Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
I look at legacy, US prestige, what the next guy will 'inherit.' Right now I feel for the next guy.
Or woman........or at least a close facsimilie of one
![1370998912_4539_hillary_clinton.jpg](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2-b.examiner.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fimage_content_width%2Fhash%2F10%2Fec%2F1370998912_4539_hillary_clinton.jpg%3Fitok%3DB9Pa9XqF&hash=9c36a1e5bce65c17e7bb68cb412a903b)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I look at legacy, US prestige, what the next guy will 'inherit.' Right now I feel for the next guy.
Wow.Obama is a post turtle. His foreign policy, ineffectual at the best of times, is now flailing around like a chicken with it's head cut off. Obama doesn't know what to do or say.
He seems to have done a great job of backing Pukin into a corner to the point that Pukin has offered up Syria's chemical weapons. Funny how that has come about. I suppose you believe Pukin is doing this out of the goodness of his heart? Wake up.
Bush's mishandling of the Iraq War lost him his GOP congress in 2006, right in the middle of the war.
That's real humiliation, and he deserved every bit of it.
whoa---We're in the WAYBACK machine again Mr. Peabody !
Bet your ass it was a win
Obama won, Putin won, Assad won
Republicans lost
Why is Putin winning a good thing? Why is Assad winning a good thing? Is it because more mass murderers and despots should win to prop up the democratic party?
Did I say good thing or a win?
The only loss was by the Republicans
I look at legacy, US prestige, what the next guy will 'inherit.' Right now I feel for the next guy.
Or woman........or at least a close facsimilie of one
![]()
ah.The point is to quote Kerry (or anyone else, for that matter) correctly, and not twist someone's words in such a way as to give the impression they were saying something entirely different than what they clearly meant.
Are you saying he meant it rhetorically?![]()
If you don't know what I'm saying, you should go back to school. Kerry actually made a pretty good point which conservatives are either too ignorant or too obtuse to understand.
For one thing, it was (and continues to be) a mistake to think others should perceive American soldiers as Americans think of John Wayne, like some hero who's the embodiment of everything that is noble and good. Anyone who latches on to that notion is delusional. To that end, noting that our troops were conducting late night raids into family homes in the dead of night should have given US some insight into how we were perceived as the antithesis of how we perceive ourselves.
Yet, instead of acknowledging such, conservatives wanted to turn the statement into the complete opposite of what Kerry meant, thereby guaranteeing that we won't be able to fix what we can't even acknowledge is a flaw in our thinking.
I look at legacy, US prestige, what the next guy will 'inherit.' Right now I feel for the next guy.
Or woman........or at least a close facsimilie of one
![]()
You mean Hillary is an old woman?
reason for republicans to celebrate
Or woman........or at least a close facsimilie of one
![]()
You mean Hillary is an old woman?
reason for republicans to celebrate
Uhmmm.... was that supposed to make some sort of sense?
Get the quotes and the context right, and we can talk. Kerry didn't call the troops terrorists. Here's what he said:
"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."
When our soldiers, armed with automatic weapons, bust into a home late at night in a country at war with god knows how many different armed groups running around engaging in indiscriminate killing, you can damn well be sure that those people felt terrorized.
So, someone who terrorizes isn't a terrorist?
![]()
The point is to quote Kerry (or anyone else, for that matter) correctly, and not twist someone's words in such a way as to give the impression they were saying something entirely different than what they clearly meant.
So, someone who terrorizes isn't a terrorist?
![]()
The point is to quote Kerry (or anyone else, for that matter) correctly, and not twist someone's words in such a way as to give the impression they were saying something entirely different than what they clearly meant.
There were no quote marks, Skippy. He said the Ameican troops terrorized Iraqi women and children.
His quote accurately portrayed his attitude towards American troops, just like the other examples which you ignored so you could try to deflect by word parsing and nit picking. Sir, you have a distinction without a difference.
Obama is a post turtle. His foreign policy, ineffectual at the best of times, is now flailing around like a chicken with it's head cut off. Obama doesn't know what to do or say.
He seems to have done a great job of backing Pukin into a corner to the point that Pukin has offered up Syria's chemical weapons. Funny how that has come about. I suppose you believe Pukin is doing this out of the goodness of his heart? Wake up.
He spoke about American troops going into Iraqi homes in the middle of the night and the effect it had on the families
If you don't want to use the term terror to describe it, what term would you use? Treat us as liberators?
In context (which conservatives hate) he was advocating that Iraqi troops do this mission not Americans
Obama is a post turtle. His foreign policy, ineffectual at the best of times, is now flailing around like a chicken with it's head cut off. Obama doesn't know what to do or say.
He seems to have done a great job of backing Pukin into a corner to the point that Pukin has offered up Syria's chemical weapons. Funny how that has come about. I suppose you believe Pukin is doing this out of the goodness of his heart? Wake up.
WTF?
obama backed Putin into a corner? You're insane! This debacle makes Kerry look like an idiot and obama weaker than usual.
He spoke about American troops going into Iraqi homes in the middle of the night and the effect it had on the families
If you don't want to use the term terror to describe it, what term would you use? Treat us as liberators?
In context (which conservatives hate) he was advocating that Iraqi troops do this mission not Americans
Still deflecting, my point was his attitude towards American troops.
As for your duh, you don't remember I'm against all the middle east wars, whatever, Homey. If not getting it and having no memory floats your boat, so be it.
He spoke about American troops going into Iraqi homes in the middle of the night and the effect it had on the families
If you don't want to use the term terror to describe it, what term would you use? Treat us as liberators?
In context (which conservatives hate) he was advocating that Iraqi troops do this mission not Americans
Still deflecting, my point was his attitude towards American troops.
As for your duh, you don't remember I'm against all the middle east wars, whatever, Homey. If not getting it and having no memory floats your boat, so be it.
You didn't answer the question
If the families did not experience terror from foreign soldiers invading their homes in the middle of the night, what term would you use to describe it?
Kerrys "attitude" towards American troops was that Iraqi troops should do those raids
Still deflecting, my point was his attitude towards American troops.
As for your duh, you don't remember I'm against all the middle east wars, whatever, Homey. If not getting it and having no memory floats your boat, so be it.
You didn't answer the question
If the families did not experience terror from foreign soldiers invading their homes in the middle of the night, what term would you use to describe it?
Kerrys "attitude" towards American troops was that Iraqi troops should do those raids
You're begging the question, I want to know what women and children our troops terrorized in the night that Kerry is referring to. How can I answer the question without knowing who they terrorized or what the circumstances were?
As for his attitude towards the troops, I was referring to all my other examples, not just this one.
You didn't answer the question
If the families did not experience terror from foreign soldiers invading their homes in the middle of the night, what term would you use to describe it?
Kerrys "attitude" towards American troops was that Iraqi troops should do those raids
You're begging the question, I want to know what women and children our troops terrorized in the night that Kerry is referring to. How can I answer the question without knowing who they terrorized or what the circumstances were?
As for his attitude towards the troops, I was referring to all my other examples, not just this one.
Abdul and Chakka Khan and their children Mohammad, Little Abdul and Lefty
They live at:
1313 Mockingbird Lane
Kabul