May 31 2008

John Kerry Takes Liberal Denial To New Heights

John Kerry is the classic liberal in denial about Iraq. All of a sudden, with both war fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq going well, the liberal denials and finger pointing at the right are coming fast, furious and ludicrous. Kerry muttered what has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life regarding 9-11 (and I have read a lot of dumb things coming from the leftward fever swamps):

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) believes that on September 11 “we were basically at peace.”

Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, “well, we hadn’t declared war,” The Hill’s Sam Youngman reports.

Asked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, “well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time.”

Kerry also called John McCain “out of step with history and facts.”

Emphasis mine. What a liberal clown. The entire purpose of the comment is to show Bush and the GOP as warmongers (clearly the latest rounds of talking points given what the liberal posters here have said, what Nancy Pelosi coughed up about Iran being the force for good in Iraq, etc).

No Johnny-boy, America had not yet declared war even though al-Qaeda had openly during Clinton’s terms. And that declaration made a lot of sense given the attacks on the US during Clinton’s term (like the first WTC bombing, the bombing of two of our embassies, the bombing of the USS Cole). Clinton tried to pretend to America there was no threat, there was no war with Islamo Fascists. He had his lawyers out trying to use legal actions against Bin Laden and his gang because he did not want to give the impression there was a clear and present danger. He hesitated to use military force when any people were around (sending cruise missiles to hit empty aspirin factory, empty training camp, etc). He followed the liberal path to defense, take the hit and hope they don’t hit again.

Kerry is trying to do what the left must do right now, but won’t be able to pull off without snickers galore. They must claim there was no reason to go to war in the first place, because now that we are winning the wars that is the last bastion of power mad cowards who must try and steal credit from President Bush. Kerry said what liberals think perfectly, and it would be rolling-on-the-ground hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous naive. The liberals were always going to be the first to fold and run in a long fight. They did, they folded two years after 9-11 while the bombings were still going off in Europe and elsewhere, while massive plots to destroy 12 planes full of people over the US were being executed. All this time they have been trying to surrender to al-Qaeda – and failed.

The only ones who have been defeated are the liberals and the Islamo Fascists. Which is good for America all around, as I see it.

The Democrats have a well earned and proven deficiency on National Defense. They deserve every derisive comment about their willingness and ability to protect the people of this country. Going this deep into denial, because they went so deep into predicting an American defeat, is dangerous. As far as Kerry is concerned all was well on 9-11 – until 3,000 people died of course.

22 responses so far

22 Responses to “John Kerry Takes Liberal Denial To New Heights”

  1. VA Voter says:

    Aren’t the Liberal Deniers one and the same people that castigated Bush in 2001 for allowing the 911 attack by his singular failure to “connect-the-dots”.

    Their point being that al-Qaeda was so obviously hell bent on attacking America (waring on America!) that any idiot could/should have seen it coming.

  2. Frogg says:

    It looks like liberals want to take us back to the days where we “didn’t connect the dots”. It’s like a recurring nightmare.

  3. VinceP1974 says:

    They want a repeat of Afghanistan of the 1990s.. only this time in Iraq.

  4. lurker9876 says:

    Unfortunately, the odds are high that the democrats will get a filibuster-free majority in the Senate. Shall we wait and see what the democrats say, “Hey, we are now connecting the dots because Bush failed to connect the dots!”, “Hey, we’re winning the war that Bush failed to win!”, and so on!

    How many of us understand these games played by the democrats?

    But if they win the stronger majority, they will last one term.

    Wait…go back and find out what quotes John Kerry made before the Iraqi invasion!

  5. ivehadit says:

    Apparently everything is OK with the elitists…as long as they are not the ones getting bombed, gased, chemically attacked. Let the peons eat cake, yellow-cake that is.

  6. Frogg says:

    “Iraq, long written off as an unsalvageable disaster, is being officially recognized for its “remarkable” progress. And by whom? The UN and other world leaders whose respect we had supposedly squandered. The only people who need convincing that Iraq has seen extraordinary political progress are the Democrats who’ve hitched themselves to the anti-Bush bandwagon. If a Democrat makes it into the White House and is still so interested in world opinion, he or she may have to finally acknowledge that Iraq has changed.

  7. gwood says:

    The anti-war left seems to believe it can say what it wants, and the supplicant media will help them make it so in the minds of the sheeple. They now have no other recourse, as reason and events have placed them in a box.

    “Well, you won the war but it shouldn’t have been fought to begin with”, is capitulation, pure and simple, not to mention an indefensible position, now that twenty-six million have been freed from the boot heel of a murderous thug.

  8. robert verdi says:

    the sailors of the uss cole might disgree.

  9. norm says:

    just more of your lies and mis-representations. in the summer of ’98 clinton bombed al qaeda targets in the sudan and afghanistan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in kenya and tanzania. but the house led by republicans was more interested in blow jobs than security. the lust for impeachment blood by the so-called “right” more than likely hindered further action. both the republicans and the press were complicit. dan coats r-ind. “…while there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action…”
    mccain…who now wants to bomb iran…noted that clinton was “distracted”.
    trent lott…”both the timing and the motive are subject to question…”
    now after a 20% troop escalation, 5-1/2 years, 4000 dead troops, over 30,000 other american casualties, and three trillion in deficit spending, some semblence of security has been provided to a a country we didn’t need to invade or occupy. the political reconciliation that the escalation was intended to provide an opportunity for is still a wet dream. iraq is a closer ally of iran than the us, which has emboldened iran, as it’s other allies hamas and hezzbollah. isreal, the protection of which was one of the primary reasons for this neo-con f-up, is less safe. al queda seems to be doing themselves more harm than good, but it’s arguable whether that is due to us or in spite of us. judging by protests in basr the us and al queda seem to have about the same standing. certainly the picture in pakistan is much better since bush’s policies went out the door with the leadership it was propping up. yup…that all looks like a stunning victory to me. seriously…i don’t think that word means what you think it means.

  10. AJStrata says:


    I listed those attacks in the post silly person.

  11. norm says:

    who exactly said; “…well, you won the war but it shouldn’t have been fought to begin with…”?
    or is that just another extreme far right fringe fantasy?

  12. norm says:

    and you also mis-represent and mis-charachterised them. you claimed “…he did not want to give the impression there was a clear and present danger…” when it was the right who was ignoring the danger…and they ignored it right thru the first 9 months of bush’s presidency, when they suddenly realized they could use fear for their own political and idealogical ends. you are still scared judging by the way you were duped by the gaming image. nice rationaliztion for that blunder by-the-way.

  13. […] TBogg wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAsked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, “well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time.” Kerry also called John McCain “out of … Read the rest of this great post here […]

  14. VinceP1974 says:

    norm: you’re so incoherent.

    So when Bush gets into his office and his team starts to work on redefining what US Policy towards terrorism should be that is ignoring the danger.

    But doing nothing for 8 years by Clinton is not.

    ugh.. i hate reading anything these idiots type. I dont know why I bother trying to get to the logic of what he is saying when we all knowt hat EVERYTHING they say essential boils down to “I HATE AMERICA , REPUBLICANS AND GOD”

  15. Dc says:

    norm, Bush had not been in office for 9 months. There was no effective president while the “count every vote” campaign was going on in FL (sort of like now…only in reverse with DNC arguing the opposite conclusion). Beyond that, 9/11 attacks had been planned and put in motion 2 years before. Why didn’t Clinton “connect the dots”??

    Lord help the next POTUS if it’s a democrat…they’ll have to be held responsible for their own intel, and then tried for treason for using it, connect their own dots, double check the CIA findings and be investigated for lieing for which ever side of those conclusions he goes with…then impeached for having his own office investigate the intelligence. Further, any political influence in their office will be impeachable offense…and the fact that congress doesn’t impeach him will be a crime. A criminal president.

    Clinton surely could NOT have launched missiles without UN authority. That would be a war crime! And why would he have been launching them against AlQueda and Iraq if Saddam was fullly contained and there were no such issues ….until Bush got into office and put him on the radar for trying to hurt his daddy??

  16. gwood says:

    who exactly said; “…well, you won the war but it shouldn’t have been fought to begin with…”?
    or is that just another extreme far right fringe fantasy?

    That would be….you, Norm, in your post above you say: “some semblence of security has been provided to a a country we didn’t need to invade or occupy.” (sic)

    Perhaps “some semblance of security” is a minor concession on your part, but you’re coming around.

  17. norm says:

    obviously you have a problem with reading comprehension. some semblence of security is a far cry from winning a war. some semblence of security is about 5 years late. some semblence of security in a country that has become allied with iran is a far cry from winning a war. some semblance of security, based upon the civilian leadership’s own stated goals is not “winning”. no one would be happier to see iraq stabilized and our troops the hell out of a place we never should have gone. but if that happens tomorrow we are still losing. UPSIDE- saddam is gone. DOWNSIDE – iran is stronger. it’s allies hamas and hezzbollah are stronger. israel is less safe. al queda is still a “serious threat” according to even the most optimistic spin-meisters. we have lost more than 4000 troops, wounded and maimed 35,000 more, and borrowed over three trillion dollars. you call that winning? that’s the problem with hyper-partisans on extremist fringe sites like this…you see the world as a game of checkers…black/white – good/evil – but it’s really chess in at least four dimensions…and you all are unable to see a bunch of the dimensions because you are so invested in “winning”.

  18. VinceP1974 says:

    yeah norm.. all you America-haters are chess players.. mm hmm

    That’s why none of you ever offer a vision about what to do next.

  19. norm says:

    dc…bush took office on the regular schedule…jan. 20th, 2001. 9 months later planes were driven into the wtc on his watch. i know all of you hyper-partisans love to find excuses and blame it all on the clintons. and i’m not saying the clintons were blamless, any more than 41 or reagan are. but the facts are the facts. it’s like vince claiming bush was re-defining us policy. i guess that’s what clearing brush is called in your cult. even rice has admited they were not on a war-footing. but vince knows more.