November 1, 2006

"So Kerry's ridiculous elitism, burbling out of him as if he lives, as I suspect, entirely on a diet of lentils and club soda..."

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass lets the Kerry mockery rip.

212 comments:

1 – 200 of 212   Newer›   Newest»
me said...

That is the end of Kerry (if there was anything left before).

Eric said...

Isn't this just a mountain out of a molehill? His comments were clearly directed at the President - playing off the old standby that Mr. Bush is an idiot. The idea that Mr. Kerry would make any negative comments about the actual troops in Iraq is more than ridiculous. It always amuses me when I see the kind of garbage that gets reported on a "slow" news day...

Meade said...

"...that Kerry will remain a man of principle in this regard for the next week..."

...until the man votes against his principles.

Gerry said...

"His comments were clearly directed at the President"

No, clearly they were not. And every time a Democrat asserts that they were, they give voters a choice.

The voter can assume either that the person making the assertion is an idiot, or the person making the assertion thinks voters are idiots, or both.

me said...

Whether you believe Kerry is irrelevant. And whether there were a million mistakes and misrepresentations that led to a collosal waste of money and lives is irrelevant. Rather, what is relevant is that Kerry's arrogance overpowers all rational arguments. He should have been hiding out with Bin Laden, not campaigning for Democrats.

Edward said...

Since when did lentils and club soda become elitist?

I'm sorry Ann, but this column you link to is really not funny.

That's a shame, because I do think Kerry made a fool of himself and deserves to be mocked.

But his gaffe does not reflect upon the national security policy of the entire Democratic Party.

And the entire Democratic Party should not pay a price for that one idiotic statement.

The issues facing this country are too serious for us to allow ourselves to be distracted by this nonsense.

MadisonMan said...

Isn't this just a mountain out of a molehill?

Eric, when the Republicans have nothing to do but play defense, why shouldn't you expect them to seize on Kerry's latest verbal gaffe. Sure, he probably didn't mean it the way it sounds -- but it sounds completely horrible, and Kerry doesn't seem to realize that! The man is incredibly tone deaf. What would a heart-felt apology cost him, anyway?

Democrats everywhere should demand he give one. "Monday I mangled my words in a way to impugn the intelligence of our fine fighters everywhere. That was certainly not my intent and I offer my apology to these fighting men and women whom I admire greatly. This is not the first or the last time a politician will have words come out of their mouths that sound horrible. I am profoundly sorry." Then he should turn around and get off the stage.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word.

chickenlittle said...

Kerry lied?
voters decide!

Zach said...

Kerry isn't just an elitist, he's an elitist with no accomplishments.

Forget what he meant to say, if he really did mean to take a condescending cheap shot at Bush. What came out was a condescending cheap shot at the army, from a politician who a) condescends too much at the best of times, and b) has the winter Soldier fiasco in his past.

David said...

Kerry spoke how he really feels about the American military and foreign policy. He should be censured and resign as the spoiled elitist he, and the other members of the democratic leadership, are.

Further, Kerry spoke the unacknowledged truth of the hidden plank in the democratic party platform. They are anti-military and apologists for America's strength and foreign policy.

By the way eric, I remind you that Kerry and Bush went to the same college and Bush received better grades. You fail to grasp, as does Kerry, the gravity of this failure of character displayed by Kerry and the leaders of the democratic party. You are correct when you refer to Kerry's remarks as garbage!

Kerry's words are despicable and any attempts to spin it will be met with the contempt those efforts deserve.

pr9000 (paul) said...

and even an apology now would be worthless ... it's too late -- something about unringing a bell, or toothpaste and a tube, and all that.

Zach said...

And the remarks were not clearly directed against Bush. I saw the clip, and Bush was never mentioned. Maybe the rest of the speech adds context, but the clip that everybody has seen refers to the military, not Bush. Inserting
"getting us" before "stuck in Iraq" makes an awkward sentence, and breaks the contrast between doing well and getting a good job and doing poorly and getting stuck in Iraq (ie, with a bad job).

sonicfrog said...

Hey, lay off the lentil soup slander. I like lentil soup.

As sad as Kerry's remarks were, I'm just as troubled by the response from the audience. They cheered. It appears Kerry isn't the only one who clings to the stereotype that the men and women who enlist in the military do so because, well, they're not smart enough to do anything else.

Eric said...

Madison Man: You are correct. Your statement is exactly what Mr. Kerry should say. He has indicated as much, but he hasn't apologized for the way it sounded (to some people).

But I still think it is ridiculous to make a big deal out of nothing. I was one of the first people to defend "Rush" when he made his comment about McNabb - the whole "he gets more attention because he's black." Rush may or may not have been wrong, but it clearly wasn't a racist comment. Here, you may or may not think Mr. Kerry came across as referencing the troops (as being unintelligent) but a little context would tell anyone Kerry would never make that comment. Ergo, big deal out of nothing.

Gerry: C'mon - of course they were. The entire reference was to the war as a bad policy (context matters, once again). And given Mr. Kerry's status as a former soldier and Mr. Bush's public persona (fair or not) of being, shall we say, anit-intellectual, it is clear Kerry was referencing Mr. Bush. Taking any other position merely weakens your credibility.

Zach - the Senate is the "most exclusive club" in the world. Being a United States Senator is an accomplishment.

David - that's just garbage.

Balfegor said...

Gerry: C'mon - of course they were. The entire reference was to the war as a bad policy (context matters, once again). And given Mr. Kerry's status as a former soldier and Mr. Bush's public persona (fair or not) of being, shall we say, anit-intellectual, it is clear Kerry was referencing Mr. Bush. Taking any other position merely weakens your credibility.

I really don't think this flies. He's addressing a bunch of students, and in that context, the most natural reading is that he really is talking about them, not Bush. The only way they get "stuck" in Iraq is if they join the military (or a contractor or something), and he's making his little joke at the soldiers' expense.

That said, though, given that Kerry's college grades seem to have been worse than Bush's, it's not like he studied in college either (unless he is even stupider than I think), and look where he is now: He may be an object of public mockery and a figure of fun, but he's also filthy rich, and living a live of supreme luxury.

Henry said...

Now we get to the real problem -- Democrats don't know funny.

Burbling...club soda. That's clever writing, setup and punchline.

Kerry's joke, even if he had delivered it correctly, was awkwardly composed and boorishly unfunny.

Frankly, I don't think Kerry intentionally meant to slander the troops. Maybe it was a Freudian slip. That wouldn't surprise me. But the "joke" was scripted. No political handler would have let a joke through that insulted the troops.

Kerry needs to apologize, but more fundamentally than that, he needs to learn how to mock himself. He can't just say "sorry I mispoke." He needs to say "I'm an idiot. Did my brain know what my mouth was saying? Apparently not."

The tallest candidate generally wins the Presidential campaign, but self-deprecation helps.

Reagan over Carter. (funniness landslide)
GHW Bush over Dukakis (tie).
Clinton over GHW Bush.
Clinton over Dole (closer than one would think).
Bush over Gore.
Bush over Kerry (no contest).

Fenrisulven said...

Eric: The idea that Mr. Kerry would make any negative comments about the actual troops in Iraq is more than ridiculous.

Ha. Because Kerry has never smeared the troops before...

This is getting funnier as the day progresses. I don't know whats better, Kerry's feeble tough-man stance or listening to his supporters try to spin out of this.

Face it Eric, if you really thought this was no biggie, you wouldn't be posting here today.

Aside: I'd like to respectfully thank some of my political oppostion [ahem Elizabeth] for standing up for our troops last night. Thanks. I did notice and appreciate it.

Jake said...

"What really happened is that John Kerry had a "Dixie Chicks" moment. Like Natalie Maines in England, Kerry thought he had a sympathetic audience of liberal college students to whom he could pander, by sharing a little inside humor. "Heh, heh, I know you guys despise the military and think they're dummies. I do too. Ain't I cool?"

via Annika's Journal

Joe said...

This has already gone beyond Kerry. Democrat talking heads are already saying that even if Kerry misspoke, he's still right!

Ricardo said...

I'm not certain why you republish this stuff. Don't you understand that republication gives you ownership? And if you want to do it, then please show that you're an equal opportunity republicationist, and give a little time to real races (say, the Katherine Harris meltdown in Florida) which are far more interesting in the scope of their implications, and are more worthy of your time and considerable talents.

Henry said...

In defense of Kerry and his excuses: "You" is a slippery word. Does it mean "You" or "Y'all" or "You down there in Texas, George Bush, I'm talking to you."

Fen, I think Kerry is about as big a fool as exists in politics today, but unless his staff is lying, this was suppose to be a scripted joke. No political handlers are going to preplan an insult to the troops.

Fenrisulven said...

Henry, I might be able to buy that if Jane hamscher of FireDoglake was his advisor.

Hanson at NRO refutes your point better than I could:

(2) How could Kerry possibly claim that he was thinking of the uneducated in the context of George Bush, who, after all, went to Harvard and Yale?

(4) This is not the first, but third, time he has denigrated soldiers in the middle of a war-and there is a systematic theme: John Kerry's assumed superior morality allows him to pass judgment from on high about supposedly lesser folk who become tools of a suspect military: thus we go from limb-loppers and Genghis' hordes to terrorists to dead-beats. The only constant is that the haughtiness is always delivered in the same sanctimonious, self-righteous, and patronizing tone.

(5) The mea culpa that Democrats are blaming the war and not the warriors is laughable after Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, and Kerry have collectively compared American soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, Stalinists, terrorists, and Baathists.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmEzZGYwYzk0ZDE3YTM0NjY4MmY3Nzg3NDNjNzM5MjY=

dreamingmonkey said...

In a way I think this is good for the Democrats, because (hopefully) it will take John Kerry out of presidential contention. Not that he would win the nomination, but he would be a needless energy-consuming distraction.

And I don't believe that it will hurt Dems in the upcoming elections. Kerry comes off looking like a jerk, but most voters are smart enough not to let his idiotic remarks affect their opinion of their own candidates.

Gerry said...

"The entire reference was to the war as a bad policy (context matters, once again). "

There was nothing in the entire reference to suggest what you assert.

I just posted this on another thread, but I'll add it here. The refined excuse, offered by a Kerry aide, is now that he meant to say something along these lines:

“I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.”

Which would work as a criticism of Bush, if it was coming from someone who had voted against the Iraq war.

But Kerry voted for the war.

So the refined excuse now is Kerry calling himself intellectually lazy.

Zach said...

Zach - the Senate is the "most exclusive club" in the world. Being a United States Senator is an accomplishment.

Well, a lot of people want it, and he's got it. I suppose that's an accomplishment. It's not like they reduce the size of the Senate if they can't maintain quality standards, though. Every election produces one winner, regardless of the competition. Looking at the number of sons and wives who get elected to the same spot as the paterfamilias, it's not a pure meritocracy.

When I talk about accomplishment in a politician, I mean something they did between elections.

john(lesser) said...

"Since when did lentils and club soda become elitist?"

You might want to check that sentence for other words, like say, burbling.

"The idea that Mr. Kerry would make any negative comments about the actual troops in Iraq is more than ridiculous."

Um, no. Mr. Kerry has a well documented history of making negative comments. Just last year he accused them of "terrorizing women and children".

Fenrisulven said...

So, is the Fraudulent Coward going to hide out all day or is he going to apologize? Great leadership there...

Fenrisulven said...

He's going to blame his speech-writer, just like he blamed "that son of a bitch" [Secret Service agent guarding his life]. Same channel, same pattern. Blame the "peasants" that defend you.

Wait for it. He will.

knoxgirl said...

So Kerry's ridiculous elitism... a big chunk of wood floating just above Republican hands in deep water.

This is the line I like. Though "wood" is not the word I'd use...

dick said...

How should this not reflect on the democrats? After all this is the man they personally selected to represent their party in the last presidential election. He was the one who defined their program for them. Now we hear that you can't blame the democrats for what this man said? Between Dean and Kerry the democratic party has pretty much told us what they believe. Now they want to deny that. Amazing!!

Fenrisulven said...

How should this not reflect on the democrats?

Exactly. This is not an isolated gaffe. The Dem leadership has smeared our troops in the past. Kerry merely highlighted it. I just need to put Hanson of NRO on loop:

"The mea culpa that Democrats are blaming the war and not the warriors is laughable after Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, and Kerry have collectively compared American soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, Stalinists, terrorists, and Baathists."

johnstodderinexile said...

The problem that Kerry stubbornly refuses to recognize is that his comments might have been "directed at the President" in his head, but that was anything but clear in the words he said. Combine that with his past comments about servicemen, portraying them essentially as cannibals, and even Kerry should understand the source of the confusion and rancor. And yet, somehow, he doesn't. What is wrong with him?

Apologizing for this comment does not require him to concede one inch of ground on policy to Bush. Bush isn't the person who needs the apology. It's the people who Kerry insulted accidentally (he says) as he tried to insult Bush.

There's got to be someone in his camp who has tried and failed to explain this concept to Kerry. This person must be about ready to shoot their heads off.

Balfegor said...

How should this not reflect on the democrats? After all this is the man they personally selected to represent their party in the last presidential election. He was the one who defined their program for them. Now we hear that you can't blame the democrats for what this man said?

Well, judging from the recent items on Instapundit, the new crop of right-wing Democrats (e.g. Jesus-loving Ford, or the Buchananite Webb) may be well positioned to use this as a kind of Sister Souljah moment. Which would be good for their party, and good for America, actually, so long as they play it up properly. Repudiate him! Let's have our Buckley anti-Bircher moment.

Gerry said...

"Which would be good for their party, and good for America, actually, so long as they play it up properly."

Hm, I don't think it is so much if they play it up properly.

I think it would be if they aren't playing, and that it is really who they are.

Fenrisulven said...

It's the people who Kerry insulted accidentally (he says) as he tried to insult Bush.

Thats an excellent point thats been lost. Kerry's been asked to apologize to our troops and his response is "Hell no!".

Pogo said...

Kerry has to come to every party already snockered, don a lampshade, flirt with the boss's wife, insult the biggest client, and tip over the punchbowl while dancing on the table.

Next morning, he'll blame the secretary.

Zeb Quinn said...

Isn't this just a mountain out of a molehill? His comments were clearly directed at the President - playing off the old standby that Mr. Bush is an idiot.

Work with what he said, not with what he's trying after the fact to fix it to say. He said what he said. It's on videotape. He said what he meant and he meant what he said. Which is, he really believes that only uneducated people with no opportunities in life end up as enlisted personnel in the military services and in Iraq. That's what he thinks and that's what he said. Don't deny it. And it is in no way a novel expression. The freakshow that the left has become has been smugly and condescendingly reworking and repeating that particular little meme since Vietnam. It's what many if not most of the left thinks and believes. And Kerry said it right out loud for everybody to hear and think about, to see firsthand, unvarnished, their elitist view of military service. And that's why it's important.

dino said...

i really have gained a new found respect for conservative blogger LaShawn Barber at www.lashawnbarber.com. I appreciate her honesty and integrity.

After reviewing the situation, I am surprised that Conservatives aren't ENRAGED about Kerry’s criticism of George W. Bush’s Philosophy in fighting the war on terror, rather than focusing on a mangled joke. THe transcript of the prepared text clearly shows Kerry botched the joke, and instead of the president defending his policy and conservatives who support his policy running to his defense, they are seizing on a botched joke. It only adds to Kerry’s rebuttal point that Republicans are debating strawmen rather than discussing their philosophy.

I remember when Dick Cheney was asked why military recruitment was lagging behind expected results, he said it was because the ECONOMY was DOING SO GOOD, and there were more opportunities in the market. Sadly, someone could be twist that around to suggest that the only people left for recruitment were people who couldn’t get jobs in a booming economy.

I think after the Foley scandal, a lot of Conservatives in the blogosphere feel they were outdone by KOS and liberals in pushing that so called scandal (even though it was more of a issue of personal accountability), so the first drop of blood from the other side stoked a fire that had been burning in many minds. As my coworker said, "Sadly, we look at each other as the enemy, while the enemy plots to destroy us indiscriminately."

Reading some of the comments from the previous post about Kerry, and learning about the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal, I guess its good news for the Republican operative accused in the New Hampshire scandal, because if the base gets excited, more of his legal fees will be covered since the RNC has decided to cover his back.

Fenrisulven said...

I am surprised that Conservatives aren't ENRAGED about Kerry’s criticism of George W. Bush’s Philosophy in fighting the war on terror.

I'm not. We've been hearing the same tired arguments by assertion for the last three years. Rush to war. Illegal war. Blood for Oil. Haliburton. We don't take criticism from the Left seriously anymore, because we've learned [through debate] that they aren't serious in their criticism. Its just a poltical tool for gasbags like Kerry to score cheap points.

Noticed you went a few paragraphs without wondering when Kerry will apologize to all the troops he "accidentily" insulted. Any reason?

Bissage said...

Is the official claim that Kerry's punchline was meant to be: "You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq"?

If so, then what's with the use of the word "stuck?" I mean, it is true that a soldier can get "stuck" in the sense that he or she can't simply change his or her mind and catch a bus back home.

But there's very little advantage to Kerry to say that the U.S. is indefinitely "stuck." After all, the Democratic Party's promise is to get the U.S. (and the soldiers) unstuck faster than the Republican Party. Kerry's overarching message wouldn't have been one of practical futility.

Perhaps the gaffe (if it was one)was caused by Kerry's disorientation as he suffered a flashback to his Christmas in Camodia and felt that depressing sense of abandonment all over again.

If only he'd studied harder.

*sniff*

Fenrisulven said...

Harold Ford just demanded Kerry apologize to the troops.

Smart man.

Garage Mahal said...

So Republicans now can detect medicine levels of Parkinson's patients, and know what's in their heart --diagnosis, and get inside brain dead woman -- and vulcan mind-meld Democrats thoughts in statements, for their true intent.

The GOP doesn't even have a platform anymore. No ideas, no attack ad too sleazy, no hatchet job too deep. Your President going on Rush Limbaugh today, a true American Pig, is all the proof you need of that. You need to be eye-level with a snake to talk to a Republican these days.

And in a party of swine -- Limbaugh and Hannity fit in just fine. Reagan's Party my ass.

Goesh said...

a real turd in the catsup bottle for sure

Gerry said...

"You need to be eye-level with a snake to talk to a Republican these days. "

If you were a good boy this year, then maybe Santa will get you a footstool.

Fenrisulven said...

Garage: So Republicans...Reagan's Party my ass.

See, even Garage [in his own way] admits this is bad news for the Dems. He's sounds really steamed.

I'm sure dave will be along soon to call us all brownshirts.

J. Peden said...

"But Kerry voted for the war.

So the refined excuse now is Kerry calling himself intellectually lazy."
Gerry

Nice one, Gerry.

Kerry has been claiming/admitting for a while now that he has been duped in regard to two major U.S. Military efforts, spanning now nearly 40 years of "continuing Ed." time for Kerry.

Talk about being "stuck" or in a "quagmire"? Such terms define Kerry's brain.

johnstodderinexile said...

Here's an analogy that the left blogosphere will understand.

Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face because he mistook him for a quail. Dick Cheney didn't apologize to the quail; he rightly apologized to the guy he shot in the face. Kerry is acting like it's the quails who are demanding he apologize- not for shooting a guy, but for shooting at quails.

No one wants to take away Kerry's right to criticize Bush, but he's acting like that's what this is all about.

MadisonMan said...

There's got to be someone in his camp who has tried and failed to explain this concept to Kerry. This person must be about ready to shoot their heads off.

One could just give the gun to Kerry, and have him shoot himself again.

I wonder, though, if Kerry's advisors aren't every bit as insular and kowtowing as Bush's. It would certainly explain things.

Fenrisulven said...

Ford just came out and demanded Kerry apologize to the troops. I expect other Dems will be doing the same very soon. If Kerry's advisors ever want to work in politics again, they need to either force him to the podium or resign.

Fitz said...

“And they accuse liberals of using government power in the service of utopian social engineering?”

It’s not utopian. It’s a simple standard, and a very old and successful one at that. It includes moral norms like anti-adultery, polygamy, orgies, pornography & promiscuousness. It has a myriad of social benefits and is something every government & society has enforced inside and outside the law.

The Kerry Elitism (in my understanding) refers to a mindset of the intellectual (predominate in Universities and Western Europe). They approach things like the War on Terror the same way much of the Clinton foreign policy did. To treat it a s a law enforcement problem. They think they can thread the needle and while doing three things.
1- stop actual terrorists who are plotting actual attacks
2- Not upset the Muslim world
3- Maintain their sense of superior humanity

I don’t think war works like that myself. I think you need to fight the enemy on multiple fronts until you have demoralized them & their cause. I think the liberal approach (as practiced) will only demoralize us, and lead to further attacks.

Anonymous said...

you may or may not think Mr. Kerry came across as referencing the troops (as being unintelligent) but a little context would tell anyone Kerry would never make that comment.

Beyond Kerry's proven track record of slamming American sodliers, what we've seen of Kerry's ego also makes it entirely plausible. It seems pretty clear that he believes he's smarter than absolutely everyone else.

And that's what galls him. He deserves to be President, after all -- he knows what to do -- but it's those moronic, beer-swilling rubes he has to get approval from.

I have no difficulty in believing John Kerry has offensive elitist attitudes toawrds everyone. Why should the military be excepted?

Fenrisulven said...

a little context would tell anyone Kerry would never make that comment.

Interesting reality you have. In mine, Kerry made that comment.

Its on video. We're going to be hearing him say it over and over again for the next few days.

Perhaps you've out-nuanced the definition of "context"

sonicfrog said...

He's going to blame his speech-writer, just like he blamed "that son of a bitch"

I think he should blame Barbara Streisands speech writer! That would be neat!

Gerry said...

Heh. You might have to scroll down a bit due to some funky site layout issues.

dino said...

Noticed you went a few paragraphs without wondering when Kerry will apologize to all the troops he "accidentily" insulted. Any reason?

He didn't insult anybody because his comment was intended to criticize George W. Bush's failed philosophy. Sadly you must think a lot of folks in the army are uneducated, and only join because fail to do well in college, since you misconstrued John Kerry's original intent to reflect your personal belief. If anything, you are adding to stereotypes by misconstruing what John Kerry intended to say.

Although you may be immune to John Kerry's other attacks on George W. Bush's philosophy, the rest of the country is not, and leaving the rest of his arguments unanswered only adds to the fact that George W. Bush has no response to his philosophy, when he most definitely does. I remember a lot of conservatives being angry at the President last Spring for not being forceful about his Iraq policies, and letting Democrats define the debate.

Notice how you didn't respond to your donations to the RNC being used to pay legal fees for those accused in New Hampshire Phone Jamming Scandal.

michael a litscher said...

"The mea culpa that Democrats are blaming the war and not the warriors is laughable after Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, and Kerry have collectively compared American soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, Stalinists, terrorists, and Baathists."

Not to mention Gore, who's army of lawyers and sycophants tried to get absentee military ballots tossed on technicalities.

So, who to believe regarding Democratic Party love of military personnel? The Democratic Party talking heads, or my lying eyes?

Fenrisulven said...

Dino: He didn't insult anybody because his comment was intended to criticize George W. Bush's failed philosophy.

So why are so many servicemen and Democrats demanding he apologize to the troops? Why is Kerry finished as an 08 candidate?

Sadly you must think a lot of folks in the army are uneducated, and only join because fail to do well in college, since you misconstrued John Kerry's original intent to reflect your personal belief.

I'm a former US Marine. Don't you look stupid. Whats next? You gonna call me a chickenhawk?

Notice how you didn't respond to your donations to the RNC being used to pay legal fees for those accused in New Hampshire Phone Jamming Scandal

Of course not, this is a thread about John Kerry. You want to distract it with "why discuss A when B is so much worse".

Mortimer Brezny said...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWJjMTVhZTFlZTJlN2U4NWNhNzc4MmMzZGU2YTg4ZDM=

Drew W said...

This just in:

Reports from Middle Earth confirm that Treebeard, leader of the Ents, has demanded an apology from John Kerry in the wake of the Massachusetts senator's suggestion that poor education leads to military service. That his bark-skinned brethren would seek to distance themselves from him seems another indication that a second Kerry presidential run in 2008 is rapidly becoming a fantasy.

RogerA said...

two items tell me that Kerry is in big trouble: (1)the folks at Democraticunderground think this was a brilliant move; and (2) every dem who is in a tight race has disinvited or dissed the Senator. How does Rove do this stuff to the democrats? The man is a genius!

dave said...

More proof, as if more were needed, that this is indeed, the Stupidest Place on the Internet™.

You can return to your pathetic circle-jerk now...

trinity757 said...

Fenrisulven, a former US MArine.. HAHAHAHAH... most of the former marines I know aren't trolling every post of Althouse and commenting every five seconds, from 5 am in the mornign to 11 pm at night.

A former marine, lol, a lot easier to say online to distinguish yourself from the 101st Fighting Keyboard Brigade. What are you going to do now, post your SAT, ACT, and GPA to prove how smart you are? Haven't you learned that the truth speaks for itself. Do yourself a favor, get a wife, and get a life. And if you do have a wife, spend more time with her than patrolling every freaking post at Althouse. It's pro family and pro -life!

BTW, a lot of Veterans and former Marines also came to John Kerry's Defense.

dave said...

So why are so many servicemen and Democrats demanding he apologize to the troops? Why is Kerry finished as an 08 candidate?

Got links?

Thought not.

I'm a former US Marine.

What a coincidence! I'm a blonde, blue-eyed cheerleader at a well-known midwestern college, and this is my first time writing to Forum, too!

michael a litscher said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fenrisulven said...

3D LAR BN 3D MARDIV
MCAGCC 29 PALMS CA

But thank you Trinity & Dave for exemplifying the disrepect the Left has for the military. Some here have tried to deny it exists, yet you walked right into it.

michael a litscher said...

RogerA: How does Rove do this stuff to the democrats? The man is a genius!

Lucky for us, Dennis Kucinich never got his bill banning mind control rays from outer space passed into law, or we'd be hearing more lefty calls for a Rove frog march.

JorgXMcKie said...

Funny, funny trolls today. I'd hate to have to defend the generic Democratic speechs as rendered by Kerry: "This is what we believe, and we believe it with all our heart and soul (unless someone finds something objectionable about it, in which case we didn't say it, and if we did say it we didn't mean it, and if we did say it [and maybe we meant it] it's all those rotten Republicans' fault anyway)."

Spinning that is hard, very hard.

Juliet said...

He didn't insult anybody because his comment was intended to criticize George W. Bush's failed philosophy.

So intentions (which nobody can know aside from the person who has them) are more important than what actually gets said (which we can all know)? That doesn't make any sense.

Garage Mahal said...

But thank you Trinity & Dave for exemplifying the disrepect the Left has for the military.

Save us the false outrage, please. Your party has left our military for dead in Iraq, at least until the elections are over. Pay as you go body armor, and tin can humvees aren't exactly troop loving kinda guys. I'm sure you can give us data to look at, confirming Repubs care more our military than Dems. Right?

But, with 19 Republicans under Federal investigation -- ranging from bribery, money laundering, choking mistresses, to taking hush money from page-fuckers -- I don't think Americans really believe Repubs are "for our troops" any more than they are "for them"

If you really cared about troops, you would be outraged at Bush abandoning a missing soldier in Iraq, right now.

Juliet said...

You can return to your pathetic circle-jerk now...

Trolling a blog merely to insult the commenters strikes me as equally masturbatory. At least the rest of us are doing it with friends!

Just a Lawyer said...

This is really the bottom of the barrel stuff. Republicans are gloating over a misfired joke and excusing mistakes that cost more almost three quarters of a million in deaths and more than a million wounded.
Republican party is at its best when it gangs up on veterans like Murtha, McCain, Kerry (it is a long list) to express support for dodgers in flight suits like Bush or tough behind a desk like Rumsfeld.
We are to believe these jokers have respect for soldiers and their sacrifices?
Kerry meant Bush because he knows who sends them over there. He realized that the Republican strategy of dodging duty by going to school is a way for motivating students. He only recommended what the jokers have been doing for some time.
If so much as one putative soldier does well enough in school to not to be desperate enough to end up in Iraq, Kerry would have done more good than eight years of 'All Bush No Plan'.

J. Peden said...

Something about mentioning Marines drives the Chicken Dhimmis into a frenzy of anxious Parroting. I wonder what it could be?

Perhaps a jit of fealous rage?

libbyterian said...

I respect individuals for volunteering for the military, but frankly its their choice, and criticizing the military or destroying a joke that pokes fun at military members is not a criminal offense. Frankly, as a libertarian, let me have my gun, and let everyone have a gun, make sure you have good border security that doesn't let fanatical muslims in, and frankly we won't need to create a large military. Go back to 1789; that was the intent of of our founders: Who is going to invade country where everyone is armed? If people had guns on 9/11 in the planes, there would have been a different result.

I hope conservatives realize that the military is also a government run entity that is financed by tax dollars, and it also has a tendency to be consumed by bureacracy and inneficiency. Ultimately, those in charge of the troops, or those that would like to be in charge of them, exploit those same troops left and right. The military has been, and right now is, an inneficient government program, that is becoming a huge waste of tax dollars.

In other breaking news:

Republican Candidate for Colorado Governor Congressman Beauprez apologizes for Summer 2006 Fundraising Event with Ann Coulter after learning of this quote:

"Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers enlist. Their choice in life; prison or the military. Some will have to die in the support of our cause."

Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03


Bob Beauprez also called on John Kerry to apologize for his comments while campaigning with Democratic Candidate Phil Angelides.

Fenrisulven said...

Garage: Your party has left our military for dead in Iraq

A lie. Also an attempt to use our dead to score cheap political talking points. Keep impaling yourself with your own sword Garage.

The damage Kerry did to Dem midterm hopes is reflected by the number of vile Moonbat trolls this thread has attracted. Garage, dave, et al are yanking their hair out over this. I can't help but smile. Thanks.

Doyle said...

This is really the bottom of the barrel stuff.

Nonsense. This is the learned salon of the Divine Ms. Althouse! You just have to disregard the overwhelming smell of right wing effluent.

MadisonMan said...

fenris, why did the US Military stop looking for the soldier kidnapped (gone AWOL?) in the shiite controlled part of Baghdad? It looks like the President of Iraq told the US to move its troops, and the troops were moved. That missing soldier? Kind of forgotten about.

That might be what Mr. Mahal is referring to.

Fenrisulven said...

Republicans are gloating over a misfired joke and excusing mistakes that cost more almost three quarters of a million in deaths and more than a million wounded.

Is that from the Lancet "study" or are you just pulling numbers out of your butt?

And what mistakes are Republicans excusing? List them, or I'll assume you're just parroting KOS-FDL-Huff propaganda.

Anonymous said...

John Derbyshire has weighed in on this phony controversy, and pretty much declared it bullshit.

John Kerry is awful, and anything we can do further to degrade his political prospects is worth doing. But really, I saw a clip of him making the much-deplored remark, and it was obvious that the dimwit in Iraq that he referred to was George W. Bush, not the American soldier. It was a dumb joke badly delivered, but his meaning was plain. My pleasure in watching JK squirm is just as great as any other conservative's, but something is owed to honesty. There's a lot of fake outrage going round here.

Looking forward to hearing how John Derbyshire hates the troops, Ann.

You'd better come up with something else. You've got less than a week!

LarryK said...

One thing everyone should be able to agree on - the only issue on which John Kerry is willing to take a resolute, unyielding position is whether he should ever apologize for anything.

RogerA said...

Justalawyer notes: "If so much as one putative soldier does well enough in school to not to be desperate enough to end up in Iraq, Kerry would have done more good than eight years of 'All Bush No Plan'."

Wow--yet another person stuck in the 1960s when there was a draft--There are more than sufficient statistics demonstrating that today's military is substantially more intelligent and capable than any force the US has yet fielded. And I note you repeat Kerry's meme: It probably does not occur to you that notions of honor and service also lead capable men and women to serve in the military. Your comment, counsellor, is right up there with Senator Kerry's in tastelessness and ignorance--or were you making a joke that backfired?

Doyle said...

Fenris -

Since you obviously have a greater understanding of study design and statistics than those hacks from Johns Hopkins, what figure do you think approximates how many Iraqis have died as a result of the war? Did Rush give you a number of his own, or did he just establish to your satisfaction that the Lancet study was politically motivated?

You do realize that even if it were "only" 100,000 people. That's 33 times as many people as were killed in the attack that supposedly precipitated the war (despite Iraq having "nothing" to do with 9/11, per Bush).

The war itself was a mistake (I'll even concede that it was an honest mistake) that Republicans, though fewer and fewer each month, are still defending.

Juliet said...

Kerry meant Bush because he knows who sends them over there...
If so much as one putative soldier does well enough in school to not to be desperate enough to end up in Iraq, Kerry would have done more good than eight years of 'All Bush No Plan'.


Wait, so who was the joke about?

Fenrisulven said...

Madisonman: why did the US Military stop looking for the soldier kidnapped (gone AWOL?) in the shiite controlled part of Baghdad? It looks like the President of Iraq told the US to move its troops, and the troops were moved. That missing soldier? Kind of forgotten about.

You're asking about the Iraqi-American translator kidnapped last week? What evidence do you have that we have stopeed looking for him or have forgotten about him?

J. Peden said...

"John Derbyshire has weighed in on this phony controversy, and pretty much declared it bullshit."
blue texan

Well, I guess that does settle it.

RogerA said...

who is John Derbyshire?

Fenrisulven said...

Since you obviously have a greater understanding of study design and statistics than those hacks from Johns Hopkins, what figure do you think approximates how many Iraqis have died as a result of the war?

I know its nowhere near 1,000,000. I also know that the Lancet study used clusters and broken methodology. And don't trot out John Hopkins as unbiased professionals - I've seen their handgun violence studies. They are agenda driven.

When provided with the Lancet study, the Iraqi's ask "If so, then where are all the body bags? You can't hide that many dead".

J. Peden said...

doyle, have you ever taken a college level Science or Statistics course?

The Lancet "study" chose to report the interviewees memory of only one year prior to the Iraq invasion, vs four years subsequent to it. That's the end of its "credibility" right off.

Too Many Jims said...

Fenrisulven,

I suspect that the U.S. military is still looking for the translator. From what I gather, the U.S. military thinks he is being held in Sadr City. For this reason (among others), the U.S. military set up check points into and out of Sadr City. Unfortunately, this upset Moqtada(Sp?) al Sadr so the checkpoints came down.

On the one hand, the willingness of Maliki to tell the U.S. he is going to run his country independently is good. On every other hand, it is bad.

sonicfrog said...

I have a Fill-In-The-Blank game posted on my blog.

"...If you don’t, you get stuck _____________________."

MadisonMan said...

I'm not sure if he's a translator, or a soldier (or both). But yes an Iraqi American (I think).

The NYTimes also discusses this.

It should trouble people that the Iraqi President can order American Troops around.

Kirby Olson said...

Kerry was on Imus this morning and I think he apologized for demeaning the troops. The poor man never had much ability at communication. But I think he said that he was sorry that he had demeaned the troops. Did anybody see that? What exactly was he trying to say?

Sloanasaurus said...

Which would be good for their party, and good for America, actually, so long as they play it up properly. Repudiate him! Let's have our Buckley anti-Bircher moment.

I would love it if the Democrats repudiated Kerry. They should repudiate Moveon.org and Pelosi as well.

Lets get back the days of JFK where the Democrats cared about national security and cut taxes. I would even consider voting for one.

J. Peden said...

"who is John Derbyshire?"
rogera

He is a conservative who often makes sense.

[I was being sarcastic by declaring the issue settled, since it is the Faux Liberals who seek all memes from their annointed generators then merely repeat them, in contrast to anyone who employs his/her own capacities.]

Doyle said...

I've seen their handgun violence studies. They are agenda driven.

Fenris, you can't just conclude that because studies are unflattering to your point of view that they are "agenda driven." You have to have a better refutation than "Where are all the body bags?" before you dismiss their findings as hippie propaganda.

As I understand it, by the way, there are places where the violence is so bad that the government doesn't even collect the bodies for bagging.

Fenrisulven said...

The troops express their disgust with Kerry in a funny photo, via LGF:

To John Kerry, From Iraq

Sloanasaurus said...

The photo on Drudge is so telling
of this topic. Althouse should post the photo as an update to this thread.

SWBarns said...

John Derbyshire is National Review's designated cranky conservative. He pretty much hates John Kerry, dislikes President Bush. His view on the War is "Rubble Doesn't Make Trouble."

Derb and Ramesh Ponnuru are duking it out pretty well over in the Corner.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGViZDY2ZjVkMzkyNTg4YmRkYTY0NTJlYTQ3NjVlN2Q=

dreamingmonkey said...

Does anyone have a link to a full transcript or video of Kerry's remarks? Not just the "joke" but the entire speech or at least the ten minutes leading up to the "joke." Thanks

Fenrisulven said...

you can't just conclude that because studies are unflattering to your point of view that they are "agenda driven."

I don't. I look at their history. When Hopkins get busted including self-inflicted wounds by Police to misrepresent handgun violence, I judge them as being agenda driven.

And running around an insurgent neighborhood asking hostile residents to remember how many the Yanks have killed hardly lends to a professional or credible study.

How many actual bodies did they account for?

Daryl Herbert said...

Q: Since when do liberals take the word of John Derbyshire (VDare contributor and admitted homophobe) over that of John McCain?

A: When it's convenient.

RogerA said...

JPeden--sorry as well as I was being sarcastic and making fun of one commenter's use of a single conservative writer to make his case (I have subscribed to the national review for 35 years)

johnstodderinexile said...

As time goes by, here is what seems to matter about all this.

Going into next Tuesday, the Republicans were in deep trouble. The primary cause of their electoral worries was the lack of motivation among the base, who have been embarrassed by the GOP and Bush of late, and see no reason to come out and vote for them.

The GOP strategists needed something to get their blood boiling. A message, the cherry on the sundae, to go into battle with during those final 72 hours.

They would've ginned up something; now they don't have to. They've got Kerry's comments, which are better than anything they could've concocted.

That's why Ford, Casey and others (uh, dave, you might want to read the news) are denouncing Kerry and disinviting him from their campaign appearances. As soon as Kerry shows up anywhere, the GOP gets a boost.

I don't anticipate very many voters who planned to vote Democratic will change their plan in light of Kerry's comments. But this comment will drive up GOP turnout, which was the main problem for the GOP in this election. The odds of a good night for Democrat have now diminished. It still could happen. But Kerry's behavior has lengthened the odds.

It's kind of like the World Series. The Tigers' errors handed the Cardinals runs they wouldn't have otherwise earned.

Mark said...

One of the apparently liberal commenters above wrote: Your President going on Rush Limbaugh today, a true American Pig, is all the proof you need of that.

I wonder why he called Limbaugh a "true American pig"? Why not just a "true pig"? Why was the "American" adjective necessary? If were going to insult a liberal, I would not call them a "true American pig", I'd call them a "true pig". The commenter revealed more about their actual opinion of America than they probably intended. And liberals wonder why people say they are anti-American? They drip with contempt for America, at least as it is and has been.

Mark said...

I'd love to see an interviewer ask Kerry what position(s) of leadership (committee chairs, etc) he will have if the Democrats get control of the Senate.

J. Peden said...

A correction to what I said about the Lancet study: it encompassed 40 months post invasion, not four years, as I had originally said.

Cedarford said...

It's nothing new for him. Since the 70s he's hated the military. When his peers in Coastal Division 11 didn't support his 'JFK II' version of his three months in combat that sealed his hatred.

Every now and then he lets his true opinion of the military slip with some remark about our people terrorizing women and children or some such.

It was not the 'botched joke' that bothered me nearly as much as the long winded crazed speech he gave yesterday trying to blame Bush for Kerry's stupidity.


Pretty true. The Left has several "themes" they try fixing to troops - none complimentary:

1. The Kerry/Durbin/Kennedy approach - A bunch of Jingisss Khaaahns! Terrorists, Pol Pot's gang, killing and raping and moving from atrocity to atrocity spewing out DU and dioxin ever since Vietnam.

2. The Lefty College Student meme - Unlike us elite poly sci students at Evergreen State - soldiers are stupid lazy losers who didn't have the brains or means we have and are stuck with a choice of killing innocent Iraqi babies or working WalMart. But when we well-educated graduate, as opposed to lesser schools like the Service Academies, there will be no more Vietnams, just waging peace and love. [Kerry's mistake was in shifting betweem Theme #1, which he is comfortable with, to Theme #2 for some quickie college pandering].

3. The Pelosi Theme. Soldiers are hapless children. For the sake of those children, we need to save them from adult predators like George Bush. Every death of a Marine baby or an Army toddler or Navy infant is a senseless, horrible tragedy that the child's family will mourn as a total waste that did no one any good..Every Army or other child lost or maimed is a moral crime on the adults. Cindy Sheehan, who had her young child taken away from her, has total moral authority. All war is bad, and we need to save our children...

4. The really stupid Lefty Theme - (Also known as the Marxist "narrow the franchise" gambit)

Anyone has the moral authority to be anti-war. But the only people morally permitted to support America being in a conflict are those leaders, congressmen, professors who are actual combat Vets. Similar to "Anyone can be anti-space exploration. But only those who actually have gone into space have the moral authority to advocate more space exploration. All other pro-space exploration people are gutless spacehawks who need to stop talking and typing and get on a rocketship!" {Stalin famously allowed a vote for challenging collectivisation and executing Kulaks - but he limited the vote to "only those with private property remaining" being allowed to oppose collectivizing and "hoarding death sentences". Stalin's limiting the "anti-collectivizing forces" franchise and use of "moral authority" as a franchise criteria still thrills the Left 80 years later.]

Doyle said...

Cedarford -

Which is worse, a condescending attitude towards the troops which acknowledges that a lot of them are there for lack of better career options? or...

A rah-rah "Support the Troops" nationalistic orgy that only serves to keep them in a country we didn't have to invade?

I said it on yesterday's Kerry-bashing thread, and I'll say it again: 8 of the 9 Iraq War vets running for Congress are running as Democrats.

Pogo said...

The prior Lancet study was a joke, just as the more recent one is. Hence, most people disregarded both of them as political hit-pieces, intended to to sway US elections.

The "medical" journals JAMA and Lancet and are very left-of-center in their politics (so are JSGIM, NEJM, and AIM). That's old news. Pretty good examples of what happens when ideology maquerades as science.
______________________________

Fenris: great photo. I hope JFK gets to see it, although given his tin ear, he might think it's real, not a joke.

Doyle said...

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Do you really think that Bush's "about 30,000" off-the-top-of-my-head estimate was more accurate (or less politically motivated) than the 650,000 Lancet figure? Bear in mind the latter explicitly included non-combat deaths.

Gerry said...

RogerA: How does Rove do this stuff to the democrats? The man is a genius!

Here is how.

Sloanasaurus said...

I said it on yesterday's Kerry-bashing thread, and I'll say it again: 8 of the 9 Iraq War vets running for Congress are running as Democrats.

I wonder if any of these candidates are "opportunists?" Just a thought...

I can't to see how some of these guys vote.

Anonymous said...

8 of the 9 Iraq War vets running for Congress are running as Democrats.

And this proves what, exactly?

Are you really suggesting that 89% of Iraq vets support the Democratic party?

Care to make a wager on whether those guys will get 89% support from active duty military or vets?

Pull the other one, Doyle.

Elizabeth said...

who is John Derbyshire?

Another conservative pedarist. Oh, and a commentator.

Doyle said...

And this proves what, exactly?

Maybe just that the troops are not as enamored of the Bush agenda as the cheerleaders back home.

Shanna said...

uno attack ad too sleazy
A. The attack ads I’ve seen so far haven’t been too bad. Maybe moderately sleazy.
B. This is rich coming from a Democrat. I remember the 1994/96 commercial where Gingritch apparently wanted grandma to be eating dog food because he wanted to slow down the growth of government. Also, the infamous Daisy ad and a million other political ads. To some people sleazy=negative ad against my candidate.

He didn't insult anybody because his comment was intended to criticize George W. Bush's failed philosophy.
If I said Edward was a [insert something really bad here] and I actually meant dino, it would be perfectly natural for me to write something along the lines of “sorry Ed, I meant Dino”. Why is this so hard for Kerry?

Reports from Middle Earth confirm that Treebeard, leader of the Ents, has demanded an apology from John Kerry in the wake of the Massachusetts senator's suggestion that poor education leads to military service.
That’s because Treebeard is a REAL man.

There's a lot of fake outrage going round here.
Derbyshire’s got it wrong. I don’t think anyone’s outrage is fake. I think John Kerry said something that did not sound out of place coming from him (whether it was meant to be a stupid, unfunny joke or not). This is Mr. Jengis Khan himself, and he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt. For me personally, I heard the little snippet of the clip before I got any real context, and it was shocking. In context it is still shocking or maybe just shockingly stupid. Still, I am willing to allow that he misspoke while trying to deliver the stupidest joke in the world, but did he not hear himself? If you misspoke in that particular way don’t you think you might catch it? I don’t know. And then his “I offer no apology” just cemented it.

The Drill SGT said...

It's interesting that our left leaning commenter's here take a couple of approaches.

1. The Doyle's of the world seem to be of the opinion that Kerry was either right on target with his slur, or that the rest of us are idiots for not understanding the subtle message embodied there in.

2. Elizabeth, and several others take the position that Kerry again proved he's too dumb to breed or run and ought to be ashamed of his slur. That it's not all about Kerry and that he has destroyed his reputation again and should forget about 08

3. and MadisonMan takes a variant position that, regardless of what the dumb SOB meant to say, the GOP is going to exploit it as their last chance to save the election and that Kerry, if he had half a brain would do the right thing for the party and slit his belly, or failing that, apologize, or failing that slink off the stage and allow real candidates a chance to win their campaigns.

Is that the gist? are there other variations?

Shanna said...

He said that he is “sorry for the botched joke,” and that “everybody knows I botched a joke.”
Somebody got to him, although this is still a somewhat ungracious apology. I’ll have to look at the full transcript, but if it didn’t include something about the troops and how awesome they are I still think he botched more than the joke.

Oh good, it did. Kerry said Look, this is a great volunteer army. and some stuff about them being smart. The vast majority was still about how mean everyone is for daring to question him, but at least he did say that.
He also says he is going back to Washington so that he is “not a distraction” to the campaigns.
Snicker.

Doyle said...

The Doyle's of the world seem to be of the opinion that Kerry was either right on target with his slur, or that the rest of us are idiots for not understanding the subtle message embodied there in.

I believe Kerry was referring to Bush as the example of what happens if you don’t study hard.
It was a slur of the president, and only subtle in that it sounded like he was referring to the troops.

P.S. Any chance Ann could teach a remedial course on apostrophe usage? It’s hard enough wading through this crap as it is.

MadisonMan said...

Wow, DrillSgt, I get my own category! Thank you! Is that a tribute to my scatterbrained writing? I'm so disgusted with Kerry (again) it's hard to think straight. I have to add, though, that I've also pointed out several times that this ends Kerry's National Office Ambitions. Thank God.

The Drill SGT said...

I meant that yours was a variant of #2, not that you didn't think he was toast nationally.

Gerry said...

The Drill SGT said... Is that the gist? are there other variations?

There is the ever-popular "Althouse is a hard-right extremist. Nuff said." approach. There have been a few of that ilk in these threads.

Doyle said... "I believe Kerry was referring to Bush as the example of what happens if you don’t study hard."

Right, you get to be President, and get us into a war for which John Kerry and most other Democrats voted, after years (predating the Bush administration) of Democrats and Republicans alike beating the drums about how much of a threat Saddam was.

It's one of those jokes that obviously loses something when not delivered just right.

Although the irony of stepping in the leftist dog-doo that has accumulated over the years by, if the cover story is to be believed, stupidly mangling a punchline of a joke about the other guy being stupid is just priceless.

The Drill SGT said...

MM,

I singled you out for your pragmatism on the topic :)

You and IMUS.

Who the hell cares?, STFU and sit down John so we can win!

Pogo said...

Where's the obligatory reference by dave wherein he cuts and pastes his standard 'brownshirt motherf*er' comment?

I think that deserves a special category. Maybe call it "The Short Bus" response.

P.S. Since my brother is retarded, I am permitted to make that joke.

Chevyiii said...

THE John Kerry!

vnjagvet said...

Finally, he has apologized to the troops. About 36 hours later than he should have.

Seven Machos said...

Bush and Kerry were both for the war. Why is Kerry brilliant and Bush dumb, particularly when Kerry is saying hideously dumb things?

Also, Doyle: face it, man: the damage is done. All the correct usage of apostrophes in the world won't change that. By defending Kerry reflexively when no one should defend him, you are hurting your own cause. Dump the guy overboard. He's Foley.

Daryl Herbert said...

I've changed my mind, and now I agree with what Ann wrote earlier.

John Kerry did deliberately slander our troops, and it's outrageous for him to claim otherwise.

If you compare the alleged prepared remarks with what he actually said, you'll see that they are very different. Here is what he was supposed to say:

I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.

Why the difference? Do I have a grand conspiracy theory? No. It's because he wasn't reading them word-for-word. He was giving a basic speech (the kind he's given thousands of times before) and he was sort of winging it. He would glance down at the paper every now and then to regain his place. But he wasn't trying to read it word for word. He looked at the paper to get a basic idea of what he should say next.

So there are a couple sentences about people studying, working hard in school, etc. So that's what he talks about: work hard, do well, blah blah blah, the standard pep talk for college kids. Piece of cake. He's on autopilot.

But he wasn't supposed to say, "do well." The message is supposed to be, if you work hard at school, you'll be smart/wise. Not: if you work hard at school, you'll be financially well-off. (that's what doing "well" means--there's only one meaning)

You'll see him look down carefully at the text and pause for a second. Hmmm. But gotta keep moving. He's a politician. He can't sit there staring at the paper or he looks like a doofus. Public speakers know you're supposed to keep the words flowing. Next sentence. Something about, or else you're stuck in Iraq.

Because he previously screwed up and said "do well," he's not thinking about wisdom vs. stupidity. He's thinking about good vs. bad fortune. If you screw up your studies, you'll be unfortunate enough to end up in Iraq with all the other poor dumb saps.

A gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. (about his own feelings, not the truth about our troops!)

Kerry meant what he said. We should not get sidetracked by the fact that the prepared remarks were a joke about dumb Bush. I think that's where a lot of conservative Kerry defenders are going wrong. Sure, his prepared remarks were not anti-troops. So what? His actual remarks--that came off the cuff, not a speechwriter--were anti-troops. That's what matters.

Sloanasaurus said...

Dump the guy overboard. He's Foley.

I agree. It's great fun seeing the left trying to defend John Forbes Kerry - golddigger, sandanista sympathizer, and former leader of VVAW for his latest slander of American Troops.

Kerry should probably resign. If he hates the troops he has no business representing the people of Mass.; they deserve better...

Meade said...

He just apologized.

Sort of.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted [by my intellectual inferiors] to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was [so easily] offended," he said in a written statement [while holding his crossed fingers behind his back].

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Garage Mahal said...

Apology unaccepted.

LOL

Joe said...

I was being gentle and revise my remarks.

If my kids "apologized" the way John Kerry did, I would cut them off and tell them to try again. In addition, apologizing by a press release is phoney.

On top of that, he still insists that he really didn't offend anyone, but rather it was everyone else who misinterpretted him. Why the hell can't he just say: "I said something stupid. I'm sorry." and leave it at that?

Ricardo said...

"... are there other variations?"

Sure. One would be that Republicans are desperately looking for a Democratic Foley-like issue. This isn't about Kerry, and it's not about the troops, and it's not about Bush. It's about Republican anxiety, and any other volatile issue would have served. It's about trying to stampede the voters, with only six days to go. Tick tock, tick tock.

johnstodderinexile said...

Doyle's interesting theory:

"It was a slur of the president, and only subtle in that it sounded like he was referring to the troops."

So let me try this out on you, Doyle.

"Doyle is a co-dependent sycophant who can't think for himself, and needs Democratic talking points before he decides what to eat for breakfast."

Oh, gosh, did Doyle take offense? He must have missed me being subtle. It only sounded like I was referring to Doyle. In context, it's clear I meant somebody else.

Doyle said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fenrisulven said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
johnstodderinexile said...

Not to be a grammar Bushitler, but coming from such a highly educated man as John Kerry, I'm surprised his apology statement's double-negative got through the editing process.

If, as Kerry says, his words were "misinterpreted to wrongly imply" something, doesn't that mean the opposite of "interpreted to wrongly imply," and also the opposite of "misinterpreted to imply?" If you misintepret something to wrongly imply, the two negatives cancel each other out, so you're left with a statement "interpreted to imply...." Which would mean the people who took it as a slur against the troops got it right, although Kerry clearly thinks he said the reverse.

Maybe he didn't study hard enough.

I sincerely hope this fixes things and lets the moderate Democrats in close-fought districts get back to their campaigns. But wasting two days in the last week of a campaign sucks.

Fenrisulven said...

Doyle: And this proves what, exactly? Maybe just that the troops are not as enamored of the Bush agenda as the cheerleaders back home.

Last election the troops went 70-30 for the GOP. And the reason 8 of 9 running are Dems is b/c your side actively recruited vets to compensate for your shortcomings re military, foreign policy and national security. Republicans don't need to do that.

Daryl Herbert said...

In addition to showing where Kerry went wrong, I can show where the script tripped him up:

I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.

The flaw in the script: the part about studying leads to wisdom was entirely implicit. There were no words in the script as to why studying is good. Not studying is bad because it makes you foolish. We can backtrack from that to realize that studying is good because it makes you wise.

Kerry was on autopilot, and he didn't want to say nothing, so he gave typical college kid advice: studying is good because . . . you'll end up well-off. You'll have good fortune. That's a great reason to study. Unfortunately, it was off-script, and it set him up for fortunate vs. unfortunate, instead of wise vs. foolish. D'oh.

So remember, everyone: when you write speeches, if the reader is going to give 'em off the cuff, don't be too clever and leave important elements implicit. Someone gave John Kerry a bad road map; he missed a turn and drove off a cliff.

Fenrisulven said...

And wound up in Cambodia all over again?

Sry. Couldn't help myself.

Fenrisulven said...

The Fraud: I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform

Kerry regrets his words were misinterpreted...

and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

And he apologizes for whoever misinterpreted them.

What a weasel.

Meade said...

But he didn't just apologize. He personally apologized...

in a press statement.

Juliet said...

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply...

And he split an infinitive! Damn him!

The Drill SGT said...

daryl,

I got a chuckle out of your...
Kerry meant what he said. We should not get sidetracked by the fact that the prepared remarks were a joke about dumb Bush. I think that's where a lot of conservative Kerry defenders are going wrong.

which conservative defender was that?

Anonymous said...

Last election the troops went 70-30 for the GOP.

Really?

In 2000, Gore got less than 20% of the military vote.

In 2004, Kerry got 43%.

I wonder why the change?

By the way, is Kerry running for anything next week?

Meade said...

"You know, political humor education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to make smart jokes, you can do well and be an asset to your party.

"If you don't, you get stuck in Pasadena City College."

Fenrisulven said...

By the way, is Kerry running for anything next week?

He's running for his life. Dems are running from him. And he's not running [competively at least] for POTUS in 08.

Like Allen. Its an own goal, before the midterms, that sidelines the Dems last POTUS nominee. I'll take it.

johnstodderinexile said...

By the way, is Kerry running for anything next week?

No, but then neither is Mark Foley, but that's not stopping the Democratic Party from seeking an advantage from his downfall.

Herbert Hoover wasn't running for anything after 1932, but he was the target of Democratic attacks well into the 1970s. Jimmy Carter and George McGovern were Republican shorthand for the Democratic Party's flaws well into the 90s -- and even today.

Past failed candidates and disgraced ex-officeholders are frequently used to symbolize the critique of the other party. It only works when it's accurate. Foley works because he symbolizes Republican hypocrisy on the "social issues." We'll see if John Kerry will become a symbol for why Democrats shouldn't be trusted on foreign and military issues. I think his saliency was fading, but that was then. Now it's front and center.

Daryl Herbert said...

which conservative defender was that?

John Derbyshire
LaShawn Barber
I think someone else at the Corner wanted to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt

And the Irish Trojan blogger Brendan Loy (although I dunno if he's a conservative; he's a Lieberman ex-Dem)

Fenrisulven said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chevyiii said...

See a photo of some of our troops in Iraq holding a sign that says: HALP US JON CARRY - WE R STUC HEAR N IRAQ

eBay item # 140048268257

Fenrisulven said...

We'll see if John Kerry will become a symbol for why Democrats shouldn't be trusted on foreign and military issues. I think his saliency was fading, but that was then. Now it's front and center.

Flanked by prior comments from Kennedy and Durbin that our troops are Nazi-like Pol Pot thugs.

Three makes a pattern.

It will be gratifying to finally see Dems pay a price for their BDS. I hope its a balloon payment plan.

Joe said...

In his statement, Kerry said "I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops."

What is that strategy? He's been promising it since the spring of 2004 and it still hasn't seen the light of day. I suppose it's in the same place as Nixon's "secret plan" to get out of Vietnam.

Edward said...

You Republicans are just wasting your time droning on endlessly here about one stupid botched joke by John Kerry.

Kerry’s mistake was not significant enough to win you this election, and your endless posting here is not going to turn his mistake into something significant enough to win you this election.

Kerry does not reflect the entire Democratic Party, and Republican politicians, beginning with W himself, have made much more embarrassing errors.

Republican errors have also done far more damage to the well-being of this country.

You’re just wasting your time. That’s why I dropped out of this particular debate long ago.

But I thought I’d pop in one more time to give you some helpful advice: Stop, you’re wasting your time.

Go post on a different Althouse thread on a different topic.

Freeman Hunt said...

In 2004, Kerry got 43%.

Have a link for this?

Fenrisulven said...

Edward: You Republicans are just wasting your time ...Stop, you’re wasting your time.

You sound so worried that we're still talking about this.

"Look! Over there! A baby wolf!"

Anonymous said...

The link is here:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Google "CNN Kerry Bush military vote 2004"

The number is actually 41%. But it's more than twice what Gore got, and certainly doesn't indicate that the vets believed the Swift Boat lies about Kerry, and certainly isn't anywhere near 70%.

I guess 41% of vets wanted the terrorists to win.

"No, but then neither is Mark Foley, but that's not stopping the Democratic Party from seeking an advantage from his downfall."

How idiotic is this comment? Foley happens to be on the ballot, first of all. Second, Foleygate isn't about Foley, it's about the incompetent Republican House leadership that ignored Foley's actions.

Hastert is toast over the Foley issue, as is Reynolds.

If you can't see the difference between a drunk pederast being enabled by the GOP House and a Senator who's not on the ballot botching a joke, you're in for a rude awakening next week.

Edward said...

Fenrisulven: I’m not worried in the least. In fact, I’m slightly amused.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen (supposedly) mature people waste their time on such a monumental scale.

Molon_Labe_Lamp said...

"It’s been a long time since I’ve seen (supposedly) mature people waste their time on such a monumental scale."

Yeah, it's been months since the CT Democratic Primary.

If this banishes that Retard and his 70's porno hair from the national political scene I'll be satisfied regardless of how this election breaks

Fen,
Where Horrywood?

johnstodderinexile said...

Believe me, Edward: The conversation thread here is nothing compared to what the various Democratic candidates' campaign managers are discussing. I'm sure that by comparison, this discussion is:

a) less obscene;
b) less angry;
c) less urgent.

Here are the realities that most of these campaign pros undoubtedly see.

1) My guy was winning as of the last poll. But not by a lot.
2) My guy, and my party had all the momentum, and has had for several weeks. Now it's stopped.
3) The Jesus-loving Reeps in my district were unenthusiastic because Bush and the GOP have been such a disappointment to them. My strategy there was let-sleeping-wingnuts-lie. Kerry has fucked that up.
4) The Rove 72-hour turnout machine didn't scare me before. But now, I'm more worried, and all I'm getting from national headquarters is a busy signal.

I suppose this is a waste of time, just like doing anything else on line is a waste of time. For some posters here, it's schadenfreude. For me, I just hate complacent Democrats. I'm an un-complacent Democrat. Complacent Democrats do themselves and the party in, every time. The last good election night for the Democratic party was 10 years ago (or, one might argue, 14 years ago) but if you believe our leaders and the media, we had every election since then in the bag. Why is this year different? The Kerry episode illustrates why we need to be a lot more thoughtful about our politics if we're ever going to have a shot at power again.

The Drill SGT said...

Blue Texan said...
Last election the troops went 70-30 for the GOP.

Really?

In 2000, Gore got less than 20% of the military vote.

In 2004, Kerry got 43%.


Blue Texan, either you don't understand the terms or you're misstating the question.

Military vote isn't exactly the same as Veteran vote. Your citation of CNN was veterans, here is the question asked:

HAVE YOU EVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY?

The Army Times did an un-scientific survey that tracked military active and reserves in 2004 and had this result:

In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

Edward said...

johnstodderinexile:

From the beginning, I’ve denounced what Kerry said. I called on him to apologize quickly and unequivocally.

And I’ve never doubted that Democratic operatives would have to move decisively to contain any possible damage from Kerry’s gaffe. In such situations, it’s better to be safe than sorry and to take all the necessary precautions – and then some.

But I still don’t think that this gaffe is going to hurt Democrats very much.

And the grotesque over-analysis of the gaffe here in this thread – particularly by gleeful Republicans – is just ridiculous.

Revenant said...

You Republicans are just wasting your time droning on endlessly here about one stupid botched joke by John Kerry.

Harold Ford, in the TN Senate race, felt the need to strongly criticize Kerry's little "botched joke" about dumb soldiers. Most of the Democrats in close races are doing the same thing. Nobody's buying the "oh, I was talking about how Bush is dumb" story because it doesn't actually make any sense.

Basically, Edward, you're asking me to believe that *you* know more about what's bad for Democratic candidates than the candidates themselves do. Got a reason why I should?

Republican errors have also done far more damage to the well-being of this country.

That doesn't matter. Past mistakes by both parties are already accounted for by current poll numbers. *New* mistakes can still shift the polls. Simply put, Democrats have a chance of taking Congress only because Republicans have screwed up so much. That doesn't mean Democrats can go ahead and screw up too.

Edward said...

CNN is now reporting that Republican Congressman John Boehner just insulted all the generals leading our troops in Iraq.

I heard the clip of Boehner talking about the generals, and it’s clear that he not only insulted the generals, but blamed all the mistakes in Iraq on them.

Boehner was unwilling to put any of the blame on Rumsfeld.

Now the Democratic Party is calling on Boehner to apologize, and I think he should apologize.

Two can play at this game.

I think Ann should now devote a thread to Boehner’s gaffe, which was just as horrible as Kerry’s.

johnstodderinexile said...

Edward, This is great news for Democrats! The only question they'll have is: "Who's Boehner?"

To be serious, the reason this issue won't fly is that the Reeps are given far more running room on defense issues than the Dems, just because of past history.

If Boehner said something racist, anti-gay, or unsympathetic with the poor, that would be a big story, e.g. he'd become the symbol of Republican intolerance and heartlessness. What we already know to be true about them, personified.

Kerry played right into the Democrats' biggest liability in 2006. That's why it's a big deal. He popped up like a ghoul from the past to remind everyone that Democrats don't "get" the military. (I know, I know...there are exceptions! But the stereotype is what it is.)

Shanna said...

The Fraud: I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform
The thing that bugs me about this (besides the double neg) is that nobody "misinterpreted" anything. They interpreted his words exactly as he spoke them. The problem here is that HE MISSPOKE. Stop blaming everyone for taking your words at face value! Geez!

You Republicans are just wasting your time droning on endlessly here about one stupid botched joke by John Kerry.
Edward, for me at this point, it's like a trainwreck. It's hard to look away when everything new Kerry says is more and more insane! And wrong. And politically stupid. Shut up!

But I still don’t think that this gaffe is going to hurt Democrats very much.
It hurts the Dem's in close races if it turns out the base. Now, how much it might help (if at all) we'll see next week.

Garage Mahal said...

Apparently a shiite cleric in AL Sadr ordering checkpoints abandoned set up by our military, in hopes to find a kidanapped American soldier in Baghdad, is ok.

A mangled joke about Iraq, not so much.

Edward said...

Who is John Boehner? The House majority leader, the second-most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives, second only to Speaker Dennis Hastert.

It’s outrageous for a top-level Republican leader like Boehner to insult our generals.

If his severe criticism of them were really valid, he should have used his tremendous influence long ago to get those generals replaced.

But no, the Republicans in Congress refuse to provide any oversight at all of Bush's failed war.

Mark said...

I just spent an hour reading the Kos people's comments on this Kerry thing. Two things struck me.

First, the vulgarity. The f-word and crude sexual metaphors peppered every third comment, including Kos' lead commentary (or whatever they call it).

Second, the repeated calls to fight, be aggressive, "grow some balls" (another sexual metaphor), and so on, so as not to appear to be wimps.

And it struck me that people like this on the left are deeply wounded by the criticisms that they are weak on things like defense, but they think that the thing that will make them look strong is to scream louder, curse dirtier, and offend more thoroughly than anyone else. It's as though they took Roosevelt's aphorism about speaking softly and carrying a big stick and got it exactly backwards: they scream loudly and disavow the stick.

It's kind of sad to watch them tear each other up in the comments on that site too. They strike me as a bunch of very angry, unhappy people. It worries me for the future of the country when half of the electorate is that hate-filled and contemptuous of the other half.

Elizabeth said...

DrillSgt., your breakdown is useful. I think I overlap with MadisonMan in item 3, and hope to see the last of Kerry's hopes for 2008. Now if he'd just free up the bucks he's been hoarding since 2004, I might even feel kindly toward him again.

I spent a bit of time on the phone with a friend in Boston today, and she had a lot to say, none of it nice. She says she's long regarded Kerry as Bush with a different letter after his name. I know that won't amuse many here, but I think there's a lot of truth to that. Fortunate Sons both, with their Gentlemen's Cs. Bush has gone the folksy route while Kerry's gone with the Ted Baxter announcer voice. Listen closely and neither one is saying anything brilliant. In the end, I'm not laughing at Kerry's intended joke (if we give him the benefit of the doubt) anymore than I laughed at Bush's poking under tables looking for the WMDs. Iraq ain't funny.

tjl said...

"Kerry should probably resign. If he hates the troops he has no business representing the people of Mass.; they deserve better..."

No they don't. MA is a one-party state whose entire Congressional delegation is Democratic. Kerry, whose flaws have been as obvious to Bay Staters as to everyone else, has nevertheless been Senator for 20 years. It's not as if Kerry has never had opponents; it's just that in a one-party state you need never acquire any political skills or insight because you'll always be reelected.

You get the government you deserve.

Revenant said...

Now the Democratic Party is calling on Boehner to apologize, and I think he should apologize. Two can play at this game.

But apparently only one can play it well -- nobody cares if you insult generals. Hell, everyone I've known who served in the Army made a habit of it.

Defending the brass and insulting the rank-and-file is a really stupid move, particularly when a war isn't going that well.

Edward said...

Revenant: Spare me all your talk about “defending the brass.”

It’s not really a question of “defending the brass.” It never has been.

It’s about placing the blame for this failed war where it belongs, at the doorstep of Bush and Rumsfeld.

It’s about making the people at the top – Bush, Rumsfeld, and Congressional leaders like Boehner – accept responsibility for that failure, rather than cravenly passing it off to their subordinates.

J. Peden said...

What we should be focusing on is Kerry's record....squeek, squeek, y'know he did serve 4 months in Vietnam, squeek squeek.

Goatwhacker said...

I insulted Generals when I was in the military. I was ticked that Schwartzkopf got to ignore the weight standards the rest of us had to follow.

Anyway I'd like to see or hear Boehner's actual comments. This sounds a wee bit convenient to be coming up now.

Goatwhacker said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
johnstodderinexile said...

The governor of Massachusetts is a very conservative Republican. How did he win?

They've also had a liberal Republican governor in recent memory, Weld. I believe Kerry took the seat long filled by a black moderate Republican, Edward Brooke.

If the Republican party fields attractive candidates, and opens its door to more moderate views, a one-party state can become a two-party state. In the quintessential Blue state, California, the Republican Party has been a pathetic, right-wing PC joke for about 15 years, but now is likely to win all but one of the statewide offices, because of Arnold. It's not his star power, it's his centrism. He never could have won the GOP nomination except as an incumbent, and only became governor b/c of the recall/replacement election was non-partisan. The interesting election will be in four years. Will the Reeps nominate another extreme right-winger, or will they finally get the message of Arnold's success?

My only point is: It takes two parties to make a one-party state. It's often the case that the other party has committed suicide.

Goatwhacker said...

OK, I found it at CNN.com:

In an interview with CNN's "The Situation Room," Boehner -- an Ohio Republican who offered a ringing defense of Rumsfeld over the weekend -- said, "Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld," to which CNN's Wolf Blitzer replied, "But he's in charge of the military."

"The fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge, and he works closely with them and the president," Boehner replied. Both Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid interpreted that exchange as an attempt by Boehner to blame U.S. generals for failings in Iraq, and they quickly demanded an apology.



I'm betting Boehner will say it's a joke "Did I say Rumsfeld? I meant Seinfeld. I love that guy."

Revenant said...

Revenant: Spare me all your talk about "defending the brass." It’s not really a question of "defending the brass." It never has been

Edward, you *are* defending the brass; saying otherwise is a lie, plain and simple. You're just parrotting the Democratic party line by way of explanation for *why* you're defending the brass.

The public sees Kerry's comment as an insult to American troops. They'll see Boehner's as an attempt to deflect blame. The two are NOT equivalent in voters' eyes -- playing the blame game is business as usual, while insulting the rank and file of the US military during wartime is taboo.

It’s about making the people at the top – Bush, Rumsfeld, and Congressional leaders like Boehner – accept responsibility for that failure

No, that's what you and other Democrats want it to be about. The American people are not holding their breath, desperately hoping for Bush to go on TV and say "gosh, I'm sorry about all this". What Americans want is for someone to fix the mess in Iraq -- not take the blame for failure there. They are perfectly capable of assigning blame on their own.

J. Peden said...

"It’s about placing the blame for this failed war where it belongs, at the doorstep of Bush and Rumsfeld."
edward

Affixing blame for a war which has not failed is a bit premature, and somewhat useless in the absence of any alternative other than surrender in Iraq, where even the terrorists say the main front in the wot is, my dear edward.

A perfect record is hard to beat, especially by an event which has not yet occurred, much less to affix "blame" for it.

johnstodderinexile said...

Here's Harry Reid's release on what Boehner said:

http://tinyurl.com/yajmo4

In effect, Boehner, who nobody outside of the beltway has even heard of, refused to go along with Wolf Blitzer's characterization of Iraq as completely the fault of Donald Rumsfeld. Boehner says: "But the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president." End of criticism. For this, Sen. Harry Reid is "demanding an apology."

To paraphrase Ross Perot, if this is the best the Democrats can do to counter Kerry's gaffe, "well that's just sad." Essentially, he is being asked to apologize for not agreeing with Wolf Blitzer that Donald Rumsfeld deserves all the blame for Iraq. I mean...that's lame. Political reporters must be puking with laughter at this transparent gesture.

Revenant said...

In the quintessential Blue state, California, the Republican Party has been a pathetic, right-wing PC joke for about 15 years but now is likely to win all but one of the statewide offices, because of Arnold. It's not his star power, it's his centrism

Um, take a look at this list of California governors. There's nothing unusual about Republicans in California. It is the state legislature that's solidly Democratic.

Garage Mahal said...

Where are all the fired generals then? We *are* in a banana republic if the generals are calling all the shots.

I can't see Barry McCafferty liking this.

johnstodderinexile said...

Right, but Boehner isn't even saying the generals are "in charge." He's saying they're in charge along with Rumsfeld and Bush. What Boehner was doing was spreading the blame among all the principals who have some decisive role to play on Iraq. Read his quote. He didn't exempt Rumsfeld.

If it were up to me, Rumsfeld would've been fired two years ago, by the way. I'm just objecting to the comical attempt to blow this nothing comment up into a gaffe on the same tier as the 2004 Democratic candidate for president suggesting that the troops in Iraq are comprised of kids who flunked out of college.

Fenrisulven said...

Edward: It’s about placing the blame for this failed war where it belongs, at the doorstep of Bush and Rumsfeld.

There it is. In plain sight for all to see.

As pointed out earlier, assigning blame for a war which has not failed is premature. But not for Edward and his ilk - Iraq must fail so that Bush and Rumsfeld can be punished. Edward, how many innocents must die to satiate your BDS? How many troops must die so that Democrats can "win" their little power game.

You disgust me.

Ah, did I offend you? "I deeply regret that my comment was misrepresented..."

Edward said...

fenrisulven:

Maybe I should have said "failing" war.

There's no question this war is not going well.

There's also no question whose fault it is -- and it's not the generals'.

MadisonMan said...

Californians have done it right: split the power between the two parties. Look what happens when that doesn't happen. Ohio!

MadisonMan said...

It’s about making the people at the top – Bush, Rumsfeld, and Congressional leaders like Boehner – accept responsibility for that failure

And then what?

I'd much rather have them spend their energy trying to figure out a way to win rather than protecting their rear flank. The same is true for just about anyone. I tell you -- if the Democrats take the House/Senate, and someone emerges with a credible plan to win (whatever that means), and helps to see it executed, I'll vote for them.

The problem becomes, of course, that a successful Democratic plan will be opposed by ambitious Republicans. (and vice versa).

tjl said...

"The governor of Massachusetts is a very conservative Republican. How did he win?'

MA, while totally blue, has had the custom of electing Republican governors to serve as a check on the excesses of the always-Democratic, always-corrupt state legislature.

J. Peden said...

"There's no question this war is not going well."
edward

edward, repeating a meme does not make it so, unless the meme is religious, and defines the religion.

The V.C./NVA were killing an average of 30 U.S. soldiers per day in the Viet Nam conflict, which I opposed, over long periods of time, for example.

Just what is your standard for "not going well" in a war? That you say so?

Repeating your mantras and liturgy to rational people does not work the same magic upon them which it does upon your fellow cultists, no matter what the emotions are which you attach to them.

Elizabeth said...

Iraq must fail so that Bush and Rumsfeld can be punished. Edward, how many innocents must die to satiate your BDS?

Topsy-turvy, inside-out thinking Lalalala, fingers in your ears, droning "I can't hear you."

The war is failing. Not because I want it to, not because I'm deee-ranged and ca-ra-zee and just hate, hate Booshitler. Iraq is broke. We broke it. It is our problem, and we can't abandon it. But we can damn sure stop electing the idiots who've taken us thus far, and stop yelling "BDS" everytime someone says something you don't like about the performance of this administration.

Revenant said...

Iraq is broke. We broke it.

Er... we did? When did that happen, exactly? When was Iraq a functional, democratic, peaceful nation that didn't experience regular bouts of mass bloodshed?

The only way we could be said to have "broken" Iraq is if you consider a nation ruled by a mass-murdering totalitarian dictator to be "fixed". I don't -- do you?

Too Many Jims said...

J. Peden,

Apparently, repeating the mantra that things are not going well in Iraq has worked on about two-tirds of Americans. But I hope the administration thinks things are going well and comes out with a whole slew of ads this weekend supporting Republican candidates and telling voters that things are going well in Iraq.

J. Peden said...

And, Elizabeth, your solution to the Islamofascist threat, in the face of "this adminstration's" perfect record is what, according to your Cult?

Elizabeth said...

Revenant, Iraq went from the frying pan to the fire. We invaded without a plan to win the peace. It's not a zero sum game; yes, life under Saddam was tyrannical, but life under warfare is as bad. I have friends who fled Iraq for the U.S. and political asylum. They themselves use the term "broken" to describe what's happened to Iraq since 2003. It's shallow to say "well, at least Saddam is gone" in response to the critique that Iraq right now is out of control, and that its citizens are in danger. You know, there's a reason Bush I didn't take out Saddam.

Elizabeth said...

The Islamofascist threat wasn't centered in Iraq until we invaded it.

More backwards logic, and more idiotic language. Here's my suggestion: learn to talk to other Americans who disagree with you without resorting to calling them "cultists" and using juvenile "BDS" namecalling.

I know someone's lost the ability to think clearly when all they can do is scream that their opponent is craaazee and deee-ranged and is in a cult. Oh, and emotional. Yeah, you just ooze rationality.

J. Peden said...

too many jims,

Perhaps you are confusing your cultist members and their wishful mantras and tactics with the majority of American voters and their way of analyzing reality?

Your needful perception is not reality, and especially not simply because you say it is so.

On Nov.7, we will see what the majority perceives.

Or did the Detroit Tigers win the World Series?

J. Peden said...

"I know someone's lost the ability to think clearly when all they can do is scream that their opponent is craaazee and deee-ranged and is in a cult."
elizabeth

There is certainly no reason for any of us to scream, elizabeth.

And name-calling is not name-calling if the "name" fits.

Too Many Jims said...

J Peden,

Just what is your standard for " going well" in Iraq? That you say so?

Repeating your mantras and liturgy to rational people does not work the same magic upon them which it does upon your fellow cultists, no matter what the emotions are which you attach to them.

P.S. In answering, please do not compare to Iraq to Vietnam.

Elizabeth said...


And name-calling is not name-calling if the "name" fits.


Yes, it is, J. And it's an empty, divisive way to discuss our nation's interests. You've established your level of rhetoric, and anyone with any interest in doing more than slinging adolescent insults knows they needn't bother to engage with you.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 212   Newer› Newest»