum have a problem with this?

How much does a clue cost these days? If they're cheap enough, I'll buy one for all of you.

Sheesh.

[sniffa]

1. i missed the uproar

wha happened? kerry dropped the f-bomb?

[WilliamPitt]

2. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=509208&mesg_id=509208

[havocmom]

8. How can we expect the general population to know the difference

between war on terrorism and al Queda when some DUers seem unable to do is?

Man, Pit, I see your point and feel your pain. Normally stay outta GD04 and missed this ruckus til you posted on in.

Kerry said the terrorists lose, no matter who resides in the WH. Seems to me he is telling the American voters to not let that one issue decide the election. Seems he is telling them we will prevail and he has faith in the US. I did not feel he was endorsing anything shrub and the junta has done.

Basically bright, reasonably well enformed DUers equating the war on terrorism with the Invasion of Iraq!?!?! WTF! Shame on them. They should know better. Man, I am bummed now.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. No I have a problem with him saying the terrorist will lose if Bush wins

when that isn't true. It is stated several times in the thread and pretty obvious to boot.

[bread_and_roses]

53. I second that and

he could back it up...there are plenty of indicators that hatred for US has increased in the Muslim world since Iraq invasion.

[Fenris]

3. I missed the uproar as well

But I have to say 'circular-firing-squad of a forum' might be the best way of describing this place.

Come have a drink in the Lounge, Will! Relax!

:toast:

ON EDIT: After witnessing the asinine nature of that post, I think we should go right to the Jamesons and pass the bottle.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. I'll bring some Macallans!!

:toast: On a more serious note, you have to understand that any site like this is going to bring out your zealots. Logic doesn't run very far with them.

[wryter2000]

5. Pour me some Johnny Walker

Okay, for some good Scotch I'll go read it.

On edit: make it a double.

[Guaranteed]

6. Nope. Way off.

This is the problem:

"By invading Iraq, the President has greatly undermined the war on terror." -Richard Clarke

"No matter who wins the presidential election, the terrorists will lose." -John Kerry

Kerry's name should be attached to that first quote. THAT is the problem. He's conceding the issue to Bush, which is not only a bad campaign strategy, it's a lie.

[sandnsea]

15. In what delusional world???

John Kerry will fight a hell of alot better war on terrorism than George fuckwad Bush. Why shouldn't he say so? He is NOT conceding the issue to Bush at all. He's saying Bush has fucked it up royally on every level, at every turn. Well, that's if people around here really gave a shit and read everything he says and did more than take quotes out of context to further their own political agendas.

[AntiCoup2K4]

16. "Kerry will fight a hell of a better war on terrorism than George fuckwad.

Then why doesn't he say so?

Why doesn't he say BUSH FUCKED UP by going to war with Iraq knowing damn well they had nothing to do with terrorism??

Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill and others have left that door wide open for Kerry and he won't use it.

WHY THE HELL NOT??

[Brotherjohn]

20. He HAS said that. April 18th MTP interview:

(okay, so he didn't use the words "fucked up")

MR. RUSSERT: But the Republicans, Vice President Cheney included, have pointed out to a comment that you made during a Democratic debate which they think undercuts your support of the war on terrorism. "The war on terror is...occasionally military. ... But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: You do not believe the war on terror is primarily a military operation, not a law
enfor...

SEN. KERRY: No...

MR. RUSSERT: You don't.

SEN. KERRY: ...not primarily.

MR. RUSSERT: You don't.

SEN. KERRY: Not primarily.

MR. RUSSERT: You do not.

SEN. KERRY: Not primarily. Tim, Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. America really needs to stop and focus on the truth again. This administration--and we now know it from Bob Woodward's book. I mean, you can go through the series of events in August when the president was at the ranch taking the longest vacation in presidential history. During that time, the president was talking about Iraq more than he was talking about al-Qaeda. Andy Card came back and made an announcement that they didn't introduce a new product in August because that's not what you do in August. They introduced it in September. They came back and started down the Iraq road. They kept looking for a connection. George Tenet kept saying no connection. The intelligence people said no connection.

MR. RUSSERT: This is the war on terror, Senator.

SEN. KERRY: But let me just finish.

MR. RUSSERT: The war on terror is a law enforcement, not military...

SEN. KERRY: No. I said "primarily." And here's why. If you don't know--if you're going to fight an intelligent war on terror, you don't want to fight it here in America. You do want to fight it abroad. You want to fight it where the cells are originating. And in order to know who they are, where they are, what they're planning and be able to go get them before they get us, you need the best intelligence, best law enforcement cooperation in the world. Now, I've always said once you know where they are, will you use the Delta Force or SEALs or Rangers or Special Forces of some kind? Absolutely. And I will not hesitate to use those forces effectively.

In fact, this administration--I was the one who pointed out they failed to use our forces effectively in Afghanistan. We had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora. Rather than deploy the 10th Mountain Division or the 101st Airborne or the Marines, rather than use the best military in the world to go kill the world's number-one terrorist, what did we do? This administration held them back. They sent the Afghans up into the mountains who a week earlier had been on the other side, and they let him escape.

I think that I can fight a far more effective war on terror. I will build alliances and cooperation. I will make America safer. But I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence gathering, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort, and we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight.

[sandnsea]

22. What's that got to do with this statement?

Hmmm? You're as bad as the Bushie's when you mix everything all up together in order to distort what Kerry says.

It's not the best idea to alienate over half the country before they even know who you are. The important thing right this second is to prove that Bush has no plan for Iraq and has screwed it up every step of the way. The important thing right now is to show that Kerry has a plan to fix Iraq. And just because you don't hear CNN tell you so doesn't mean he isn't saying so all the time.

In any event, March 17, 2004:

"We were misled about weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Kerry said, alluding to a principal rationale of the war. "And we were misled in very specific terms about the evidence that we were showed within those briefings to the Congress of the United States. And we are misled now when the costs of Iraq are not even counted in the president's budget."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/politics/campaign/17CND-KERRY.html?ex=1083124800&en=c4c370267b96b5e2&ei=5070

[LandOLincoln]

19. "Bad campaign strategy?"

So duuuude, tell us again how many elections you've stood for and won?

30. as many as

Wesley Clark.

Had to say it.
It's irrelevant how many elections any of us have stood for, won or lost when discussing opinions here.

[LandOLincoln]

32. We weren't discussing Wes Clark, now were we?

BGL--and a number of others--seem to be competing to see who can post the most threads starting with "Kerry HAS TO START (fill in the blank)OR HE'LL LOSE!!!!!!!" (except they usually spell it "loose").

I'm pointing out that John Kerry and his campaign staff probably know a few things about winning elections that these kids don't, and--as my mom used to say--if they'd shut their mouths so they could see over 'em, they might actually learn something.

33. I agree

But where would the fun in that be?

I just mentioned Clark because of the avatar.

[Brotherjohn]

7. Kerry is simply refusing to play politics with our system of democracy.

This runs in stark contrast to conservatives who are already saying: "If Bush loses, the terrorists win."

To me, that makes him come out smelling like roses. I don't see it as an endorsement of Bush policies whatsoever. I see it as him being the obvious (and sole) grownup in the race.

[meegbear]

9. Bingo!

That's exactly what he's doing.

[Brotherjohn]

11. In addition, the original story was a horribly written "news" piece...

...which cast Kerry's statements as "conciliatory" back-pedalling, as statements of a desperate candidate trying to align himself with a popular president, a candidate who has been "rebuffed as someone lacking credentials to lead the nation in trying times".

Well, who did the "rebuffing"? Why, Dick Cheney, of course. BOY, that's some slap-down! Criticized by the opposing candidate as not qualified! Man, Kerry must be on the ropes after that one!! (/SARCASM OFF)

Seriously, this poorly written op-ed piece diguising as a news story was probably responsible in large part for the "controversy" here. It completely mis-portrayed the context in which Kerry made his statements, and it went to great lengths to do so. If it weren't the Times of India, I'd think Ann Coulter wrote it.

10. And

And a bunch of people in this circular-firing-squad of a forum have a problem with this?


and you're joining it, the circular firing squad, shooting off a volley of your own.

[Kadie]

12. Can a war on terror ever be won?

by anybody? I don't think so. There will always be some one or some group wanting to terrorize others.

Can the fight against al Queda be won? Maybe. Can they be dismantled, could be, but it will take a lot of time and effort and military presence. Will this stop terror? No.

So I believe Kerry was giving a message to terrorists, not just the American public. He is saying no matter how hard you try, you will always lose. We are a strong nation and you will never take us down. What is wrong with this opinion?

I think that it is important however, for Kerry to make it very clear how he plans on dealing with terrorism as opposed to how bushie deals with it. Make it perfectly clear to the American people that he, Kerry, is the right man for the job, that his policies and his plans, are the best possible way to "try" to win the war on terror.

[democratreformed]

14. Until I see some sensible strategy stating how, I don't believe it can.

It seems that there will always be some people who do bad things and create terror. The war on crime, after all, has not been "won".

[Nederland]

13. Hatred of Bush

I think its simply that hatred of Bush has pushed people to the point where they can't think straight. I honestly believe that if Bush stood up at a press conference and said the 2 + 2 = 4 a bunch of people here would immediately set out to demonstrate why he was wrong.

Its sad really, because it may cost us the election. We have to realize that you can't win an election against a guy with reasonably high approval ratings (and high 30's low 40s is reasonably high...) by claiming that he is totally wrong on everything. The undecided voters simply won't buy it. We have to give those people someone to vote for, not merely someone to vote against.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

31. "Proven warrior"

...this language makes me very uncomfortable.

Not much different from republicans when we use it.

The Israelis are proven warriors, they haven't seemed to be able to win the war on "terror."

[ulysses]

26. doesn't mean we can't vent.

Bush isn't even *fighting* any kind of "war on terrorism", much less will he win it.

[VelmaD]

17. If you can wait til Friday...

I get paid and can make a contribution to the "Buy Your Fellow DUers a Clue" Fund. :-)

[liarliartieonfire]

21. KUDOS to you Mr. Pitt

Thank You for speaking out.
Appreciated.

Why are we questioning John Kerry??? It is George Bush who should be called on constantly for what he's done to America.
Bush should be questioned constantly until he's gone from our White House in Nov. 04.
I'll keep the faith with Senator Kerry and demand accountability from the Bush Factor.
Thank You

------------------
Mr. Pitt. I have recently sent you an email regarding my theory as to why American jobs ended up outside the borders of the USA. Could you give some input, advice, opinion on this theory?
Here is the DU Forum link:
Thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x510297

[info being]

23. Who has a problem with this?

Are you sure you're referring to actual people...or are you responding to "spin" somewhere?

[mitchum]

24. Those who "have issues" with Kerry are gonna piss and moan...

about any statement he issues. "But why didn't he...?"
I don't think he is perfect, but they seem to think he is nothing but imperfect. Oh well...

[boxster]

25. If I see another "why doesn't Kerry do this" post, I'm going to

SCREAM. :mad:

Then there are the "Kerry only gets my vote if he meets these six thousand, egotistical, self-centered points I spent eight hours typing out" posts.

Ack. Enough, people. Do you want to win this election or not??!?

Mr. Pitt, I've come to the conclusion that there is still a huge contingent of bitter, angry supporters of other candidates that are STILL more interested in their candidates than they are in winning this election. Not to mention more than a small few who are looking to undermine Mr. Kerry.

They take every opportunity to jump on the "why did Kerry do that" or "why doesn't Kerry do this" bandwagon for every miniscule thing that hits the news or the Drudge Report. Don't bother us with facts. We just want to rant. Kerry could call literally call Bush a "fucking liar" and they'd still bitch that he's not "standing up to Bush".

GD2004 seems to have boiled down to this:

"Why doesn't he fight back?"

He does. Why don't you pay attention?

Besides, do you think it's wise to respond to every single negative word everyone says, six months before an election? Because of the deluge of information, it is necessary to pick and choose the battles one needs to wage.

"Why doesn't he say Bush fucked up?"

Uh, he did. In almost those exact words. "Did I expect him to fuck it up this badly?" Hmm, sounds pretty direct to me.

"Oh, woe is me. I wish my candidate was still in the race. I supported him/her because I KNEW this is exactly what Kerry would do."

Well, he/she is not in the race because they lost to Kerry MONTHS ago, so get the fuck over it and let's get Bush out of the White House.

No matter what Kerry does, it will never be good enough for a whole lot of DUers. And, that's too bad, because I think he's going to need all the help he can get to toss Bush out on his rich, stupid ass.

Will - sorry to rant in your rant, but I decided to save bandwidth and bitch in your thread rather than start my own. ;-)

[boxster]

27. Someone did a much better job of making my point than I did....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1476413

[Borgnine]

28. Damn straight.

I think some people here would seemingly rather vote for Bush than Kerry.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demobrat]

34. So when Kerry says Iraq is part of the war on terror

it's true, but when W says it it's a lie. OK. Got it.

[WilliamPitt]

35. Find me where Kerry said Iraq is part of the terror war

He has, in fact, said the exact opposite several times.

[ozone_man]

38. He voted for the war.

Actions speak louder than words.

If he was truthful, he would have stated back in 2002 that Iraq was not responsible for 911 and that there was no link to Al Queda. Dean made it safe to even talk about this. Kerry is spineless, but I have come to expect that from him by now.

[mitchum]

39. Actually, Kucinich made "it safe to even talk about this"

Strange that Dean is now supporting such a "spineless" candidate like Kerry

[Demobrat]

44. Not so strange.

If he doesn't he'll be blamed for the coming Kerry debacle. No point in being Naderized when he doesn't have to.

[mitchum]

47. "Resentment is like taking poison and hoping that the other...

guy dies" is an aphorism you will hear quite often once someone forms a 12 step program for you people.
Dean supports Kerry, pity that you can't

[Demobrat]

55. You people?

Heh. Way to win votes and influence people, guy.

[sangh0]

56. Please, spare us the BS advice

which even youcan't believe. Dean, who you support, supports Kerry on this. If Dean, who has made an explicit plea to his supporters to support Kerry on this issue, can't persuade you, then treating you with kid gloves isn't going to work either.

[mitchum]

57. Christ! YOU have said time and time again...

that you would not give John Kerry your vote. So, why should I bother trying to persuade you? Besides, I'M not the one who is a marketing shill...

[ulysses]

36. the statement wasn't "fuck terrorists".

Kerry's statement, unless it's being wildly misreported on DU, gives undeserved credence to a war on terror that Bush isn't fighting, much less winning.

[G_j]

50. thank you

that is a far more accurate take on the quote that was being discussed.
And as you say, unless it's being wildly misreported on DU, many people had a very similar impression and I seriously doubt that we are all clueless. Some people say it was taken out of context, maybe so. Still he should then try to be more careful with his 'sound bytes' because on its face the statement seemed to imply that Bush's version of the "war on terror" is legitimate. The fact is Bush is creating an environment where the line between moderates and radicals in the ME is becoming blurred because of hatred for America. Bush's "war on terrorism' is horrible, terrible, dangerous, foolish, stupid, irresponsible..like pouring gasoline on a fire.
That is what Kerry should be saying clearly because it is the truth.

[KoKo]

37. "Circular Firing Squad of a Forum?" I think some noted columnists have

had problems with some of Kerry's statements supporting Bush. Liberal Columnists not the Broder types or the Wash. Standard folks.

Your post is misleading. If Kerry said "Fuck Terrorists" I would have been really upset, but he didn't. So why did you post it that way to get folks upset.

"Circular Firing Squad" is not what I see here. And, I'm here alot more than you are I assume. One might say I'm a "DU Groupie." :D

Why do this post? :shrug:

[corporatewhore]

40. will didnt you used to work for a guy who said young people deserve

a world w/o end not a war w/o end (war on terra)

[Nazgul35]

41. Why start a separate thread?

The other thread link offered isn't that long.....why not comment on this there?

:shrug:

How much does a clue cost these days? If they're cheap enough, I'll buy one for all of you.

This requires another thread?

I think what some people are saying is that Kerry needs to emphasize the fact that every decision this administration has made has been wrong and disastrous for this country...

How you go from that obvious fact to Bush somehow doing a good job is a leap for me...

I suggest that people stop treating the American public like morons and appeal to their capacity for making the right decisions when given all the facts...

If you don't want to take the time to make the case, at least admit it....

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zulchzulu]

42. Blammo!

Perhaps we need a poll about what Kerry should say about the "terrorists":

A. Terrorists probably had a bad upbringing and need to spend time in the US to learn about our culture and maybe get into the Grateful Dead.

B. Terrorists most certainly are angry because white males who go to church and screw infidel chicks run this evil country.

C. Terrorists are actually very dedicated to their cause and need to be appreciated for their concentration and commitment to their final goals.

D. Terrorists would like us more if we let them stay at our houses and maybe learn how to cook meat loaf and potatoes.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. The problem is that many here believe in LIHOP or MIHOP

And that Bush is just as bad as Osama Bin Laden. I don't disagree with these views but unfortunately we can't sell them to the American public.

[Classical_Liberal]

49. I don't believe in LIHOP or MIHOP and I posted that thread

What's more I am completely proud of it and I don't take one thing back. I have an honest disagreement with the foreign policy statements Kerry has made, because many actually agree with disasterous Bush policies, and if it just campaign strategy to make it look that way I have a disagreement with that strategy. Bush's foreign policy sucks, will lead to more terrorism, and Kerry should have the common sense to say so.

[Guaranteed]

51. We're right, here, Classical.

Some folks just refuse to see what Kerry is doing wrong.

We're not "far leftists," in any sense. We're just sick of our party's nutlessness.

Folks just did NOT learn anything from 2002. Well, wake the hell UP! Bush has to be attacked, attacked, attacked! We can not give him one fucking inch. If we legitimize his administration, as the incumbent, he will WIN. PERIOD.

So cut it the fuck out! Goddamn.

[no name no slogan]

52. "nutlessness"-- how TRUE!

People TRULY want an alternative to Shrub. Unfortunately Kerry's foriegn policy positions are not too far off from those espoused by the Shrub administration on several major issues (Venezuela, the "drug war", Isreal/Palestine, and the "war on terra").

Why should we continue to pursue a morally bankrupt foreign policy agenda that has made us one of the most feared and hated nations in the world? Why does our nation insist on having an empire? Why must the entire world be remade in OUR image?

Dammit, Dems, GROW SOME COJONES, PLEASE! Don't buy into the BushCo-inspired Agenda of Fear! STAND THE FUCK UP ALREADY!

[GOPBasher]

48. I agree.

It's important to look like we are not trying to play politics with terrorism.

[RetroLounge]

54. Tainted Love

.