John Kerry: Sadr "Legitimate", Hamas and Hezbollah "sort of" Terrorist

[The Mad Monk]

Kerry Calls al-Sadr Voice 'Legitimate'
11:58 am PST, 7 April 2004

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday called the voice of militant Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr "legitimate," setting off a firestorm of protest from a number of American political quarters.


Kerry, in an interview with National Public Radio, said of a newspaper owned by al-Sadr, which was shut down last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."

The Massachusetts senator quickly reversed himself, however, adding the imam was aligning himself with known terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Kerry could not completely condemn those groups, either.

"Well, let me . . . change the term legitimate. It belongs to a voice — because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment," he said in the NPR segment.

Kerry's comments--first reported by the New York Sun--come amid escalating violence in several Iraqi cities, including Fallujah, which U.S. military officials say is being directed by al-Sadr.

Military sources say fighting inspired by the imam has left some 30 U.S. troops and at least 130 Iraqis dead.

Kerry also wavered somewhat when asked whether he supported al-Sadr's arrest.

"Not if it's an isolated act without the other kinds of steps necessary to change the dynamics on the ground in Iraq," Kerry said, according to the Sun.

On March 28, the U.S.-led coalition authorities closed al-Sadr's newspaper, al-Hawza, for 60 days, the Sun reported.

http://7am.com/cgi-bin/catwire.cgi?P...2004040704.htm

[Drake Tungsten]

"Well, let me . . . change the term legitimate. It belongs to a voice because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment," he said in the NPR segment.

Ahh, more flip-flopping from the master...

[Dis]

that guy is such a weenie. I'm ashamed he is a navy guy

[Seeker]

geeze kerry...I'm kinda liberal centrist and I think this was weak....

...democratic leadership= Be the Political Pablum

[rev]

*sigh*

We coulda done a whole lot better than Kerry, guys.

At best, it's an innocent mistake of semantics: "sort of" could refer to the "alignment". Realistically, the guy's going to get himself into trouble trying to fine-cut the issues. Americans, for the most part, are dumb and will take Bush's black-and-white perspective hook, line, and sinker, if they're to choose between his and Kerry's perceived flip-flopping and pandering.

[Giancarlo]

Kerry really ****ed up this time. Sadr's militia killed more than 30 troops. Kerry is just making too many screw ups and is doing it over and over again. This is over for him. Little revy, you just don't get it? Kerry's flip-flopping isn't perceived. He's a lying traitor having nice words to say to a militant cleric who killed US troops. He isn't going to win the election with the crap that comes out of his mouth. Supporting a newspaper that supports violence against US troops? He really hates the US military that much?

[Donegeal]

[Jaguar]

[Drogue]

I think the Economist summed up how was of thinking like this best. He thinks out load when asked questions. It seems quite obvious to me, reading what he said, that he's trying to say that while al-Sadr is a terrorist, the fact he has many supporters and sympathisers means we can't just ignore him. Yes, the fact he condone's violence against American troops is bad, but there are a lot of Iraqi's that don't want American troops there, and it is a popular voice. It can't just be ignored.

He did not say Hamas was a 'sort of' terrorist organisation, he said a newspaper that has started to align itself with Hamas is a sort of terrorist alignment. It's not the newspaper of Hamas, it's not directly terrorist, so he is correct, it is a sort of terrorist alignment. As for the term legitimate, he meant the voice of the newspaper, and then clarified that while legitimate was probably a little strong a term, it can't be ignored, and it does have support among groups of Iraqi's. Also, IIRC, it was considered legitimate until recently, before it aligned so much with Hamas.

He has flip-flopped, but when asked in an interview for a quick answer, he may think about it during the interview and realise the exact wording he used may not be the most appropriate, so go and further explain what it. It's just semantics. I wouldn't call this flip-flopping, I would call saying one thing to one group, then another thing to another group, as he did during the primaries, flip-flopping.

I support the closing of a newspaper that calls for attacks on US and Iraqi peacekeeping troops, but I agree with Kerry that you can't just ignore al-Sadr and hope his followers go away or see sense. What they've done is despicable, but ignoring them makes them more likely to attack again, to get out attention.

[Dis]

Any decent democrat should be able to Demolish Bush this election. But Kerry just keeps ****ing up.

I kind of want Kerry to be prez because I don't want Hillary in 2008. But there is no way can vote for a guy with no principles. The guy has been brainwashed by the left. He only goes against that when it is clear most of america doesn't support that view (like his stance against gay marriage).

I have shocking news. I may actually vote for Bush again this election . Unless there happens to be a libertarian on the ticket.

[Tripledoc]

Hezbollah have never been a terror group. If they are on any 'official' list, then that must have happened quite recently. They are a legitimate group formed after Israels aggression against Lebanon. They kicked the IDF out, and are still exchanging gunfire with the Israelis when they violate Lebanese airspace, which they do quite often.

They cannot by any strecth of the imagination be called a terror group, since they fight using conventional means, to protect sovereign territory.

By maintaining that they are a terrorist group the one's who do lose any credibility, if they even had one to begin with.

[Zevico]

They cannot by any strecth of the imagination be called a terror group

Hezbollah has shelled a civilian town. Is is this a terrorist act?
Hezbollah supports Hamas and Islamic Jihad with money and knowhow.
It advocates a worldview including such pearls of wisdom as "the Jews are trying to take over the world".
More recently, in fact, it created a television show featuring that very statement and the 'Protocols of Zion': "Horseman without a horse".
Is it too much of a stretch now?

[DinoDoc]

I wonder if the Bush campaign has that recorded for the next round of ads.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Zevico
Is it too much of a stretch now?

You don't support any of your claims.

The EU has designated most of the groups and individuals listed by the U.S. for asset freezing, with the notable exceptions of the Hamas "political wing" (the "military wing" has been listed), and Hezbollah.

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/21922.htm

The U.S is playing high and mighty, but...

Why are local Lebanese subsidiaries of major American corporations -- like PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and Western Union -- lending comfort and support to terrorists by advertising on Hezbollah television?

Hezbollah is officially named a "specially designated terrorist group" under Executive Order 13224. This designation empowers the U.S. government to impose financial sanctions against those "that support or otherwise associate" with Hezbollah.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/m...isch101302.htm

The hypocrisy...

[Edan]

Originally posted by Zevico

Hezbollah has shelled a civilian town. Is is this a terrorist act?

Not to mention the bombing of a civilian Jewish centre in Argentina, kidnapping civilians, hijackings, etc.

Hezbollah is certainly on the "official" US list of terroris organizations.

[GePap]

:yawn:

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
:yawn:

How so? This seems much more substantive than the other "flaps" Kerry has created.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Hezbollah have never been a terror group. ...
They cannot by any strecth of the imagination be called a terror group, ...
By maintaining that they are a terrorist group the one's who do lose any credibility, if they even had one to begin with.

That's mighty fancy footwork Tripledoc ... omitting the part of the Washington Institute article that completely sinks your argument, then claiming the US is hypocritical for dealing with these people. Its not at all clear you can have it either way, but you certainly can't have it both ways. The sections you did not see fit to quote are as follows...

That Iranian-backed and -funded group has been implicated in the attacks against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans in 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 12 Americans in 1984, the Israeli Embassy and Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people in 1994 and numerous other terrorist attacks, murders and kidnappings over the years. ...
As Al Manar's Chairman of the Board Nayef Krayem said to me, "There is no act of resistance that can be classified as terrorism." It is no surprise then that Al Manar's programming glorifies suicide bombers, exhorts Palestinians to kill Jews and revels in the carnage of terrorist attacks on civilians. The fact that Al Manar almost always has immediate footage of terrorist outrages or Hezbollah attacks across the Israel-Lebanon border adds to the speculation that Al Manar officials are themselves party to Hezbollah's operational planning. As emerged during a recent North Carolina trial of two Hezbollah operatives, Al Manar employees conduct pre-operational surveillance of potential targets and engage in other logistical and financial support activities for terrorist acts.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How so? This seems much more substantive than the other "flaps" Kerry has created.

How? Its the same crap as always. I am sorry, but I dopn;t buy the soundbite culture, and this is what this was.

We have 7 months of the future to go, and while there will be a very very small number of undecideds who will make this central to their reason not to vote for Kerry, most people's minds won;t be changed. Just like at the thread-save for tripledoc, it approcaes one of those "circlejerks" the rightwingers here like to claim occurs all the time.

Give Kerry and Bush 1 hour each to lay out their opinions-then I might care. Otherwise:

:yawn:

[MrFun]

Does Kerry want to lose the presidential campaign?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How so? This seems much more substantive than the other "flaps" Kerry has created.

I am past the sound bite culture.

If the voters want to focus more on a passing soundbite than policy or record, they will, and I could not give a **** anymore.

Let the ranters and ravers in the right go off-they always do. I don;t give a **** about them. And as for the centirst-if they forgive Bush all his sins cause Kerry said this-well, they will deserve what they will get.

[Q Classic]

Where have all good men gone
And where are all the gods?
Where’s the street-wise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?

...

I need a hero
I’m holding out for a hero ‘til the end of the night
He’s gotta be strong
And he’s gotta be fast
And he’s gotta be fresh from the fight
I need a hero
I’m holding out for a hero ‘til the morning light
He’s gotta be sure
And it’s gotta be soon
And he’s gotta be larger than life

well, not quite the interpretation of the song...
but in all seriousness, it's killing me here. we've had tweedledee and tweedledum in ever election since 1992...
and no honorable person has stood up and tried taking the reins of leadership, so we have people with **** for brains in power and running for power.

i'm ****ing sick and tired of having to base my vote off of who'll be the lesser evil. it's ****ing retarded.

[GePap]

but in all seriousness, it's killing me here. we've had tweedledee and tweedledum in ever election since 1992...

So you liked Dukakis?

[Q Classic]

at the time, gepap, i was 5. mom liked bush, and i had no political notions then.

the reason she didn't like dukakis was perfectly legitimate, too, looking back on it: dukakis didn't quite like the status quo of keeping so many boys in skorea.

[GePap]

Do you honestly think anyone you would think "honorable" would be stupid enough to wade into modern national politics?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
If the voters want to focus more on a passing soundbite than policy or record, they will, and I could not give a **** anymore.

Well most voters don't really know Kerry. It's a consequence of the Dems having a sweetheart primary where they were runiing against Bush instead of each other. Kerry also doesn't seem to be doing a very good job a defining himself thus far either.

As to record: That doesn't really seem to be something that inspires much confidence considering the shear number of flip-flops on major policy issues and the fact he seems to be trying to run from his liberal credentials and claiming to be centrist.

[Q Classic]

Do you honestly think anyone you would think "honorable" would be stupid enough to wade into modern national politics?

hope springs eternal.

but seriously, if one believes that nobody honorable would volunteer for it, does one not think it is a sign that the system is broken and needs either a wholesale transfusion or an outright transplant?

[The diplomat]

I think Kerry let slip a hint of what he really believes. He is a big time liberal that is trying to hide it from the american people because he knows it would doom his chances.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well most voters don't really know Kerry. It's a consequence of the Dems having a sweetheart primary where they were runing against Bush instead of each other. Kerry also doesn't seem to be doing a very good job a defining himself thus far either.

Most high level dems though Bush was unbeatable come December, so they did not get in. After it was clear this was not true, too many people went with "electability", which is a terrible thing to go on.

As to record: That doesn't really seem to be something that inspires much confidence considering the shear number of flip-flops on major policy issues and the fact he seems to be trying to run from his liberal credentials and claiming to be centrist.

1, Talk about flip-flops? Kerry flops verbally before making a decision. Bush pulls of Grand, immense reversals and then chalk it up to learning. I guess the BIG LIE still works marvelously.

2. Bush claimed to be a centrist and it worked wonders for him. I would prefer Kerry saying "yes, I am a liberal, and better than that a lying, decietful, secretive bunch of ****ers who are in the WH", but then he would be accused of cursing again, and we could never have that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
but seriously, if one believes that nobody honorable would volunteer for it, does one not think it is a sign that the system is broken and needs either a wholesale transfusion or an outright transplant?

Yes, the system does not a massive overhaul, beginning with the witless uninvolved public that whines all the time but never gets of their ass and decides to act like citizens and not simply consumers.