Reply #10: I assume that in a prepared speech he wouldn't as he would edit it.

[karynnj]

He also used terrorize rather than terror - that is the word used in many articles on the practice. (I'm sure he will substitute Scare or even terrify in the future)

The point is that in taking on this issue, Kerry is addressing the practices of US soldiers. His goal is obvious - to get a shift in this policy. He also knows that the terror exists even if every soldier is acting in the most conscientious way. Kerry was sensitive to this issue when he was 25 and one of the soldiers stopping boats and checking them (from excerpts of his journal in Tour of Duty) This policy hurts the soldiers and helps the insurgency. Having a prominent person speak out against it is important. From the moment he chose to speak about it - the issue of are you critising the troops was there even when he skirted around it speaking of lannguage and cultural difficulties.

What I can see in the last few months is that Kerry is taking risks, with his clandestaine prison bill, his Iraq plan, and his comments in support of his plan to try to change the political dynamic of the Iraq war- without regard to his own political viability (as President, I doubt anything here will hurt him in MA). Contrast this to Hillary's vague letter and support of bills against violent video games and flag burning. Earlier this year, I was certain he was aiming to run again - now I actually think he is doing what he thinks is right and working to help the Democratic party and is being honest when he says he really doesn't know at his point.