Ouch? Dude, that's hilarious. Slow to load, but hilarious.

Funny thing is I enlisted for three reasons. To get away from my dysfunctional family and I believed I didn’t have the money or the brains for college. I didn’t know about federal loans. Had I known I would’ve doubted my ability to pay it back and that still left the question of succeeding based on the knowledge I took away from my overcrowded high school.

Kerry apologized on Imus saying he didn’t intend to insult military members. Not that it matters. Snow and Boehner came on today pretending Kerry hasn’t apologized. Gotta milk this for all its worth.

And even there, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Hey DNC, a little friendly advice. Lock this guy up for a couple years. Don't let him near a microphone. Maybe go rent an auditorium and have Kennedy, Biden, Kerry and Dean speak to that, and just don't tell them it's not a real audience. They'll never know as long as it's a nice deli tray in the green room.

It’s asking for authentication when I try to access, but if it’s a picture of soldiers holding up a sign reading “Halp us Jon Kerry – we r stuck in Irak” (with several reversed K’s) I was sent that a few hours ago and laughed my tail off. Good to see the troops are maintaining a sense of humor.


I’m going to state the obvious here but there’s a huge difference, after all we’re the liberators. This is just one of those “slight” but critical details in freeing Iraq that seems to have been completely ignored by our leaders and could have made a tremendous difference.


This is what he should have done as soon as this became news. He had a golden opportunity here but let his silver spoon pedigree and mistakes from two years ago get in the way.

That was the photo indeed. You have to admit though, if someone did this in any other war in any other era, the soldiers either never would have heard it, or wouldn't have known for days, weeks or months. The new media is really changing things.

Someone should create a soldier-sign generator, like the church sign generator. My first sign would say "novmber is tiime for turkeey with presznit."

That's a fair point, but during the time we were "greeted as liberators" we were all too busy wringing our hands about museums allegedly being sacked to savor the moment. There is plenty of mismanagement to be sure; we could have done many things better, but as Powell said "you break it - you bought it."

This happens when you juxtapose conditions on the ground following the invasion with today’s problems. General Zinni and Bremer among others criticized the Pentagon for insufficient troops shortly after rolling over Iraq’s military. But recently General Abizaid testified “adding U.S. forces would be exactly the wrong thing to do because it would interfere with the effort to get Iraqi forces to take responsibility for the security of their country, which he called the key to victory”. He added, “every time Americans operate in large numbers it creates a dynamic where the Iraqis do less.” Other generals have said the troops’ presence may be fueling the insurgency.

Could Kerry have articulated this distinction on Imus? Of course he could have and should have. That's why he's not president.

Is there anything else you reasonably expect Kerry to say on Imus’s show to last a segment spot? And speaking generally, how sufficiently conciliatory and/or servile must Kerry sound to convince the GOP to act against its interests and drop the subject a few days before Americans pass judgment on the status quo? Should anyone not expect Kerry to “correct the record” as Lord Helmet put it, while apologizing?

And why not quote part of the transcript where Kerry praises service members instead (or too)? This is just a guess. You and others who’ve already posted probably don’t like John Kerry and believe you have reason to dislike John Kerry.

John Kerry can’t do anything about that. Best not pretend that he can.


I’m not sure it would’ve made a difference, Fife. I don't think it's supposed to matter for some. But if Kerry doesn't care about “some” then Kerry will be glad he apologized all the same.

If you read my comments again you will see I was talking about what the US military's role is in Iraq, I definitely well defined and specifically placed the role in a context and I would prefer you replied to it in this context.

And bringing democracy is nothing new. George Washington was known in France as the Father of Liberty and helped inspire France's own revolution, he is also known as the Father of our Country, seems like freedom and the birth of our nation are inseparable. Also as carlitoswhey already noted with the Vietnam war there is also that whole democracy nation building thing we took on with the Marshall plan and in Japan. Not to mention America's 50+ yr NATO defense alliance, our military presence on the Korean peninsula, our support for Taiwan and our many, many other military contributions in the name of the UN. America has a long history of supporting human rights and political freedoms through military actions. Or what others like to call imperialism.

And your nonchalant admittance, yes Iraq has a new army in part because our army went to Iraq. The two are not independent of one another, you can't use one to make your point and then allow the other to go without recognition and acceptance.

I Agree with Chris Matthews.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15514343/


Great! Anything to keep a non-issue ball in the air.

So, now that Kerry has apologized on Imus, The Republican noise machine is shifting into it isn’t good enough mode.

Perhaps Kerry should simply ask Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tony Snow or one of the other “non-elitist” Republicans to write the apology for him. On second thought, maybe he could ask Ann Coulter. I’ll bet she could come up with a real doozy. Then Kerry could either sign the damned thing or perhaps read, or have an assistant read, it public.

Why is this important? There was a 99.9% chance Kerry would not be the 2008 presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. It is now zilch.

This has been a nasty election campaign. The other thing I find comforting is that, win or lose in Virginia, George Allen will never be a Republican nominee for president. His goose is equally cooked.

BTW: carlitoswhey, when I click that red link, I am asked for a password.

Well, there's a first


Look, I know you aren't talking to me, because I'm not "the republican noise machine" and I haven't had a radio on all day. I was merely illustrating his inability to articulate an idea (as lesly noted). I never said that it wasn't good enough, just that he's not a great communicator.


I think that WTMJ in Milwaukee got sick of people back-door linking into their image. Try this.

Mind a little redundancy here? We're flying around a lot and I'd like to simplify the matter a little. From my earlier link.

This is what Kerry said.


This is what he had written down to say according to CNN.


Why Kerry didn't just read it the way Charlie Script Writer wrote it for him I can't fathom. Obviously going extemporaneous isn't one of his great strengths or at least it wasn't in this case.

On the face of it it still isn't the brightest comment in the world, although it shows he intended no disparagement of the troops. Bush and Kerry appear to have had a similar level of formal education and the prez had the smarts to get elected at least. I would agree that he apparently has been intellectually lazy and not much inclined to study matters that he needed to to be up to speed on for the requirements of his job. And that certainly relates to why we are in Iraq.

Update:

I hope everyone is happy. Kerry has apologized.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2622002

Can we now get on with something other than Republican spin?

I'm sorry, but who are you referring to in this--Kerry or Bush? Neither is a great communicator, although Kerry comes off with a sense of arrogance while Bush sounds more like the next door neighbor. In either case, I wouldn't want either as President (Kerry, because arrogance breeds contempt; Bush, because I don't want my next door neighbor to be the President).

As for John Kerry's apology, he really apologized for any sort of misinterpretation of his comments. He should be apologizing for a really dumb joke and screwing up the punchline. I listened to Sean Hannity today and, despite having three hours on the air, never once broke from the Kerry issue. This is a perfect example of the desperation the Republican party is. The entire "checks and balances" concept flies out the window. I'm completely against monopolistic control of all three branches. I would like to see the Democrats win control of either the House or the Senate simply to change gears. It will require more cross-the-aisle work and ensure less partisanship. Or so I hope.

The topic is Kerry. I was responding to a question about Kerry. I posted quotes by Kerry.

Your point against Sean Hannity and the evil unitary executive Bush and his rubber stamp Congress is duly noted, but doesn't really rebut or address anything said by me. If you believe that a Democratic takeover of the House with John "I have the impeachment papers already drawn up" Conyers as judiciary chair will be less partisan, I can only guess that you were very young in 1994, or that perhaps your memory is short and you don't remember what it was like.

This is a low blow carlitoswhey and you know it. FargoUT was 15 or 16 in 1994. We have had several members who started at that age, including CP, alefthandedperson, VDem and leder. All of them have had a pretty firm grasp on politics.

That’s not partisan, I think its called justice actually.

Yes, I think the government will be far less partisan, not because it wont be republican controlled, but because the bush party will be out of office.

Well, I admire my man's hope for a less contentious congress, but I didn't think being young was a low blow? Let me be more specific and less insulting I guess. I meant no insult to any younger posters, as of course I am merely jealous...

After the Republican revolution in 1994, politics got a little nasty, when one party had the Congress and the other had the Presidency. The Congress witheld funds and SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and there was an investigation of the White House every other week. The deputy counsel of the White House committed suicide, for Pete's sake.

So, my point was that divided government seems unlikely to harbor warm bipartisan feelings, given that the base of the party who would presumably take Congress think that our current chief executive and his VP are Hitler and Satan, respectively.

Ah, I see that gordo shares those sentiments. Bravo.

You have sort of contradicted your own point by bringing up the partisanship of the Republican-controlled Congress. Isn't it, then, the Republican Party which instigated this partisan rhetoric? Both parties are responsible for this divide. The system of checks and balances is no longer in play as long as the Republicans maintain control of Congress--this idea has failed as long as party loyalty trumps the well-being of America. This is not a condemnation of Republicans, as I'm well aware it would be the same if Democrats were in full control. I do not pretend that things were once cordial--I said "I hope" that partisanship becomes a thing of the past. Of course, taking words out of context seems to be a common habit of Republicans.

Obviously I'm joking there. Just to return it back to the discussion of Kerry's comments. I would like to believe this issue is done, but Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity consecutively broadcast condemnations of Kerry in spite of his apology. Since both have a severe interest in keeping Republicans in control of Congress (and sounding extremely desperate for any reason to lambast the Democrats), I fear this will bleed over into next week. I think the furor will grow even larger as the election nears. Kerry should now disappear from the radar. He'll probably be called a coward or a "cut-and-runner", since everything in politics is now in pure black-and-white. I will give credit to the Democratic Party for at least calling a return to debating the real issues. I think they actually enjoy this slander of Kerry, and it is perhaps a strategy to combat the methods of Karl Rove. Do something stupid "by mistake", let the Republicans come after, then criticize the Republicans for being petty and avoiding the real issues. Honestly, it isn't a bad idea. It won't work, though, because, let's face it, the American public is mostly politically ignorant and will simply accept whatever they hear from Hannity or Franken or even Colbert and Stewart (I don't really compare them since Stewart/Colbert are both satirists).

Wait, what was the topic of this again? I've lost track of where I was going.

Going on, Olbermann says:



Funny how so many can get their dander up about a perceived insult to the troops, while this administration's wholesale lies and obfuscations are dismissed by the "faithful" who wave their raggedy flags and pontificate about staying the course while someone else's loved ones lay it on the line.*

Someone should be livid about the fact that Bush has said that Rummy is going to be Secretary of Defense for the rest of his term. I know of some retired generals--Iraq War veterans--who are. But let's do focus on Kerry's misstatement, shall we?

Somehow my http:// function is not working as I post this, so I will provide the link to Olbermann's comments here in its naked 'splendor': www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/

*To my mind, while this country may be worth dying for, this president and his failed policies are not.

You are quite correct. Kerry screwed up!

Your interpretation, however, is wrong. Even hard core conservatives like Dick Armey - linked earlier in this thread by Dingo http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=200078 and Pat Buchanan say Kerry was talking about Bush. Read the quote or watch the video in context.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15514350/

BA for all the misanthropes like Limbaugh and Hannity, who are spinning this as an attack on the troops, there is probably a thoughtful conservative who agee with Kerry's interpretation.

Since Kerey seems to be in the mood to capitulate, I think he should drop out of the race.

Except he isn't running.

He should give up his Senate leadership role.

Except he's in the minority.

He ought to get psych treatment.

Except he isn't a sick duck.

He ought to admit that he never served his country or went to war.

Except he did both these things, and in a leadership role.

The most embarassing thing in this whole mole-hill-to-mountain exercise is that the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, joined in the pile-on.

That's pretty insulting to every citizen's intelligence, not that this behavior is anything new for this administration.

I'm not expecting or demanding an apology. I voted a week ago and noticed others doing the same thing. Now that looks like a very intelligent thing to have done. So, I really don't care what low esteem anyone holds for me and my ilk. This insulting administration can believe anything it likes.

And it does.

God forbid any country to experience what France has experienced during French Revolution. While historians agree that France's support of American revolution may have brought their own revolution on their heads (after all, one of the many reasons for FR is that the French government became bankrupt), the revolution lead to Robespierre's Terror in which hundreds of thousands of people were murdered, country was ravaged, cultural and historican sites destroyed and vandalized... Really, not a very good example. Same goes for Vietnam War...
I don't want to turn this thread into the debate on the Iraq War, but yes, billions of dollars later, I do expect SOME things to be done - for example, training of new Iraqi Army. Doesn't mean I have to recognize or accept the war itself or our reasons for it. The bottom line is that the country of Iraq is in the middle of savage civil war, the country is ravaged, tens of thousands of Iraqis are killed and many thousands more will die. Just today a Professor of Economics in Baghdad University was slain in his house along with his wife and children. You call it "spreading Democracy"? Democracy worth nothing without security. And all this for what? For ever-powerful Iran, for emboldened Hezbollah, for more vulnerable Israel, for a whole new generation of terrorists? These are all results of the War in Iraq.

Why are we even debating this? Do you, or do you not, agree that when a group of armed men search your house "in the dead of the night" (or even in the light of the day) that inhabitants of this house are terrorized? I would be, if my house was searched by a platoon of soldiers with their rifles loaded...

So now that's it's clear that Kerry really meant that if you don't study and aren't smart, you could end up as the President of the United States! See they were words of encouragement!!

That clears things up.

That statement (if true) doesn't even make sense. And I'm guessing prepared speech remarks by Kerry usually make sense (unlike the stuff that rolls out of his mouth during speeches...).

As long as he meant to be personally insulting to the President, everything is hunky dory.

After seeing the video, do you believe Senator Kerry meant to refer to George Bush?

No, I don't think so. I think he meant that dropping out of school would mean that the military would be a more likely for a person.

Or, was he referring to our troops as uneducated?

In a roundabout manner. I think the direct point was: if you're smart, you'll be less likely to be in the military.

As for his response, given that the country is largely against the Iraq War, will this tough talk help Democratic candidates in next week's elections?

How could it possibly? Kerry has canceled his stumping appearances, which should be a positive for Dems.

As Tony Snow stated, does John Kerry owe an apology to those who are serving and their families?

He should revise and clarify his remarks, which he has. His revisions don't make sense, but whatever.

Or is their an element of truth in Kerry's statement?

I think what he said is conventional wisdom, but is about 30 years out of date. If we had a draft going, his statement would make sense. Since we don't have a draft and members of the military (as pointed out) are more educated than Joe on the street, it doesn't make sense. Maybe Kerry thinks there is a draft going or has inside information about a draft bill. At least then his statement might make some sense.

Considering the “flap” over Kerry’s swift boat service and his comments that he's considering running for president again, was this a wise statement?

Kerry just put the last nail into his Presidential hopes' coffin.

Considering the service record of George Bush and deferment specialist first class Cheney, is it prudent for the White House to bring military service up as a subject this close to the election?

Interesting question. I've seen references here to George Bush as a draft dodger. That is wholly untrue. The guy was in the military during Vietnam. He did not serve in SE Asia, but he never dodged the draft.

But why should the White House bring up military service? Is the White House trying to re-elect itself? Kerry's statements about the troops--both after Vietnam, last year, and this one, demonstrate a pattern of behavior indicating that Kerry does not have faith in the US military leadership.

These comments show that either he thinks being dumb gives you a shot at being the POTUS (unlikely, but he's stickin' to it) or it will give you a greater chance of being one of those boots on the ground in Iraq (fits conventional wisdom, but is outdated in today's high tech military).

Yes, in 1994, the Republicans won the Congress away from the party of the White House. They thought that the American people gave them a mandate for change. Are you so eager to criticize republicans that you don't see the parallel? Ever heard "the Democratic Party's agenda for bold leadership and real change?" Stronger Smarter. etc. They will in no way have the mandate that the Republicans had in '94, but they will definitely challenge the Executive branch.

What part of "I admire my man's hope for a less contentious congress" did you not understand? I'm not as optimistic as you, because I take the Democrats at their word, there will be investigations from day one and they will probably try to cut funding for the war to force us out of Iraq. Contentious.


Full disclosure, I am technically Republican, because the 2-party oligarchy in Illinois doesn't want an open primary, I was therefore a Democrat 2 years ago and a Libertarian for 4 years before that. Next year, when I vote in the mayoral primary, I'll be a "Democrat" again. I'd appreciate it if people would focus on the argument in the textboxes here, rather than someone's supposed party affiliation.

You mean when a nation takes on a massive transition politically, or what we call a revolution, surely you support and love the revolution, they in return experience terror, murder and general destruction? Actually I think that is the prefect example because that is my point, that is why I am debating this. Many of a certain ideology (anti war) seem to think that in order to get from point A to point B all one has to do is choose to do so and that movement just occurs. No one seems to wish to support all the actions, events and yes turmoil that has to occur when a civilization makes such a transition. No instead we think it just takes place, hidden in the dark corners of time, but it doesn’t. “Spreading Democracy” like you say so that it sounds like some viral infliction, requires force. You want the genocide to stop, you want the human rights to start, and yet you don’t want to have to get your hands dirty. And that is what the American military does for us, that is the duty the men and women of the Armed Forces perform and die for, the dirty work. So while we all enjoy the success of their labor..Japan, Germany, Italy, Taiwan, South Korea, Liberia, Libya, Kuwait, Israel, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Croatia, the US military continues to labor.

The mission was never to go to Iraq and terrorize women and children, but in a nation with a culture that is so violent, so repressive and not accustomed to human rights recognition or accountability of the law US troops will have to perform certain duties until the transition is made. It is not just a matter of training forces, I think if anything so far Iraq has been an illustration of how Democracy does not “spread” it is fought for, and it is hard, violent and destructive work, as you are destroying one institution to build another.

This is why Kerry’s comments have so loudly resonated with the American public because a lot of people already felt the democrats were not supportive of or encouraging to the US military and it’s role in Iraq. Kerry comments, whether a gaffe or not, identify with this lack of trust and support for the US military that many feel is not unintentional or misinterpreted. You would think a politician would be aware of his party’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

Personally I am thankful to Mr. Kerry, as others have noted, he has likely ruined any chances of ever being placed before me as a presidential candidate. Thus eliminating forever the moral dilemma I would have to face when being asked to consider to give him my vote, again.

This is unbelieveable. Here is what the newspaper of record says that Kerry said. Nice headline. Kerry is of course a victim. Aren't they all.

Flubbed Joke Makes Kerry a Political Punching Bag, again...



Uh, yeah, and he never said "Just ask President Bush." Which is why you are writing this story in the first place. No where in their story do they even provide the quote as to what he actually said. Not that they take sides or anything.

After seeing the video, do you believe Senator Kerry meant to refer to George Bush?

No I think he was referring to our troops in Iraq as those remarks seem very similar to remarks he made in 1972.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061102/D8L4QH580.html

*snip*
During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."




I don't think you can be more elitist than that...

I am very disappointed that Kerry apologized or anything like that- I would have liked to see him turn it around by saying "oh man, that is the best you got, you want to harp on a one word misspeak by me while the idiot in chief chickenhawk has made thousands of for worse saying, but actually flip flopped his positions many times, and has apologized for nothing, heck, never even admits he is wrong, wow- talk about the double standards of the republican party- let's just hold GW to the same standards, shall we?"

And that is why I laugh with contempt at all conservatives that continue to back this regime- they go positively nuts for a comment obviously aimed at GW- but really just let everything GW says slide without no big deal. However, Kerry isn't getting our troops killed- GW is.

Without creating any sort of equivalency between our troops and all the tyrants I am about to mention, didn't you just write a perfect excuse for Robespierre, for Lenin, for Stalin's purges? Virtually, for any revolution? "In order to build the new society, we need to get rid of the old one, first!" Terrible, terrible deeds have been done under this slogan. Let's look at Russia of 1917: few would dispute that Nicholas II had a rotten regime at his hands, he was a weak leader and his people lived in incredible misery. The country just lost a humiliating war it should have won (Russo-Japanese War) and WWI was draining the country without an end in sight. Exactly the same thing could be said about Louis XVI in France. Does it justify the Terror, does it justify the terrible cataclisms that Russia was put through? One may say "Robespierre and Lenin were just doing the dirty work"...

It's not necessary to have a Revolution to "get from point A to point B". After all, not every democratic country went through French Revolution to get democratic institutions installed.

But let me say once again... as much as I loathe the reasons we went to Iraq, we are already there, and we already created a revolution there. We can't go back in time. So, what I am saying - let Iraqis do the dirty work, not our troops. And if they're not willing to do it, it's not worth it.

Well, that's exactly what they should be doing. The Republican controlled Congress has not done their job in challenging the executive branch. That's what they are there to do. There are three branches for a reason.

Sorry, I was not aware I was "your man". My apologies.

That's why I was joking. It was a reflection of what happened with Kerry's speech and the subsequent media coverage.

After seeing the video, do you believe Senator Kerry meant to refer to George Bush?

After seeing the video it sure seems that Kerry was belittling the people who serve our country in uniform. But wait, that doesn't make any sense. What veteran and politician would really think that disgracing the people in uniform and in active combat for this country would be a good thing to do? So I looked into it and discovered that Kerry was trying to insult the intelligence of the president of the United States. And I remain amazed that Kerry still tries to tell jokes even with malicious intent.

Or, was he referring to our troops as uneducated?

No he was not trying to call the troops stupid. But he created a great sound bite that will be on his permanent record that shows his lips moving saying the troops are stoopid.

As for his response, given that the country is largely against the Iraq War, will this tough talk help Democratic candidates in next week's elections?

His tough talk would have helped if it wasn;t damage control and if he had gotten key democratic leaders on the same page with him. On the other side of the aisle a high ranking figure likely the president would have reminded the country of his virtues, asserted that it was a partisan feeding frenzy that was whooping up the gaffe and that those that know Kerry know that he is a great friend of those in uniform.

As it is his tough talk got washed over by condemnations from both sides of the aisle and he got bullied into further modifying his position and giving a great boost of morale to the republican party.

Bonus - Bush and Kerry both had mediocre grades at Yale. Discuss.



As Tony Snow stated, does John Kerry owe an apology to those who are serving and their families?

No, he does not owe an apology to those people. I watched an amusing clip that reminded my of OJ Simpson and trying to put on a glove from the past decade. Tony Snow was bemused trying to figure out where the missing us could possibly go, and in effect was saying that Kerry's excuse was not possible by following his explanation.

The us, Tony, goes in "you get stuck in Iraq" like this "you get us stuck in Iraq."

Or is their an element of truth in Kerry's statement?

I think George Bush is ineloquent and that he (like John Kerry) should not walk around unsupervised near a microphone. I don't think Bush's failed policies are do to not studying hard.

Considering the “flap” over Kerry’s swift boat service and his comments that he's considering running for president again, was this a wise statement?

It was an unwise statement regardless of the Swiftboat spinners. In terms of considering running again, I think the punishment he's taking on this could influence him from trying to recycle his stale nomination in the 2008 cycle. We'd all be better off if he didn;t run in 2008.

Considering the service record of George Bush and deferment specialist first class Cheney, is it prudent for the White House to bring military service up as a subject this close to the election?

The hawks in the white house are very week in service and I think that is an embarrassment for them. But this is an easily exploitable gaffe (as has been clearly demonstrated) and I don't see it boomeranging back to the light service record of the Bush team.

This is like saying Muhammad wrote the perfect excuse for OBL.

You are more than welcome to take my ideology and beliefs and place it where ever you like and compare it to whatever events you choose, I chose to share them with you. Yet you must know this is your transportation, your vehicle, not mine.
The revolution as I termed it and in every example I used was a political revolution for freedom, liberty and human rights, or what we call democracy. You cite Lenin but my beliefs would not apply to him as they are based within the US structure and political ideals of democracy and I don’t believe there is much evidence that the Communist revolution was something the American govt chose to support militarily. I in fact listed several instances where I believed US troops were in fact fighting or acting aggressively and with the threat of violence in order to preserve the American ideals in direct opposition to the communist system or revolution... Korean War, NATO, Germany and Japan.

Regardless the basis of my point is to not give reason to violence and terror but to recognize that some ideals are worth preserving, some ideals are worth fighting for. And the fight will be asked of us from time to time because democracy is not a universal truth or existence it is a purposeful and forever demanding condition of participation.

Many people who support Mr. Kerry’s comments even in the “misinterpreted” form, don’t believe this is true and feel violence is not a part of the human condition and feel that human rights some how are contained within borders. And so the idea that American soldiers are in Iraq to terrorize is a perfectly acceptable idea. It is these identifications, this wording, this lack of understanding to the motivations and beliefs of the other side that have continuously plagued not only Kerry’s own attempts at leadership of the US but the Democrats in general.

After seeing the video, do you believe Senator Kerry meant to refer to George Bush?

After seeing the video and reading reports of the context of the sentence in question, I believe Kerry was referring to George Bush. If, as reported, Kerry's remark immediately followed "President Bush used to live in the state of Texas, but now he lives in a state of denial", it seems pretty clear that he was referring to the Commander-in-Chief with his education "joke".

Or, was he referring to our troops as uneducated?

Nope.

As for his response, given that the country is largely against the Iraq War, will this tough talk help Democratic candidates in next week's elections?

Nope. What he was actually saying has got lost in the teacup storm arising from the misinterpretation of a sentence taken out of context.

As Tony Snow stated, does John Kerry owe an apology to those who are serving and their families?

Not if the reported context of the comment is correct. Whoever has the footage of the press event should broadcast the whole session (or at least a transcript), not just one sentence. One wonders why they haven't.

Meanwhile, perhaps all those who have assumed that of course that's what he meant owe our troops an apology?

Or is their an element of truth in Kerry's statement?

Kerry's "statement" was a bad joke about the Bush administration, attributing their being "stuck in Iraq" to the perils of bad education. There is more than an element of truth attributing the Iraqi situation to misguided goals, a lack of forethought, the exploitation of misinformation, poor strategy, and a failure to properly assess or respond to pertinent feedback. Whether this is due to poor education or not could be debated.

Considering the "flap" over Kerry’s swift boat service and his comments that he's considering running for president again, was this a wise statement?

No. It was a bad joke, poorly delivered. That never helps anyone. Not that I can think of anything that would help John Kerry.

Considering the service record of George Bush and deferment specialist first class Cheney, is it prudent for the White House to bring military service up as a subject this close to the election?

I wouldn't think this was ever prudent. Less prudent, I would have thought, is the desperate attempt to grasp at anything that can be distorted for facile political points instead of, say, addressing an issue or two. Then again, it seems to have served this administration and its party pretty well so far...

Considering the service record of George Bush and deferment specialist first class Cheney, is it prudent for the White House to bring military service up as a subject this close to the election?


As usual, my question, written while running out the door, wasn’t as direct as I intended.

As posted earlier I don’t think the GOP, specifically the White House where Tony Snow was demanding an apology, should have tried to make hay out of this because any time you bring up Kerry/Bush/troops it will invariably lead to their own service (even FOX surprised by saying “…decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry…). And that’s a battle the White house would loose this time around.

Coupled with polls that indicate Americans have lost faith in the Iraq war, think Bush has no plans to get us out, and the overall Bush popularity numbers, it just looked like a recipe for this to back fire.

Let’s turn the table for a moment, a few quotes from our fearless leader:

“I need to be able to move the right people to the right place at the right time to protect you, and I’m not going to accept a lousy bill out of the United Nations Senate.” South Bend, Indiana; Oct 31, 2002

“You see, the Senate wants to take away some of the powers of the administrative branch.” Washington, DC; Sept 19 , 2002. Obvious grasp of how our own country and the rest of the world works. Impeach him for treason, he thinks he’s running the wrong country.

“In other words, I don’t think people ought to be compelled to make the decision which they think is best for their family.” Washington, DC; Dec 11 2002. Sounds like a dictator to me. Impeach him.

“My administration has been calling upon all the leaders in the – in the Middle East to do everything they can to stop the violence, to tell the different parties involved that peace will never happen.” Crawford, Texas; Aug 13, 2001. So now it’s two false premises, no WMD, and he really doesn’t want peace in the Middle East. Impeach the treasonous flip-flopper.

“The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law.” Austin, TX; Nov 22, 2000. First move in a coop to overthrow the US, impeach the treasonous dictator him now.

“People say, How can I help on this war on terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child, by going into a shut-in’s house and say, “I love you"." Washington, DC; Sept 19, 2002. This guy is in charge of the war on terror and this is his stratergery? It’s treasonous, impeach him.

“By the way, we ran tenth amongst the industrialized world in broadband technology and it’s availability. That’s not good enough for America. Tenth is ten spots too low, as far as I’m concerned.” Minneapolis, MN; April 26, 2004. The fink wants to take away all of our broadband access. Off with his head.

“I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purposes: You disarm, or we will.” Speaking about Saddam Hussein; Manchester, NH; Oct 5 2002. What a hypocrite, he says the GOP is strong on defense but he was willing to disarm if Saddam didn’t. That’s a lie and treason, impeach him.

“See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attach each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” Milwaukee, WI; Oct 3, 2003. He just lied. Impeach him.

“We don’t believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans.” Scranton, PA; Sept 6, 2000. Sounds like he supports a dictatorship which is treason. Impeach him.

“It’s very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to American, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America.” Dakar, Senegal; July 8, 2003. Sounds like the guy fully understands the struggle of minorities. Treason against minorities, impeach him now.

“We need an energy bill that encourages consumption.” Trent, NJ: Setp 23, 2002, Hah! Who says he lacks an energy plan.

“Arbolist….Look up the word. I don’t know, maybe I made it up. Anyway, it’s an arbo-tree-ist, somebody who knows about trees.” As quoted in USA Today, Aug 21, 2001. He just insulted every arborist in the country, insensitive fool. Impeach him!

“One year ago today, the time for excuse-making has come to an end.” Washington, DC; Jan 8, 2003. He can’t manage a calendar, no wonder we don’t have time tables in Iraq. Incompetence, impeach him.

"I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is -- my point is, there's a strong will for democracy." --George W. Bush, interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Sept. 24, 2006, So the Commander in Chief boils down the ultimate sacrifice of Iraqi’s and US troops as a comma. But let’s hang Kerry.

My point in bringing up the Bush’s quotes (and I could have filled pages) is if we held the leader of our land to the same stringent Kerry-esque interpretations, we could run him out of Washington on a rail. I guess we hear Bush make these statements and tell ourselves it’s just the village idiot opening his pie hole. Maybe that’s Kerry’s strategy, sound like the current president and improve his chances in ’08.

Keith Oberman may have said it best:


To a “T”.

Thanks F&D. A helpful summary would have been: Bush is well known for verbal gaffes and this gives Kerry a pass.

Okay so Kerry was trying to be mean-spirited and directly insult the President just prior to an election. At least we have that straight. Perhaps he was using Bush as an example:

Bush graduated with a degree in History from Yale in 1968. After graduating, he joined the Texas Air National Guard, which is seen as a way to avoid Vietnam (and to some, as a draft dodge ).

So if we take Kerry at his original meaning, shouldn't he have said you should graduate and join the National Guard to avoid Iraq? Then you can become President. Wait, but only if you are ill prepared.

Or (assuming Kerry means that Bush is an ill-prepared idiot) did he mean that being a slacker would allow you to beat elitist Massachusetts liberal in a run for President of the United States?

Or, assuming he was as mean-spirited as his self-defense says he is, he really meant that the President of the United States is a buffoon who couldn't plan his way out of a paper bag and this is all due (apparently) to his graduating from Yale (and subsequently Harvard Business School).

Kerry's remark makes no sense in any light. It is either factually wrong, poorly thought out, poorly planned, or poorly executed. Makes no difference--just another sigh of relief that this guy isn't President and now, never will be.



Considering it was at a Democratic campaign stop, who do you think has the full tape and transcript?

How do you figure? He talked about education, then talked to the students and said "you" wouldn't get stuck in Iraq (if they studied, etc).

This attempt of a "joke" was lame. Bush got better grades than Kerry in college. What WAS the joke? Since Bush got better grades than Kerry in college and defeated HIM in the election, what exactly was his punch line that he supposedly "bungled"?

Who is Kerry to call anyone like Bush, his superior in any way, "stupid".

Kerry bungled it, insulted the troops, and instead of coming out like a man and apologizing, released a "statement" to a 'web page".

Oh, I'm sure the troops he insulted will read that from their Humvees and tents, lol.

Kerry has become a big story because he betrays the left's animosity toward the military in general and the "elite's" disdain for the brave individuals who take up the calling of arms.

There is NO question that he said what he meant. It fits his historical pattern. It's consistent.

Day after day after day we hear the same thing from the democrat left; (1) Iraq is a disaster, (2) we cannot win that war, (3) our troops have committed atrocities, and (4) our government is "lying" to us.

Al Jazeera could not say it better.

Kerry is just continuing his own personal treason that he began when he switched sides after his short 4 month stint in Vietnam, threw his medals over the WH fence (or didn't) and took up the cause of the Viet Cong. Now, history repeats itself since, after all, for many hard lefties it will ALWAYS be 1968!

"Treason" is a strong term. Congratulations on joining the Ann Coulter crowd.

After decades of being “right” the likes of Pat Buchanan, Matthew Dowd, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay are suddenly "wrong."

Here is an article and video from Media Matters.



http://mediamatters.org/items/200611010012
Video is available on this page

It's great that the New York Times, Seattle PI and Media Matters and are making judgements regarding what Kerry meant to say, not what he said.

Let me preface this by saying I agree, that Kerry was trying to denigrate Bush with his comments. BUT - the inconsistency is astonishing.

Let's just hypothesize that another character who had a history of speaking gaffes, and all of those gaffes tend to target a certain group. Let's say that Trent Lott mispronouced a prepared joke about, oh, knickers. How many news outlets would lead their articles with "Here are Lott's prepared remarks - what he meant to say was...."

just curious.

The basic concept here seems to be that Senator Kerry made a mistake, and that the prepared speech was not written that way. This seems reasonable. However, is there anyone that really thinks many of our current Presidents verbal gaffs, that he gets nailed for by the press all the time, were actually written into the speech by his writters? When all politicians start getting a pass like this, I'll be able to accept it for Senator Kerry. Until then, I will continue to hold him and everyone else to what they actually say, not what they may have intended to say.

There have been numerous verbal errors thoughout political history that have insulted various groups and individuals. The generally accepted approach to such mistakes is to apologise, and explain the error. Senator Kerry seems bent on not apologising (currently anyway). I think we all have had moments where we mis-spoke. It happens. What most of us do is say "opps, my mistake, I'm sorry, I meant to say (fill in the blank) but my mouth just wasn't working with me at that moment", or something similar.

In the media, verbal errors make for great stories, and when they insult someone or some group the speaker's political opposition will usually try to use it to their advantage. The easiest solution to something like this is to apologise. Senator Kerry has stated his explaination for the error, but failed to apologise to those who took offense. And believe me, we all noticed. A simple I'm sorry would have made the difference for me personally, the lack of one speaks volumes to me as well. Apparently, veterans of Enduring / Iraqi Freedom, as well as those serving there today are not worth an apology to Senator Kerry. How else should we take the lack of a simple "sorry"?

Since we’re debating the exact content/context, word for word, of what Kerry stated, I think it’s only fair to compare, word for word, comments by our president and not just “he’s made some gaffs”. Apologies if they show him in a not so bright light.

I never said this gives Kerry a pass, just questioned why the double standard, which you avoided answering.


Let me guess, you’re “historical pattern” referrs to his comments in 1972. Unless you want to prove otherwise, say something more up to date than thirty four years ago, than I hardly think a comment every thirty four years is a pattern. Here’s something a lot less dated and certainly more pertinent.

From the first Kerry/Bush debate:


Can you believe it, he called them the best trained in the world.

What’s he thinking calling the actions of our troops noble.

Turn coat....

Again, what’s with this best trained troops in the world bit.

Got to run, I’m sure if I continue to dig I’ll find more. But if you’d like to provide some more “historical pattern” to back up your claim, and maybe something oh I don’t know, at least not thirty four years old, you may have a point.

Don't know about you, but I'm just glad I'm not held accountable for something I said thirty four years ago.

I see feigned indignation caught on with this thread quickly. I shouldn’t be surprised considering the caliber of Republican campaign commercials being beamed into our living rooms.

Kerry’s Vietnam record has been brought up by those criticizing him. The posters piling on Kerry are also the posters refusing to think ill of Senator Macaca in light of former friends saying he’s used racial slurs and allegedly stuffed a deer’s head into a black family’s mailbox, give the good Senator the benefit of the doubt. He didn’t mean anything racial by it, it was just a botched joke. Allen was being oblique. And so what if Allen had a "nigger card?" People said nigger all the time. All of this was years and years ago after all. None of it, including Allen’s association with the Council of Conservative Citizens, should enter the debate today. Anyone calling Allen a racist is poisoning debate.

Not so with Kerry. Everything he has said should be considered to put his botched joke into context.

It’s breathtaking.


You mean, what was the joke supposed to be. Kerry’s explanation has been referenced throughout this thread. This is a pointless exercise, however. This is Lord Helmet I’m responding to. You’ll ask again and insist on interpreting Kerry’s joke in the worst possible way.


Carlito, man, give me a break. Contentious? So far Republican ads have accused Democratic challengers of

• supporting man-boy love
• being an ACLU president
• ACLU is an organization defending hardcore criminals
• going soft on child molesters
• refusing to condemn sex between adults and children
• supporting funding for research on teenage sexuality that attached probes to females' groins
• using government resources to call sex hotlines
• taking rifles away from hunters
• paying Social security to illegal aliens
• supporting the Communist Party
• supporting Osama bin Laden
• supporting infanticide
• being supported by the porn industry

And things could get bumpy if Democrats take over Congress? Let’s just ignore the ongoing partisanship and declare the GOP the winner now ‘cause some egos may have to adjust themselves after the election. Why, Democrats drafted a to-do list in case they take over. How dare they!

If you find Republican opportunism so revolting don’t transfer it to my party before they even get their foot in the door. I can’t see any serious politician claiming a mandate after fighting so hard. The most radical suggestion and potential for abuse in Dean’s outline is changing the ethics rules. You may think withholding funds for NSA programs until the White House submits reports required by law to Congress means Democrats are spoiling for a flight. I call it oversight, something that’s MIA in this Congress.

There has been plenty of slime on both sides of Allen - Webb and you know it. The difference is which side is featured on page A1 of the Washington Post, and that would be Senator Macaca, time and time again. (not that they take sides, they do have to find time to favorably cover Cardin as well)

I don't have a handy list of Democratic slime, but I've seen plenty of "Republican so-and-so was accused of X in the 70's" type of pamphleteering going on in battleground states, which is sick no matter who does it. The guy in Maine who released Bush's DUI in October 2000 was arrested on the side of the road with a toy gun and an Osama bin Laden mask I think, which seems, er, odd.


I think that impeaching the President is a little more than a "to do list," which was my point. Feel free to disagree. That said, Ms. Pelosi's 10 point plan or whatever is quite innocuous, assuming that she becomes speaker and shares the gavel with the children.


Any serious politician? ) We're discussing the Democratic Congressional caucus, right? Sorry, the door was wide open there.

Side bet - IF (big if) the dems take both houses, $100 says Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Chuck Shumer and/or Nancy Pelosi say "mandate" on national TV by November 12.

Well, judging from the Zogby and Reuters polls that came out today, the answer of the American people seems to be: 'Who cares'?

D