« So.... | Main | The arrogance of the left »

Kerry, Kennedy and a slow bus to treason

The deadly duo of Kerry and Kennedy are doing a great job of aiding and abetting giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies. They both, in recent days, blathered on and on about Iraq becoming another Vietnam. Looks like someone was listening. bq. 'I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army, to help them in the transfer of power to honest Iraqis,'' al-Sadr said in a statement issued by his office in the southern city of Najaf. ''Otherwise, Iraq will be another Vietnam for America and the occupiers,'' the statement said. Emphasis mine. I should have put it in Drudge-sized font, too. I heard an interesting soundbite from Kerry on the radio today. He said that silly unilateral word, and then he went on to say that even though there is an international coalition in Iraq, it doesn't count because those countries didn't send enough troops or chip in enough money. How nice of Kerry to insult the troops of Poland, Italy, Britian, Australia, et al like that. Kerry and Kennedy are about one idiotic statement away from sleeping with al-Sadr. Their words are reckless and irresponsble. While Kerry is on his whirlwind Quagmire-palooza tour and Kennedy is acting as his PR guy, we've got soldiers in a fierce fight in Iraq and the war of Islam vs. the rest of the world is raging on. The man who would be president is spending his days parading around the country talking about ending the occupation of Iraq, bringing the troops home, quagmirequagmirequagmire. Every single thing he has said in the past 48 hours has been deeply negative. Yea, this is an election year. The guy is running for president, I know. So he can talk about the war, and talk about the situation, but he better be careful just how he words his phrases because the enemy is listening and they are applauding. Not only that, our soldiers are listening, too. I bet none of them are applauding. This war did not begin in Iraq. It did not even begin on 9/11, though that was a huge escalation in the battle. It started many years ago and it's just now that proverbial waking giant. 9/11 wasn't about America. The revenge of the Sunnis is not about America. It's about Islam. It's about Jews. It's about time you realized this. [insert comment about broken record here]

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kerry, Kennedy and a slow bus to treason:

» Treason from Inoperable Terran
al Sadr is taking aid and comfort directly from John Effin' Kerry and Ted "180 Proof" Kennedy. Meanwhile, we have two versions of what's going on in Iraq: some press leftie's wet dream, and Zeyad's, who lives in Iraq and... [Read More]

» Kennedy and Al-Sadr Agree On VietnamComparison from Daily Newsbrief
Senator Ted Kennedy and the good cleric al-Sadr share some opinions. Kennedy said in a speech, "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam". Al-Sadr said in a statement, "Iraq will be another Vietnam for America ". Do Kennedy and al-Sadr have the... [Read More]

Comments

Maybe Kerry needs to go visit the troops - just to make sure we should pull out. They could take him on a walking tour of Falluja.

Or maybe Bush could.. After all Mission Accomplised

You know, I think Bush is missing a real opportunity here. It's time to take the gloves off. This is what I'd like to hear in response to Terrible Ted's comments:

Not only is this not our Vietnam, it's also not our Chappquidick. We won't leave our friends to die. We will do the right thing. We won't run away.

exiting soapbox...

Sadr got the Vietnam analogy idea from Kerry?

Lay off the Kool-aid.

Michele,

Go see Kleiman about this:

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/lying_in_politics_/2004/04/slime_and_defend_kennedys_vietnam_comparison.php

Baselessly accusing people of treason is below you. You need to keep that knee from jerking so easily.

(Also, what zwichenzug said.)

I didn't say they committed treason. I said they are on a slow boat to treason.

Not quite there.

I knew it. Kerry rode the body bags of dead American soldiers in Vietnam into the senate and now Al Sadr is helping him ride the body bags of dead American soldiers into the White House. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Sadr, the man who's been killing American soldiers by the dozen the past few day.

Heard Kerry quoted on Limbaugh today - I doubt I will hear it on CNN. When answering a question about the attacks from al-Sadr, Kerry responded with "you know, when we uh, when we shut down, a legitimate voice (Sadr's newsletters)..well, not legitimate, but a voice..." (now someone has got to be jabbing him in the ribs..)

and then "so he's aligned with Hamas and Hezbollah now, which is sort of a terrorist alignment"...

how exactly are we supposed to take him seriously on the defense of the nation, the defense of our forces in Iraq, and completing the work to be done? He's worrying about this guy's newsrag, and then his "sorta" alignment with some kinda terrorists?

Please keep in mind, he says we're gonna stay and finish the job. We're gonna fight. We're gonna defend our troops. Not cut and run, like so many war-haters wish he would say (shoulda stuck with Dean).

Michele's right. Kennedy and Kerry are losing it. Kennedy is trying to whip up the base, but man, the message is so muddled. "We're for it, just not this way! We need the rest of the world (France)".

If you support the war, you couldn't agree with these guys. If you hate the war, you couldn't agree either, unless you think they're lying.

Oh, right. Big difference. Not quite there yet. How did I know this would be your out?

They're "doing a great job of aiding and abetting our enemies," right? Then they're treasonous, aren't they? If you think they're giving aid and comfort to the enemy, say it: have the courage of your convictions, accuse them of treason and get it over with. Don't try and call them traitors without, you know, technically calling them traitors.

(On the other hand, you could try reading Kleiman, or try actually reading Kennedy's entire speech rather than soundbites. You could then engage Kleiman's arguments on the merits.

NAH.)

These guys, the Ted and John show (why doesn't he just call himself Jack and get it over with?), wouldn't be saying this stuff unless a lot of people agreed with it. That's the part that bothers me. We still have no real idea how many U.S. citizens believe the same way. Opinion polls are way too easy to slant by artfully selecting the wording of the questions. The only poll that counts is the one in November.

A vote for Kerry is a vote to end U.S. participation in the war. The war, however, will certainly continue without us.

Bonk, I read your comment and got the link about two minutes ago. Give me a chance to read the thing.

Jesus.

Maybe Michelle won't do it, but I will. Kerry has let our enemies know that if he's elected, their troubles are over. As long as they can block us in the UN, they've got free reign (thanks Jacques). Assisting our enemies and devolving our sovereignty counts as treasonous in my book.

Fair enough. My bad - what really annoyed me was the predictable "I didn't say it was treason, I said it was 'on a slow bus to treason'" hedge. I was unclear.

I think the point of all this is that even if you disagree with Kennedy on the substance of his remarks (I disagree with some of it), the idea that his remarks constitute treason is laughable. I'd respectfully suggest you make sure something like this is in context, and is what it's represented to be, before tossing treason accusations around. What happened to the "the far left, not the liberals" differentiation of a few weeks ago?

From the Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Treason: A breach of allegiance to one's government through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. (Insert a bunch of legal citations here)"

(sorry for resorting to a dictionary)

So, according to the legal definiton of treason, Michele is right about the "slow boat" business. The hedge is in how you define "aiding and comforting the enemy." Kerry's doing himself no favors by banging the Vietnam drum and Ted Kennedy's just too deluded to know better.

For someone who's so hot to remind people that American corporations are "Benedict Arnolds" for outsourcing jobs, Kerry just might want to watch what comparisons he draws in that department.

Perhaps someone can point it out to me: where, exactly, has Kerry proposed bringing the troops home before their work was done? Last I heard, Kerry wanted to add 40,000 additional troops to the armed forces in order to better finish the job in Iraq, and today he criticized Bush for wanting to bring the troops home too early.

Also, totally unrelated to Farmer Joe's comment: what's the equivalent term for "moonbat" as it applies to folks on the right?

Aiding and abetting the enemy? Hardly. They're expressing a view at odds with yours and that is it. You may debate the merits of their view (and there are weaknesses in it indeed) but to suggest that they're somehow "against America" because they don't agree with you or the Administration, which is what a charge like that is, is over the top IMO.

bonk, that would be Freeper.

Bonk: Iraq is not the only front in this war. If you listen to what Kerry is saying, the jihadis would have to feel safe that if he gets elected, their bases in Syria, for example, are in no danger. Kerry may be in favor of keeping troops in Iraq, but he's said in no uncertain terms that he wants UN approval for anything else.

Jane: There's a difference between "giving aid and comfort" and "aiding and abetting". If I were a jihadi, I'd certainly find Kerry's position comforting.

The US Constitution has a very specific definition of treason. To wit:

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Let's all be carefull what we say cause, cause, ya know treason and shit..uh? Ok ok everything is cool.
We're winning the war. Praise Bush!

(1) Where did Kerry blather on and on about another Vietnam? I mean, even the Kennedy thing was taken completely out of context, something Instapundit even acknowledges.

(2) If Kerry's on a Quagmire-palooza, has he used the word quagmire? Has he suggested we abandon Iraq?

(3) One degree of separation from sleeping with a radical Muslim cleric? What would that one statement be?

(4) Were Biden and Lugar aiding and abetting the enemy when they suggested over the weekend that we needed more troops?

Mad Lady Killer Eddie Kennedy supporting our enemies and giving them aid and comfort... Check it out moonbats... see what is on the AP wire?

Al-Sadr said Iraq will become "another Vietnam" for the United States unless it transfers power to Iraqis who are not connected with the U.S.-led occupation authority.

"I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army, to help them in the transfer of power to honest Iraqis," al-Sadr said in a statement from his office in the southern city of Najaf. "Otherwise, Iraq will be another Vietnam for America and the occupiers."

So, Bruce, al-Sadr hadn't heard of Vietnam until Kennedy spoke, like he reads Instapundit and was all like "what is this 'Vietnam' of which the infidel speaks?" And no one other than Kennedy has made a comparison to Vietnam? And both Kennedy and al-Sadr meant the comparison in the same sense?

Keep dreaming, goonbat.

Bonk, where have you been? I've heard Vietnam references from the mainstream press since we started offensive ground operations a year ago. All Ted did was crank up the volume.

Dave in Texas--
Re Kerry and his "sorta" comments.
Cheap shot, Dave.
Because, A of all, I think we both know that if I wanted to spend my time looking up Bush stupidquotes, I'd have a much broader and deeper vein to mine.
So why don't I?
Because, B, I know it doesn't prove a fucking thing except that, if you keep asking people questions in front of cameras long enough, everybody will come off sounding like an idiot eventually.
So how 'bout you not go throwing stones from your Bush house, and we won't waste each other's time looking for occasions when our candidates made assholes out of themselves on national network news. Hm? How would that be?

kleinman is full of it.

The problem with moonbots like bots is their willing mixture of partial truths and outright lies.

Instapundit does not agree with you. he in fact disagrees:

his take:

"I read the speech, and I disagree. When Ted Kennedy puts the words "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam" on the first page of a speech delivered with lots of press around, he knows -- or should know -- that the story coming out of that speech will be, well, just what it was (follow this Google News link to see that it's playing exactly that way). Which is why Colin Powell is criticizing him.

Kennedy's been around Washington too long not to know that no matter what else you say, if you put the words "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam" in a speech that'll be the take-away point for the press, and, in reading the speech, I don't think that the reporting is unfair. You can read it yourself and see what you think -- but if Kennedy didn't mean for his words to have these consequences, then, well, he's lost it. I also note that if Kennedy thinks that his remarks have been misunderstood by, well, pretty much everyone who reported on them, there's been plenty of time for him to point that out. I can't find any sign of that, and there's nothing on his website"

but don't let the facts slam you in the butt on the way out.

I mean, even the Kennedy thing was taken completely out of context, something Instapundit even acknowledges.

Liar:

"Gary Farber emails that I'm misinterpreting Kennedy's speech, and that if you read the whole thing in context, Kennedy doesn't look as bad.

I read the speech, and I disagree. When Ted Kennedy puts the words "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam" on the first page of a speech delivered with lots of press around, he knows -- or should know -- that the story coming out of that speech will be, well, just what it was (follow this Google News link to see that it's playing exactly that way). Which is why Colin Powell is criticizing him.

Kennedy's been around Washington too long not to know that no matter what else you say, if you put the words "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam" in a speech that'll be the take-away point for the press, and, in reading the speech, I don't think that the reporting is unfair. You can read it yourself and see what you think -- but if Kennedy didn't mean for his words to have these consequences, then, well, he's lost it. I also note that if Kennedy thinks that his remarks have been misunderstood by, well, pretty much everyone who reported on them, there's been plenty of time for him to point that out. I can't find any sign of that, and there's nothing on his website, either."

Ok, Bonk... So Al-Sadr did not mention Eddie by name, but who do you think he is pandering to by emulating Kennedy?

You maybe? Oh, right, he didn't mention you by name either. I see. Not!

Regardless of what Kennedy's entire speech read (yes, I did read the whole thing) - the press IS only picking up the "George Bush's Viet Nam" line. I would submit that Kennedy has been around long enough to know exactly how the press would play his speech.

That said, there is still a level of rhetoric involved that does send a very bad signal to the enemies of this country overseas.

This is a time of war, like it or not. Troops are on the ground. Anything said by a politician that can be interpreted as weakness on the part of our politicians by bad elements overseas is at best, irresponsible. Anything which raises the danger levels for our troops is wrong. Period.

Oppose the party in power responsibly or shut up before you harm the troops.

My humble opinion.

from LGB
"4/7/2004: Kerry: Muqtada al Sadr a "Legitimate Voice" "

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10541_Kerry-_Muqtada_al_Sadr_a_Legitimate_Voice
you ask and kerry delivers

"Kerry and Kennedy are about one idiotic statement away"

"legitimate voice ..." er, um ... "sort of a terrorist alignment"

Check and ... check!

To be fair, Kerry backed out of his "legitimate" misstep (though not far enough -- what would we think if he'd simply called Sadr a "voice" in the first place -- it's still too legitimizing a word), but he promptly stuck his foot in it again 2 seconds later.

And as for Kennedy, I have a question -- anyone remember whether the war opponents of the time wanted the Viet Nam conflict internationalized, wanted UN troops in there, or wanted the Communists left alone to do whatever the hell they wanted? My understanding is it's the last one.

So what does the use of the Viet Nam analogy suggest about how the speaker thinks the current conflict should be resolved?

Kennedy's been around Washington too long not to know that no matter what else you say, if you put the words "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam" in a speech that'll be the take-away point for the press, and, in reading the speech, I don't think that the reporting is unfair.

imminent

Sorry Joshua, my point is not that it was stupid. It's that it demonstrates he isn't serious about Iraq, or the overall war against terrorism. Consequently I don't trust him with that responsibility.

Dr Steve, as I mentioned to Joshua, I don't give a rip about Kerry's blunder on "legitimate", it bugs me that he cares at all about the voice of al-Sadr being silenced. This on the heels of a question about Marines and casualties.

I mean, if it's score political points against Bush, he sucks at it.

I want to know what Kerry is going to do about terrorism, and everything he tells me bothers me. I'm not at all looking for a "gaffe" count. Substance.

Thoughts regarding Kerry:

What does everyone think about Kerry saying he is going to have 40,000 additonal active troops within his first 100 days? Does anyone know how he plans to accomplish this?

[donning spcial aluminum deflector beanie] I think this is a not so subtle signal that he is going to bring back the draft. There are 2 things that will cause the US to retreat from the war in terms of public opinion.

1) body count
2) sending conscripts

Is this Kerry's "secret plan" to end the war on terror?

So I just wanna know: you deep thinkers who are advocating the position that Kennedy and Kerry have committed treason, what penalty would you advocate. What do men who "are doing a great job of giving 'aid and comfort' to our enemies" get? The death penalty? No, too harsh, even for avowed enemies of America and the West? Well, then, how many years in jail? Seriously, I wanna know - how much time behind bars does a man get for, on the one hand, saying "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam," and on the other apparently giving "aid and comfort" by...well, I guess not using harsh enough rhetoric against Islamists?

Once again, bonk, I never said they committed treason.

Again with the hedge, but okay. What about the number of commenters who said explicitly that they do believe both Kennedy and Kerry committed treason? I'd love to hear their thoughts about an appropriate penalty. How many years? 20? 30?

One other thing: in the history of the U.S., has anyone every been tried for comments and behavior similar to that of Kennedy and (especially) Kerry? If they're "on the short bus to treason," where's the precedent? Which other presidential candidates and their supporters were as close to treason? Who else hated America as much as Seators Kennedy and Kerry, and what sentence did they receive?

Here's the point: I think the utter ridiculousness of even leaning toward treason accusations is thrown into sharp relief by considering the penalty phase. The idea that some of the folks here would throw John Kerry in jail as a traitor to his country (maybe even kill him!) for not yelling loud enough at Islamist facists while running for office is, seriously, really REALLY funny.

If nothing else, it's good to know that someone benefited today: the arguments here convinced me that I should toss some more of my money into Kerry's coffers.

Bonk, first, Michele is not the Borg Queen; some of her commenters might actually have different opinions than she does. So why are you asking her about their opinions?

Second, please don't pretend that anything you read here made a damned bit of difference in whether or not you were going to give money to John "Lurch" Kerry. Either you were before or you weren't.

So give your money. Give 'till it hurts. Or don't.

"They both, in recent days, blathered on and on about Iraq becoming another Vietnam."

Michelle? With respect, this is, so far as I know, completely untrue -- as regards Kennedy, anyway; I've not tracked everything Kerry has said, so I have no opinion about that.

Here is what I wrote about the untruths about what Kennedy said. Here is what Kennedy said. If you could locate and quote where he "blathered on and on about Iraq becoming another Vietnam," I'd find that very helpful. If you could actually find a single line where he says a single thing about "Iraq becoming another Vietnam, I'd be appreciative.

If you don't, while you're under absolutely no obligation whatsoever, of course, given how many people read you and listen to your voice -- which I obviously respect, myself -- is it possible you might consider making a correction?

Or is there some other citation for Kennedy's "blathering on and on" that you can point me to?

Thanks muchly, and thank you so much for turning your site readable again!

I don't understand why part of my post came out weirdly formatted (in my browser, Mozilla Firebird), but here is the link to what I wrote:
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004_04_04_amygdalagf_archive.html#108136061221203917

The link to Kennedy's speech seems to have come through, and I now see that someone already posted it.

Have you had time to read it, yet, Michele? Apparently it's been six hours, and it should take about five minutes to read.

I'll check back later to see what you think.

When I said "I'd love to hear their thoughts" I was, um, asking them for their thoughts. Michele may or may not be the Borg queen (though her refusal to adequately condemn the Borg gives me pause...), but really, I wasn't meaning to ask her to speculate on their opinions or speak on their behalf. Thought that was clear enough, but there you go.

As for the money, though certainly the general plan is to give to Kerry, the specific (small) donation today was genuinely inspired directly by this page. It's not often I give money to filthy traitors, but so many of the good folks here were so compelling...

And as for the "Lurch" aside: man, that is GOOD material. SHARP. My only concern is that you shouldn't give that stuff away when you could be charging for it. Later, you may want to point out that Kerry has multiple houses; I feel like there's comedy gold in there somewhere.

Gary, I think the fact that Kennedy said Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam speaks for itself.

Today was not the first time he invoked the mystical powers of the Vietnam comparison. I certainly will look for citations, and for Kerry as well. If I can't find anything, I will be happy to retract.

Now, is there any reason why there is a strikeout through that paragraph?

bonk...

ASSIMILATE OR DIE!

"Now, is there any reason why there is a strikeout through that paragraph?"

That was my question. I have absolutely no idea.

"I think the fact that Kennedy said Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam speaks for itself."

Um, did you read what I wrote?

A) what was his point? Was it to relate Vietnam to Iraq, or vice versa? No, it was not. Was it?

b) Aside from the fact that he didn't say a thing about Iraq, or Vietnam, but was discussing George Bush's credibility (which you are free to absolutely defend and free to absolutely disagree with Kennedy's opinions in that regard), how does five words constitute "blathering on and on"?

Yes, because no enemy of America has ever invoked Vietnam. It must be because of Kerry/Kennedy, who obviously Hate America. Michele, I think you're great and all but sometimes something gets into you and you channel Ann Coulter.

It's just an observation Gary, Kennedy specializes in blather. Doesn't really matter the topic.

Bonk, since I'm back I can save Michele the trouble of explaining my position. She does that all the time by the way.

I said the Vietnam references have been playing in the mainstream press since the war began. Hint. What does the codeword "quagmire" mean?

It is intended to paint a picture of confusion, desperation, dishonest flow of information from the government, a lack of commitment to success of waging a war...i.e. all the bullshit the press fed you about Vietnam. Failure. See, in their world, a soldier dying = FAILURE. QUAGMIRE.

Ted yells that Iraq is George Bush's "Vietnam" because he wants to score political points in order to acquire power. That's it.

That is (as Michele said three times) dangerously close to treason. Not quite. Not exactly sedition, but close.

It is putting the interests of the nation aside for your own gain and at the expense of our soldiers in the field, and it encourages our enemies to take more aggressive action (i.e. try to kill more soldiers) to score their political points.

Tell me how you think Spec. Nobody in Iraq feels about Teddy invoking "Vietnam" about his or her service. Think they would come up with some jail time?

What about the number of commenters who said explicitly that they do believe both Kennedy and Kerry committed treason? I'd love to hear their thoughts about an appropriate penalty. How many years? 20? 30?

Last I heard, treason was still punishable by a long drop from a very short rope, but I might be mistaken. Or did they ever move on to the firing squad? I'm not sure. Hmmmm. (And before you start in on me, Bonk, realize I'm joking.)

When I quoted the legal definition of treason, I also stated that The hedge is in how you define "aiding and comforting the enemy." Now, that's a tricky question, because according to you, Kerry's allowed to say whatever the hell he wants to about the war. He's running for president while there's a war on. He doesn't like the war, and he should be able to campaign about it, right? This would be the essence of your argument, no? That this is not treason.

The point that I would like to inject into this oh-so-riveting-discourse is that in a time of war, there would be such a thing as discretion. As in discretion is the better part of valor. Remember that old cliche?

Kerry and Kennedy don't seem to think that Shiite Clerics in Iraq have CNN on satellite. The Massachusetts Boys tailor their words for a domestic audience, and if they think internationally, they're thinking that someone in Europe might be listening to what they're saying and salivating at the chance for "regime change" here in the US. What they seem to forget is that they are taken very seriously by an international audience that doesn't like George Bush very much because he's trying to wipe them from the face of the earth. Kerry and Kennedy have shown very little discretion whilst campaigning against a war they don't like. In some quarters that could easily be construed as treachery. This is why Michele said they were on a slow boat toward treason. And I agreed with her. They're not being discreet, and they're showing very little valor---and if words can "aid and comfort the enemy", well, what do you think they're doing?

What worries me is if they're willing to say these things now, and are fully aware that people all over the world---including our enemies---are listening and using those words to rally their people against us, well, what happens when we get closer to the election and the rhetoric really heats up? Are you still going to defend them then, when they realize that there is some virulent anti-war demographic that Kerry's campaign manager decided they need to visit to court for their support? What happens when that speech---tailor made for the rabid anti-war sect---hits the satellite uplinks and comes down in one of our enemies houses and inspires them? What if they decide to try and swing the election toward Kerry by attacking us? What then, Bonk?

Contrary to what the Dixie Chicks would have you believe, there is always a price to be paid for "free speech." I sincerely hope Kerry and Kennedy's choice in words improves. A little discretion is a welcome change. The First Amendment gives them the right to say what they want. And that should never change. But aiding and comforting the enemy, well, that concept has changed since Benedict Arnold's day. Words do have power. We know this. But do Kerry and Kennedy? If we have to bury more innocent civilians like we did in the days after 9/11 because Kerry or Kennedy said something in a fit of electoral glee to inspire these eedjits, well, what's a good enough punishment for them in your book, Bonk? Because I'd want that rope to be as short and as tight as it could be.

Great post, Kathy.

bonk - where have you been? John Kerry's hardly said three sentences in a row without the words "Viet Nam" any time in the past 18 months. In fact, I'll bet if you were to ask people randomly to free-associate with the words "John Kerry" half them would come right up with Viet Nam. Try it sometime.

My two cents on Bonk's Penalty Challenge is up the long ladder and down the short rope. Firing squads should be for soldiers only.

Kathy,

Great post.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. For the record, I would have exactly the same response to a Republican makingthe same kinds of comments about a Democrat administration in time of war. When there are troops on the ground we all need to stand behind them.

By the way, am I the only Rickie Lee Jones fan here?

The title of this post reminds me of a song I haven't heard in a long time.

"Woody And Dutch on The Slow Train to Peking"
(lyrics stolen from http://www.rickieleejones.com)

Dutch took 'em on the slow train to Peking
on La Brea Avenue
To find the Stax and Sun
They was reaching to get to
They was a rappin the fat scat
Diamond dialectos of points and taps
Between the chicken and the back
They drew themselves a bebop
Midnight map
They said "do you got a map the next joint?"
"Do you got a map the next joint?"

Pick it up on the night train
Down on the corner of rhythm and blues
Where I have met all of my boys since
Back in '52
Bringing 'em Stax and Sun
Cuz I think that Cleveland forgot
And Memphis forgot
Where they were comin' from
Do ya like it? Do ya like it like that?
Do you like rappin the fat scat?

Woody and Dutch dance in the cell of fourteen
Like a pill they do it all night
Spectators,
Whitewalls, fins and greased back
Every Saturday night
Leanin in the scenery
Pickin up the kids
At the next door neighbors'
"Yeah I know what you did
Yeah I got a room you can stay in
If you promise you won't make so much noise"
"No I won't"
"No I don't!"