Fox News misrepresented Kerry's remarks on "get[ting] stuck in Iraq"
On October 31, several Fox News anchors and on-screen text during Fox News programming misrepresented what Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) said during an October 30 speech at a campaign rally in Pasadena, California, by simply adopting the White House's characterization of Kerry's remarks -- that Americans who don't "study hard" and "make an effort and be smart" get "stuck in Iraq." In fact, Kerry said, "Education, you know, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." According to Kerry, he was referring to President Bush's poor preparation for the war, not the lack of education of members of the U.S. military. Kerry said he botched a joke, and according to CNN, a Kerry aide said Kerry was supposed to have said: "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." Contrary to Fox's misrepresentations, Kerry did not mention "uneducated people fight[ing]" in Iraq or "troops," as Fox asserted at one point through on-screen text.
- On the October 31 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, anchor Martha MacCallum declared that Kerry said "[i]n essence ... only uneducated people fight for our country." MacCallum further reported on criticism of Kerry's remarks by the White House and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) without noting that a Kerry aide had already stated that Kerry was referring to President Bush.
- Also during a subsequent report on the October 31 edition of Fox News Live, while Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume discussed Kerry's statement, on-screen text read, "Kerry defends statement on troops & education." In fact, Kerry defended his statement by explicitly asserting that he was not talking about the "troops" but, rather, about Bush.
- On the October 31 edition of Studio B with Shepard Smith, Smith cropped the portion of Kerry's remarks where he stated that his remarks were about Bush, then asserted that "Kerry told a group of college students, 'if you do your homework, and you do well, you won't get stuck in Iraq.' "
From the October 31 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk with Martha MacCallum:
MacCALLUM: But coming up, continuing coverage of the unbelievable comments that were heard yesterday, actually from Senator Kerry, bringing the political debate to a whole new level. In essence saying that only uneducated people fight for our country. It's a difficult -- you know everybody's, you know, sort of parsing this statement right now, but it's causing a major controversy today. We're going to have more on this ahead. Stay with us.
[...]
MacCALLUM: All right, John Kerry making some very controversial statements yesterday in Pasadena, California. He said, "I just want to say -- he said we are here to talk about education but I have something to say about Iraq. Education, you know, if you make the most of it and study hard and you make an effort and be smart, you can do well. If you don' t, you can get stuck in Iraq." These comments, a lot of people are saying they are extremely negative for our military. Tony Snow coming out, John McCain coming out and asking Senator Kerry to apologize about what he sees as derogatory comments about our people serving in the military and serving in Iraq. So this, obviously, is sparking a lot of controversy this afternoon. We're going to keep covering it, we'll keep a close eye on it.
From the October 31 edition of Fox News' Studio B:
SMITH: The war of words between the White House and Sen. John Kerry is now escalating. Less than an hour ago, Sen. Kerry responded to criticism over Iraq, making it crystal clear he will not apologize, but he will apologize for the administration's handling of the war in Iraq:
KERRY [video clip]: -- not about the troops. The White House's attempt to distort my true statement is a remarkable testament to their abject failure in making America safe. It's a stunning statement about their willingness to reduce anything America to raw politics. It's their willingness to distort, it's their willingness to mislead Americans. Their willingness to exploit the troops as they have so many times, at backdrops, at so many speeches at which they have not told the American people the truth.
SMITH: Well, that from a short time ago live here on Fox News Channel. And it was all ignited, this firestorm last night, right here in California, where Senator Kerry told a group of college students, "if you do your homework, and you do well, you won't get stuck in Iraq." The White House called Kerry's remarks an absolute insult to the United States military. There are two sides to this, and rest assured, the campaign bubble is percolating again.
Except for the bunch of Chickenhawks in charge.
I'd say putting them in harms way without an exit strategy or the needed equipment would be more of an insult than any words could be.
I'd say putting the interests of their political party before the interest of the troops is an insult.
I'd say cutting taxes during wartime is an insult as well.
I'd say that if none of their family members are willing to fight, then that's an insult to the military.
during wartime is now bringing in tax revenues like crazy.
So you would be wrong.
1st, it took what? 6 years? to get any meaningful revenue. and 2nd, economists agree that most of the revenue generation is more due to cheap gasoline than tax cuts. And in your own words, Bush or politicians don't control or influence the price of gas, so just what was it your dummander in cheap did again?
Where has there been cheap gas? Oil has gone from ten bucks a barrel to over $75 a barrel and is still hovering around 60 per barrel.
It took several years because the fed overraised interest rates and hopefully Bernanke hit it right this time and won't knock us into recession.
Face it, all the left economists were wrong on their predictions. The tax cuts saved our economy and if the idiots in congress would have given Bush the tax cuts he wanted things would be even better now.
I just filled my truck today in Texas with good ol' cheap $2.19 per gallon unleaded. Several months ago it was $3.00 per gallon. Before the so called "crisis" we were paying $2.49 per gallon. Cheap dude. Cheap cheap cheap. Not 25 cents per gallon cheap, but cheaper than we were paying before the war started cheap. get it? gas is cheap today...
took office, it was around $1.05 in Tennessee. Any way you look at it, it's at least a 100% increase, and Exxon just announced a 10 billion (BILLION) dollar quarterly profit, their second quarterly record in a row.
I paid $1.99 a gallon. Last week it was $1.89. And in New Jersey you're not allowed to pump it yourself.
Git a rope... (think hot sauce commercial!)
those tax revenues don't exist. It's all smoke and mirrors. Tax cuts for the waelthy and breaks for big energy conglomerates does not make a strong economy and it shows. More live in poverty, more have no healthcare, more taking in less money but CEOs are making out like bandits.
of the facts, before you come in and make crap up.
Our congressional office of the budget as well as leading economists estimate that if we continue on this route set by the President's administration, we DEFINITELY will pay for it.
Do you know what a growing trillion dollar deficit even means? 1,000,000,000,000,000
That's right--it's one million BILLIONS! And it's been growing drastically since Mr. Bush took office.
And one last thing, if you haven't already hid you head back into you Fox News screen (refusing to look at the truth, duh):
When the administration stated that the deficit is below their estimation by %25 or whatever, that's exactly what it was. It was lower than their INITIAL ESTIMATION--not even an estimation of what it should be through an independent economist or any sort of reasonable rationale.
I bring this up because it's spin. YES! believe that our government is doing so well with money. They might as well have stated their estimation as 10x what it was--then they'd be in even better shape and could say they've acquired a deficit 1/10 of their estimation. Do you even understand what the F this all means?!?!
No, a trillion is a million MILLIONS (a THOUSAND billions).
Let's at least get our facts straight before moving into our tirades.
"No, a trillion is a million MILLIONS (a THOUSAND billions). "
Phew. I thought you were talking about real money!
That makes it better
to that pesky little record deficit(which , by the way, doesn't even include the stupid little war in Iraq).
Didn't you hear??? The Congressional Budget Office just recently announced that the federal deficit has actually been cut in half - just as Bush promised. You remember that promise a couple years back, don't you? You must've heard about it when CNN and CBS and so many others were claiming it couldn't be done...
In fact,l this takes the deficit back to Clinton era levels, and the Democrats - or should I say Democratics? Don't want to offend anyone - didn't seem to have a problem with the deficit then.
Glad I could bring you such great news - no need to thank me. Just knowing I might have made your day a little brighter is all the thanks I need.
1. They didn't figure in the war and many other expendentures.
2. They took their figures prematurely, as this administration has not even finished yet.
3. They were at half the deficit level OF THEIR OWN ESTIMATION!
DUH!
If I just took cost items I didnt like OFF the budget. When they do a REAL budget get back to us.
Didn't Clinton leave office with a budget surplus?
the last three clinton budget proposals were in balance.
these deficits came back to national politics when Bush did.
Bush 43 has proposed the LARGEST deficit ever (2005) as well as the 3rd largest deficit ever (the current one).
Bushs daddy (#41--the wimp) owns the 2nd largest budget deficit, which used to be the record until JUNYAH came to town.
If Bush can't pay our bills in an economy that some are calling GREAT, then when will he ever?
finally, bushs projected deficits are rising and the BB's ensuing reitrement factors in that equation heavily.
Tax cuts dont pay for themselves.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Okay, so let's review this issue with the help of some experts. I'd like to cite Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, because his work inspired this column. But to win over reasonable conservatives, I'm going to choose N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large." How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue. Hello, Mr. President, that means that the other half of the lost revenue translates into bigger deficits. Mankiw also calculates that the comparable figure for cuts in taxes on wages is 17 percent. Yes, Mr. President, that means every $1 trillion in tax cuts is going to add $830 billion to the national debt. Let's engage in what Bush might call the soft bigotry of low expectations and cut Republicans some slack. Hey, maybe they just overlooked that Mankiw paper? Or maybe, despite hiring Mankiw to head the Council of Economic Advisers, they later acquired reasons to doubt his judgment? In that case they should at least have listened to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another conservative economist who worked in the Bush White House and who went on to run the Congressional Budget Office. In a study published under Holtz-Eakin's direction last December, the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it could muster, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss. So Mankiw isn't with them. Holtz-Eakin isn't with them. Which raises a question: When top Republicans go around claiming that tax cuts pay for themselves, which economic authorities are they relying on? None, is the answer. These people's approach to government is to make economics up. The Republicans' only argument is that tax receipts have boomed in the years since the 2003 tax cut. But the question is whether tax receipts increased because the tax cuts worked some kind of magic or because the economy was headed up anyway after the recession, thanks maybe to low interest rates resulting from the Asian savings glut. Friends, the reason we have economists is so that they can solve these puzzles for us. Ignoring their solutions is like ignoring the judgment of medical science in favor of faith healers and quacks. Politicians are always speechifying about how the United States must lead the world in research to maintain its edge. But having the world's best economics research isn't particularly helpful if those same politicians are silly enough to tune it out. The truth is that American business excels at turning university research into world-beating products; the paranoia on this score is overdone. But American government is often lousy at turning research into policies. That's what we should fret about.
damning evidence. And yet we do...
Why is that? Why is it that people cannot even accept such huge evidence, and instead must stick adamently to ignorance proven wrong?
best response yet. Good research.
is that the national debt is a product of spending, not tax cuts in a vaccuum.
It goes without saying that tax cuts without spending cuts (or some sort of alternative revenue sources) are going to cause negative cash flow. But how can a whole article on fiscal policy and the national debt manage make even a pretense of intellectual honesty when it uses the term "tax cut" a dozen times without once using the term "spending"?
By the way, my contribution to the intellectual honesty of this discussion is to admit that the Bush administration [and Republican controlled Congress] have a lousy record on controlling spending; but from my Reagan conservative POV, tax cuts is not the cause of the growing national debt.
Of tax cuts vs spending cuts. I am refuting the claim that the tax cuts spurred the economy so that they increased revenue. Nothing dishonest about it in context. What is dishonest is accusing me of not having YOUR argument instead of the one I WAS having.
In fact, this whole tax thing is tangential to the topic of whether Kerry meant to insult the President or soldiers in Iraq. That said, however, ...
That may have been your intention in posting that long quote from the WP, but your own source disputes your hypothesis:
and:
Once again, no mention of a need to cut spending, just the tired old rant that tax cuts don't spur ENOUGH growth....
To coin a truism: deficits result from spending more than you take in. It is lunacy to try to tackle a huge deficit like the one we have simply by throwing more taxes at it. You've got to cut spending too. Refusing to recognize that fact is true voodo economics.
Which in fact is HIS hypothesis
Look, the article ADMISTS Mankiw is a tax cut advocate that is why I use that source. When even a tax cut advocate is admitting that tax cuts dont pay for themselves which IS what he said, that is a strong argument. It is more effective than citing someone that opposes tax cuts. I am not sure how you are saying that making up 22% or even HALF somehow equates to paying for itself which was leatherguys claim. It doesnt.
I GET that you want to CHANGE the point I am making. Again, I was refuting the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves they dont period. Spending cuts are another subject altogether. IF tax cuts paid for themselves then there would be no need for spending cuts to offset their effect, that is a very simple equation.
Your [first] hypothesis was:
The voodoo economist cited sources showing that tax cuts do stimulate growth and increase revenue, (while stipulating that they do not generate ENOUGH revenue).
Now your [second] hypothesis is:
Your two hypotheses, 1) that tax cuts do not generate revenue, and 2) that tax cuts do not pay for themselves, are, indeed, different; however I am not the one who changed them. In fact, at this point I do not even know which of your two points you wish to make.
I am not, nor did "leatherguy" (sic). This is another straw man argument. He never actually claimed cutting taxes pays for itself. What he said was:
I admit I do not have the figures to interpret the amount of increased revenue described by the expression"bringing in tax revenues like crazy"; but neither can I interpret it to mean "paying for itself".
My points were that, first, cutting taxes is--apparently, since the point has not been challenged in this discussion--good for the economy; and, second, that reducing the deficit requires spending cuts, not just providing sufficient tax revenues, a fact which the voodoo economist source chooses to ignore.
Meanwhile, if you wish to support a hypothesis that cutting taxes does not stimulate growth or generate income, you need to find a different source.
of cherry-picking research and quotes.
Here's a few more:
Dr. Gregory Mankiw The tax cuts have had an important role in promoting the economy's recovery. According to CEA analysis, if the President had left the tax code unchanged since coming into office, there would have been 1.5 million fewer people working today. Reversing the tax cuts now would act as contractionary force on the economy and put the recovery in jeopardy. This would be the economic equivalent of jumping off of Niagara Falls.
Do tax cuts pay for themselves? To a substantial extent, yes, N. Gregory Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl conclude in their study, Dynamic Scoring: A-Back-of-the-Envelope Guide (NBER Working Paper No. 11000).
Of course the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a leftist organization with a history of inaccurate research and poor projections. Check out this slide which completely missed the deficit reduction of the last year. [link to www.cbpp.org]
The CBPP is nothing but a lapdog for the debunked Paul Krugman. Here's a nice debunking article, [link to www.mises.org]
You can read all of this if you must. You all expect me to believe that global warming is real and then expect me to believe that the tax cuts are not bringing low unemployment, record revenues and increasingly better job wages and job growth. Give me a break.
You always believe the fantasy you make up in your head rather than the reality. How in the world can you claim we have rising wages when the median income has risen only 1.1% since 1999? Reality really isnt your strong suit
[link to www.whitehouse.gov]
Median household income was $46,326 in 2005, up 1.1 percent from 2004 after adjusting for inflation. This is the first annual increase in real median household income since 1999. Since 1967, the first year for which household income statistics are available, real median household income was up 30.9 percent
Is an intenational award winning economist who teaches at Princeton. Ludwig Von whoever is WHO AGAIN? Yeah, your usual criteria if the say what you LIKE then they are king if they disagree they are leftwingers without credibility. When Ludwig wins
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Krugman is famous in academe for his work on trade theory in providing a model in which firms and countries produce and trade because of economies of scale and for his textbook explanations of currency crises. He was also a vocal critic of the new economy view of the late 1990s as well as pegged exchange rate regimes of the island Asia nations and Thailand before the 1997 debacle as well as relying on governments to defend the pegged rates that investors like Long Term Capital Management relied on just before the 1998 Russian debt default. His International Economics: Theory and Policy (currently in its seventh edition) is a standard textbook on international economics without resort to calculus. In 1991 he was awarded the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal by the American Economic Association.
Has Ludwig I-wish-I-had-Krugmans-credentials-and-respect won any prestigious economic awards? Or is he the flavor of the month conservative economist. What happened to Aurthur Laffer? Is he washing cars now?
He did come back and correct himself, but the real issue here is that Fox won't report that fact. They just report the part that they can shamelessly use to promote their pro republican agenda - cause fox IS in the bag for the republicans.
On the verge of possibly re-taking Congress why give the Repubs ANY opportunity to create a controversy and energize their voters. I know Kerry was not dissing the troops... he was trying to insult Bush. But Kerry admitted today that he botched the joke... and it gave the Repubs an opening. When Kerry made the controversial remarks yesterday he looked tired IMO and a little off his game. I agree with what Kerry said today when he ripped into Bush. But he should have made a qualified apology to the troops IF he unintentionally offended them. But he didn't say those magic words and now the controversy will linger for a few more days. The whole thing was gratuitous and unnecessary. Kerry's not even running for office. Sorry, John... I love you, man, but you screwed up.
I was thinking pretty much the same thing. His intentions may have been good. But with only a week to go before the election, why give your opponent any opening to criticize your party?
For the sake of the nation, John, please shut up.
bobble his words...
It was a no-brainer that FOX NEWS would cut, paste, delete and distort Kerry's slam on Bush. I knew it would happen, just not how blatant it would be.
And, while it certainly won’t happen on FOX NEWS, the thing you never hear from any of the rest if the MSM's ball-chasing puppies is what Duhhbya's degree was in.
It was a degree in History!
Both History majors. I think they also must have taken courses in Creative History Writing.
shows just how desperate they really are. Ed Shultz was all over this today, kept playing the clip of bush (lowercase intentional) at the correspondent's dinner joking about trying to find the WMD's. Are they under here? Nuthin under here. Heh, heh, heh. To me, that was MUCH more of an insult to the troops who have been killed in his jaunty little war, and a gross insult to the greiving family members left behind.
He is the king of the sound bite. His production team is really on top of it. They had Kerry's rebuttal right after he gave it. Precious and right on the money.
The alarms go off and a alert is sent out "KERRY DEFENDS STATEMENT ON TROOPS & EDUCATION" and there is Fox's Tony Snow, Brit Hume, and any pundit trying to mark their loyalty to the Bush Cabal. As these Alerts go out and they are exposed for what they are, the throng will be dulled with a sarcastic deafness that will deafen the Republicans when the polls close on November 7th.
Sit back, take it all in, put these occasions to memory as we have a responsibility not to let them do this again, and for our nation not to forget.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Why can't he be a man and apologize? This would be over. His insulting remark does not need spinning and his "clarification". He needs to take responsibility for it and stop the silly "misreprensentation" baloney.
Typical politician. Turn a nothing story into a bigger one because they can't admit they screwed up. Any blowback is his own fault.
Kerry comments are most certainly being misrepresented. Shame on the Republicans for knowingly distorting what Kerry said to score political points. Kerry was clearly and without question was reffering to Bush being uneducated and he was stuck in Iraq. Any assumption that Kerry was talking about the troops in this manner is purely partisan. And Kerry was right in his rebuttal. This is what cons do. They assume they know someone's intentions no matter how absurd their conclusions are to merely bolster there biases. This is a crystal clear example of swift boating and hooray for Kerry for showing some much needed spine. Bush, Tony Snow and the rest of the neo-con herd are nothing but bullies. They can't debate the facts as they are too busy making things up about their political enemies.
of elitist statements. This was just one more in a long pattern.
Bush has an Ivy League education just like John Kerry does.
So the botched joke doesn't even make sense.
All he had to do was apologize and he could have ripped Bush afterwards. But no, he had be arrogant yet again and looked like an idiot and just added 5 points onto Bush's popularity.
I thank him for it, but he could have diffused it by not being a pompous imbecile.
The reference was to Bush not the troops. It is illogical to think Kerry would honestly believe what the Bushies are selling you to feed your irrational hate for Democrats. You call Kerry elitist. Because he speaks the truth for once? Was it the big words he used? What was so elitist about speaking in complete sentences?!?
what was the truth? Did he mention Bush? Did he mention Bush has the same Ivy League education Kerry has?
The attack (or joke as Kerry calls it - ha, ha, real funny)had no coherence with what he was talking about.
Alot of military people sure took it as a slam. Kerry did a terrible job of appeasing the insulted military people. And Kerry generally is such a good appeaser.
could possibly believe Kerry meant to trash the troops. He clarified his statement and said the president knows full well what he meant by the comment and they are using it for political advantage instead of talking about the real issue. Bush's failed policy in Iraq. That's the truth Jack!
An education consists of more than WHERE you go but also WHAT you put into it. Since Kerry made this point clear by saying ""Education, you know, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well" See the point is if you DONT even if you go to Yale you can still be dumb as W. Its YOU that doesnt make sense.
Kerry has an Ivy Leagaue education, bush(lowercase intentional) has an Ivy League diploma.
[link to www.thecitizen.com]
They went to the same school...Bush studied harder and had better grades than Kerry. That being true...Kerry's "joke" made no sense.
Bush studied harder? Not only is this unsupported, it doesn't conform to the fact that Bush is ignorant of so many things. If they are roughly equally intelligent, Kerry certainly has made more use of his brains.
Yes Kerry has an ivy league education like Bush WHO BOTCHES SIMPLE SENTENCES. The man is barely coherent and without a teleprompter cant string together two coherent sentences in a row. This is a man who said IS our children learning. That he knows its hard to put food on our families. Check out the Bush dyslexicon. So I guess you are saying Ivy leaguers can botch the English language too? If that wasnt your point then you dont have one. Of course it makes sense and its the only thing that DOES make sense. Here is a no brainer, its election time which do you choose option A, bash the troops, option B bash Bush. Even a wingnut can get that one right.
that our President has embarassed our country on many, many occassions with his lack of competence in the English language. Could it be that being rich and powerful might get your idiotic children into an Ivy League school?? However would have thunk it?
So Kerry bobbled his words--and truly he picked a hell of a time to choke. I'm still more ashamed of a president who cannot speak in complete sentences, pronounce words correctly, or accidentally make phrases that make him sound like a jackasses--CONSISTENTLY!
It's not that the cons think they know Kerry's mind and motives, it's that they think that the American people are stupid and naive enough to buy their bull. That is what makes them seriously look so deceitful.
Bush will shamelessly go on and on, without even acknowledging a standing legistlator's--a senator's, very logical rebuttal to a miscomment. It's as if he doesn't care about what the truth is, but instead spearheads whatever serves his agenda. The so damn childish, I can't believe what we have become as a country.
Kerry was only guilty of poor delivery of a slam on George Bush, not the troops. When you apologize for the way others choose to interpret your words, you are giving power to your political enemies and embolden them to distort you even more.
Kerry should have said this 2 years ago. He was mad as he!! and not going to take it anymore!
from Illinois (having a brain cramp with his name) made a statement where he simply reported what was said about Gitmo in an FBI report, and was vilified by the right as bashing the troops. He apologized to anyone who may have been offended, but to this day he is still being smeared by Hannity, Limbaugh, O'reilly, and their ilk. It wouldn't matter if Kerry stood on his head and spit silver dollars for the troops. From this point on, this will be used against him, with each telling bringing more embellishment, and more retribution.
Dick Durbin
brain cramp cleared.
Hey Tommy;
You ask why Kerry hasn't apologized?? Do you really need an answer?? If you do, then there in lies the problem.
I won't remark about your postings any longer since you have obviously abandon any common sense, and any sense of honor. A man whom would stand by draft-dodgers, and two faced scoundrels that would dip themselves in the blood of our military for their political ambitions deserves no standing in the conversation.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Well said my friend. Well said.
Haliburton & Oversight
Put these two together and we have the President and Vice President thinking and acting toward their opinions that the American people are idiots, and that the military personels' lives are calculable in dollar amounts. I think that's worse than bobbling a sentence.
Pretend Kerry actually meant it in the way you wingnuts are portraying it. Why wont YOU be a man and accept the reality of the situation. Kerry has no reason to appologize for slamming Bush or blowing a punchline.
Of course, it's perfectly logical in your mind to think for one second any politician would purposefully insult our troops before an election...
Please notice, that you are as dumb as ou President Bush is making you out to be. The pouncing of the White House and (oh sure) "liberal media" (bs) just goes to show how much they value the intelligence of the American people--or lack of respect of such. Yes, indeed, they are insulting us if they think we're so stupid--BUT HEY?! apparantly we are aren't we, Tommy.
Unbelievable, I can NOT believe our own government would act like a bunch of middle grade schoolkids, biting like hungry jackals at the obviously mis-comment. Spin, spin, SPIN! Kerry should have mad the comment about the American people who might idiotically accept this garbage en masse.
Never think for a second that Britan, Germany, or Japan would be so lame as to go this direction with obvious miscomments. And by saying this I must add--good God--are we not supposed to be the greatest country this world has ever seen by far... the best and brightest light of civilization? Well, if this kind of deal is being made about something so stupid, I am very very sadly starting to be quite cynical to this concept; I doubt I'm the only one.
John Kerry should apologize ten minutes after George W. Bush apologizes to the families, friends and loved ones of the nearly 3,000 Americans that he has ordered to their deaths to support his oil hard-on. The loudest whining always comes from those who did everything they could, right down to cocaine use, anal cysts, minorities jumping in front of them and "other priorities" to avoid serving this country. If the right in this country is so upset about Kerry's remarks let them read the portions of the "No Child 's Behind Left" Act which gives the Defense Department the list of those children who aren't doing well in school. I suppose those kids won't go to Iraq (or Iran or wherever Junior starts his next war) when they use the excuses listed above.
Kerry screwed up, but it's nothing compared to Bush's Iraq Adventure. Kerry mispoke, then clarified it. With all of the mangled nonsense that GWB, the person responsible for this mess, has uttered, when is he going to apologize or explain.
And we have to face facts, if we don't wind up this war soon, there is going to be some type of draft. And if there is, I can guarantee there will be no deferments for students or no one allowed to let "other priorities" come before their service.
The audio is obvious he is not talking about the troops, he was talking about Bush. There is no apology needed from Kerry and he delivered the proper response to the goon squad. More Dems have to take the same tact and fight back and tell it how it realy is. I'm so high on Kerry right now I could pee!
I think they are taking cues from Clinton's thrashing of Chris Wallace. Clinton's polticial philosophy has always been to counterpunch and to waste no time going about it. Kerry disregarded that strategy in 2004 with disastrous results. I hope he and the other Democrats understand it now.
would be peeing into the wind.
Not smart, and Kerry's response was not smart. It was as big of a political blunder as I have ever seen.
Kerry finally stood up today and called a bully a bully. That's all Bush has got. I don't think for one second that Bush is so stupid that he misunderstood Kerry's comments. Only an idiot would swallow the "he's trashing the troops" BS. You have to want to hate Kerry to believe such a thing. And it does personify Repugnican campaign tactics. It's running dry, dry, dry as Rush Limbaughs mouth a half an hour into a hillbilly heroin binge.
Kerry never has been good with humor. What he said was right. If Mr. Bush had educated himself about Iraq and warfare, our country might not be in the mess we are in.
It looks like McCain has more tolerance for a government that tortures prisoners than he does for a politician who tortures the English language.
or Gore-Kerry, or even better, Conyers-Feingold. But not McCain.
He needs someone who can tell a joke.
Kerry doesn't need to apologize to anyone. Immediately after the white house demanded an apology, Kerry fired back with the equivalent of "kiss my A**" . Saying among other things, (paraphrasing here) "a veteran would never insult 140,000 heroes serving their country in Iraq" . he clarified that his "get stuck in Iraq" remark was a jab at Bush. Of course being as it was subtle, it's not surprising that it went over the administration's collective head. (of course I personally think they deliberately chose to feign offense, as they're afraid Kerry will run for president in '08, and God forbid we should have someone with actual combat experience as commander-in-chief)
Please. Pair him with Hillary.
"That's the ticket!"
I'm thinking Feingold-Edwards might be the way to go. Or Feingold anyone. The question is, will middle America vote for a Jew? It's pretty sad that America might be deprived of an exceptional president because of latent, and other otherwise, anti-semitism.
it is pretty obvious that senator kerry was referring to bush and buddies rather than troops;but when the sly rush limboughs and 'fox'es are just looking for rye to make a mole-hill,he and other people who think beyond their waalets,should be careful;especiaaly jokes like these that the jokers on fox news will distort and put under wrong contexts to advance their imperial agenda;he can still apologise for 'the wrong interpretation of his remarks ' applied to the army ,with the understanding that although he did not mean what these hate-mongrers would like people to believe,he is still big enough to apologise to the army-men;i think bushes and rushes will like it prolonged to get extra milage;and he should put a stop to it fast.
cm
Funny how we are only hearing that one sentence. What about the ones before that put it in context? It is highly suspect, as has been demonstrated by republicans doing this before, that one statement without all the others around it.. means nothing but pure spin!
I still want to know why people don't discuss more why the Pentagon has lost 490,000 weapons? They wrote down the serial numbers of only 3% and have lost all the rest. So how great is that for the moral of the troops when those in charge of their mission don't find it big deal to lose 490,000 weapons that were provided to Iraqi police and military that could be used against them? Also, it seems another 133million dollars down the drain which could have bought more padded helmets to stop brain injuries or more armoured humvees for those roadside bombs etc. Now who thinks the military is stupid? Those poor soldiers are now facing 490,000 more weapons on the loose than there were before! Maybe the Pentagon thinks the soldiers are too dumb to notice the fact that almost half a million new weapons are out there that could be used against them?
he'd better retain his day job. I will admit he is a better Senator than comedian. A good joke needs no following retraction/correction/explanation.
You are right. Kerry is no comedian. But humor is part of giving speeches. If it were droning on and on about policy, less people would pay attention. Kerry is handling this correctly though. By challenging people to think a bit, and ask themselves why Kerrry would insult the troops, they come with the right answer. He didn't. When you let these things go without a response is when you get hanged in the public in abstentia.
it this case, a screwed up "punch line" ruined his message. Sure he was probably referring to bushlite, but he screwed up in a way to promote the attacks he is facing. If he can't stand the heat for this comment, he should realize he needs to rehearse more before getting into similar situations.
showed he can take the heat.(finally) He may have been waiting for the next cheap political shot just to make a stand. I want more of it.
only proved that he has an apparent death wish for his own political career and that he has no problem taking the whole party down with him. This is right up there with the "I voted for the 86 billion before I voted against it" comment. John Kerry's "rebuttal" will only insure that every time his name comes up in the future, people will have one more reason to think he's an idiot.
Nope. Kerry went out there and called the faux "outrage" expressed by Bush, Snow and McCain exactly what it is. Nonsense. He took the wind right out of their sails.
As the wife of a 20-year Army officer, and a high school teacher, can I respectfully request that we stop all this pandering? More than half of the Americans who are sporting "Support Our Troops" yellow magnets on their cars have never met one of the "troops". They are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and/or southern. Please note, all you readers, that I didn't say they were ALL Black, Hispanic, or southern; just they were DISPROPORTIONATELY so. Why is that...hmmmm? Could it be that the all-volunteer military is disproportionately attractive to those who don't have educational opportunities which money and status in our society can pay for? Give me a break! We all know that is true, but it's considered bad taste to admit it. The travesty of this war, just like Vietnam and the Civil War, is that it's a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. Congratulations to John Kerry for saying it out loud. I'm sorry that it's an inconvenient truth for most of America to deal with. My Florida-born husband has been in Iraq twice and is going for a third time in November. He has had to write too many letters to southern, Black and Hispanic parents informing them that their son or daughter died because they signed up for the Army college fund at the wrong time. Let's tell the truth in this country about this issue for once. It does not lessen the sacrifice to acknowledge that the all-volunteer Army allows those in power to make life or death decisions without worrying about the lives of their own children.
Thanks for your input Yellow. You've told more truth in a few lines than all of the other posts combined. You and your husband are to be commended for your sacrifices.
That's an interesting statistic. I'm sure there is a source.
what, exactly? Please note the word "recent".
"Bush has an Ivy League education just like John Kerry does." - Leatherhelmet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWSFLASH: Getting a legacy entrance to an Ivy League school in order to partially avoid serving in a foreign conflict, and while there spending most of your academic career drinking, drugging, and partying {as evidenced by your continued difficulty with the English language, particularly the pronounciation of the word "nuclear"}, and bragging about your less than stellar academic achievements as an adult, does NOT an "Ivy League education" make . . .
This whole MMFA attack piece, first, begs the question of Senator Kerry's patronizing posture. What he actually said—correct me if I'm wrong—was:
All spin aside, his comment is representative of his ilk's supposition that "If you agree with me, you're smart; if you disagree you're stupid".
Second, if he did in fact botch a joke, as claimed by various after-thought attempts to control the damage, it was a very thoughtless mistake, for which he should have just apologized and got on with it. Instead, he went on the attack with a "... statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting [his] comments..." < [link to www.johnkerry.com] >. So once again we get the heavy-handed condescension: Agree with me and you're smart; Disagree with me and you're a nut-job.
As a Conservative, I see nothing in this whole media brouhaha to change my opinion, which I've held since before the 2000 election: George W. Bush may not be perfect, but he's a whole lot better than the alternative[s] the Democratic Party offers, as strikingly exemplified by the ongoing antics of the Honorable Senator From Massachusetts.
expat
I was SO much more impressed with Lynn Cheny during the 2004 election making sarcastic comments about Kerrys so-called fake tan. Yeah, that wasn't at all condescending.
Who among the Democratic Party leadership is offering a positive [or even negative] policy or course of action?
All of them
Whatever you say....
it's agree with a war that had little planning, huge losses in lives and money, and a profoundly negative effect in the country it's taking place in and the world's view of us--AND you're stupid.
Disagree that this was a bad idea, badly undertaken, and we're in some deep-doo right now, and YES you're f-ing stupid.
I think Kerry's message is as easy to understand as it gets--just open your eyes.
I.e., disagree with my infallible assessment...
Sure THEY screwed up the situation, THEY have limited the options to BAD options but its DEMS that have the obligation to come up with a brilliant plan to BAIL THEM OUT. The GOP bought shovels and we told them dont dig yourself a hole. THEY dug a hole while telling us they would reach China and we were unpatriotic for not wanting to dig to China. Every few feet we come along and tell them STOP DIGGING. They scream we are appeasers and cowards for not wanting to reach China that they WOULD reach China any minute and now are complaining we dont have a plan to get them out of the hole. HEY sure we do it starts with STOP DIGGING.
a Republican; and I'm not talking about bailing out President Bush or the Republicans.
I'm talking about a braying, backbiting nay-sayer who is the de facto "leader" of a politically bankrupt Democratic Party, and who has not done a positive thing for his country since AT LEAST before returning home from Vietnam. (The jury is still out on his service record in Vietnam, since he still hasn't released the records as promised.... And we won't count his vote in favor of going in and ousting Saddam Hussein, as he has since recanted that vote.)
At the risk of telling you something you already know but just don't want to acknowledge, "opposition parties" rarely last long, even if voted into power and given a chance to prove their worth, because all they know how to do is criticize. They are soon recognized as the blowhards they are and sent back to bleating from the sidelines.
I'm hoping the Democratic Party will someday throw off its "Opposition Party" cloak and recoup its former greatness, but with so-called "leaders" like John F. Kerry, I'm not holding my breath.
Since Dems DID control Congress for most of about 40 years I guess that would make the GOP the opposition party that didnt last long about a dozen years. Your portrayal of Kerry shows only your bias I can do that as easily to Bush. A pathalogical liar without a shred of decency, or the IQ God gave the common housecat. A liar and warmonger whose military duty ISNT in question since it basically consists of hiding in the National Guard and FAILING to even keep that commitment dissapearing for long periods and being removed from flight status in a deriliction of duty. As for Kerry I think his Silver and Bronze stars say plenty about his service unless you are one of those conservatives who is always willing to attack a vet as long as he is a democrat. The military stands by his service only partisan cretins are doing any questioning.
Kerry was THE engine that took down the BCCI bank when neither Dems NOR the GOP wanted that cash cow to go away. He isnt my favorite Dem but compared to George Bush he is Thomas Jefferson.
"As for Kerry I think his Silver and Bronze stars say plenty about his service..."
We don't really know, do we? He promised to make his service record public before the 2004 election and still hasn't done so. Certainly not everyone who knew him back then agrees. --Expat
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I hope you are not basing any conclusions about Kerry based on your erroneous statement. Check the link below for further information/correction of your false statements.
According to the links below to the Boston Globe:
"The file does not provide new documents about various combat actions. It contains mostly a repetition of Kerry's citations for the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. For example, it does not include the combat ''after action reports" that detail what happened in some of the firefights in which Kerry participated. Those reports are available for public inspection at the Navy historical center in Washington and have already been widely disseminated."
There is nothing new in the full medical/military service record. Although the official file indicates many of the Swift Boat Vets, who have some apparently newfound enmity towards Kerry, apparently didn't think that way back then.
The US Navy awarded medals to Senator Kerry when he returned from Vietnam. As of today, the US Navy says that he deserves each and every one of them. For you, or any of the lying scum in the right wing media to say otherwise is to cast doubt on the sacrifice of the 3,400,000 men and women who served in Vietnam.
John Kerry was brave enough to volunteer to serve his country. He, more than anyone else, moved the anti-war debate away from the students and focused the nations attention on the faces of the men and women we sent to fight in a senseless war.
We all owe him for that.
He certainly did. He testified before Congress as to how "they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..."
Then, as now, Kerry's stock-in-trade was doing whatever he could to divide the nation. From ceremoniously throwing away his medals then to endlessly trying to undermine the President and the war efforts now, he has a history of more than 3 decades of *serving* his country.
But can we reallly not do without the contributions of the junior senator from MA?
You seem like a rather intelligent guy. It amazes me that you appear to have great difficulty thinking for yourself. That is just a mindless regurgitation of talking points.
What do you have to say that hasn't been said a million times by Sean Hannity already.
It is complete junk BTW. If John Kerry did not agree with the war, he was being brave in standing up to authority on the matter. I simply don't know how a fair-minded person could make the allegations you do. But when you have admitted to substituting speculation for facts, then I suppose it shouldn't be unexpected. Purely sickening to read from someone who appears to have some real potential for intelligence.
Now I see why you complain about condescension so much. The way you post, you must see an awful lot of it, mostly as a response to heavy doses of your own.
I chose to leave off the introductory part of my post, the disclaimer where I was going to mention that I didn't feel up to the challenge of responding to such an articulate and cogent one, being fresh out of vocabulary at the level of *moron* and "lying scum".
Meanwhile, the image of John Kerry as a brave war hero is one that somehow doesn't fit the guy who accused his fellow soldiers of disgusting war crimes and threw away the medals he was given for his "bravery". In fact, it sticks in my craw.
I didn't agree with the Vietnam war either, and I had plenty of debates at the time with people who did; but I never once felt it necessary to even say a critical word about my friends and relatives who went to Vietnam either by choice or by impressment, let alone accuse any of them of violent war crimes.
Despicable? In my opinion, John Kerry is the despicable one, then and now. He is the worst kind of pandering hypocritical politician, trumpeting his heroism in the military to the pro-war groups and ranting about war crimes and atrocities to the anti-war ones. Voting to take the US into the war and then refusing to take responsibility when it gets down to the short strokes.
As for irony, you too seem too intelligent to make off-the-wall allegations of "mindless regurgitation".
"Meanwhile, the image of John Kerry as a brave war hero is one that somehow doesn't fit the guy who accused his fellow soldiers of disgusting war crimes and threw away the medals he was given for his "bravery". In fact, it sticks in my craw." --Expat
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is where you are wrong. You are simply shooting the messenger. John Kerry was repeating actual testimony from Vietnam Veterans (although some of the confessions may have turned out over time to be arguably dubious) from a program called the "Winter Soldier Investigation".
The reason your post is despicable is that you appear to be repeating the same BS that went around the last election that suggested Kerry was just making his statement up out of the whole cloth simply to insult Vietnam Vets. In reality, he was doing the opposite. He was trying to keep more soldiers from being killed.
To be fair, you may not have been "mindless[ly] regurgitati[ng]". It could have been a willful attempt at spreading disinformation, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I suppose.
Anyway, you can no longer claim ignorance as you have been shown your mistake.
According to your source, "The 'Winter Soldier Investigation' was a media event intended to publicize war crimes and atrocities by the United States Armed Forces and their allies...." and "veterans and ... civilians ... gave testimony about war crimes they had committed or witnessed during the years of 1963-1970."
Your source goes on to say that '[Veteran Steve] Pitkin signed a[n] ... affidavit stating that he had been instructed by organizers [VVAW, Kerry's organization] to "publicly state that I had witnessed incidents of rape, brutality, atrocities and racism, knowing that such statements would necessarily be untrue"'.
How do those facts disprove what I said about Kerry's testimony?
Do you believe John Kerry knowingly gave false testimony to Congress about the testimony from the Winter Soldier Investigation?
Do you have a factual basis for your belief or just more of the same silly speculation and mind-reading, because I don't see it anywhere in the "facts" you have presented thus far?
My "belief" is that John Kerry's actions and intentions in "publiciz[ing] war crimes and atrocities", as a principal in the WSI, and reporting them to Congress as the representative of the VVAW, were neither heroic nor honorable.
The "facts" I cited, from your source, are that: 1) the intention of the WSI event, organized by the VVAW (as representative of which Kerry gave his notorious testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee <[link to en.wikipedia.org] organization of which John Kerry was an active member), was to "publicize war crimes and atrocities"
and
2) at least one of the testimonials at the WSI event (Pitkin's0, upon which Kerry's testimony was based was, affirmed to have been coerced and untrue.
Draw your own conclusions. Just don't attribute them to me.
"The jury is still out on his service record in Vietnam, since he still hasn't released the records as promised" --Expat
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On May 20, [2005] Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe. --Boston Globe
~~~~~~~~~
Looks like you are a year or so behind on your info.
All spin aside, his comment is representative of his ilk's supposition that "If you agree with me, you're smart; if you disagree you're stupid". --Expat
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yup...nothing at all like the view "You're either with us or against us." Stupid liberal elitist utimatum-ist-ers! Damn them all.
I suppose the only difference between your speculative statement and my George W. Bush example above is that yours apparently requires some sort of mind-reading ability so therefore it is much more true-like?
His stupid statement and the ensuing media brouhaha is all the fault of right-wing nut jubs.
And you're right:
And what a mind it is, at that!
What was I thinking?! Pure genius! Now I'm really sorry he's not the President!!! His loss is our gain--er, I mean his gain is our loss--er, I mean our loss is his gain--er, I mean his loss is...
Oh, whatever.... GEORGE BUSH IS A LOSER! GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
"His stupid statement and the ensuing media brouhaha is all the fault of right-wing nut jubs." --Expat
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So you are saying that this brouhaha isn't being driven at all by right-wing nut jobs? Not a bit? I guess we will have to disagree then.
In the part of the post where I pointed out your silly mind-reading and speculation, you seem to be suggesting that Kerry is speculating himself (I will admit it's kind of hard to tell, you weren't all that clear, IMO). I don't see where Kerry is speculating at all in what you quoted. The closest he comes to it is paraphrasing a conclusion made by the NIE.
If Kerry had not defiantly tried to defend an indefensible insult [or gaffe, if you will] and instead had put out the brush fires immediately by admitting he'd goofed, the whole thing would be past history by now. But that's one more in a long list of examples of why he'll never rise above his status as a blustering also-ran..
There is a sort of "common knowledge" among those on the Left in the US that Bush and the US are hated across the Atlantic and John Kerry is lionized, but that is only because they pick and choose their media. Believe it or not, there are those non-Americans who are not so taken by John Kerry's style of self-aggrandizing diatribes.
" Kerry is not as smart as he thinks
By Toby HarndenI
"... The words were clumsy and, yes, an insult to American troops. I have no doubt that he didn't mean to say that US soldiers in Iraq are dumb cannon fodder but that's what came out. He was trying to say that Bush was stupid (though the Texan's grade-point average at Yale was higher than that of Kerry) – a jibe that plays well in Europe but not in much of Middle America.
"It would have been a minor blip in the final week of the campaign if he had apologised immediately and unequivocally and got the hell off the airwaves...."
-- [link to www.telegraph.co.uk]
The part where I said "his comment is representative of his ilk's supposition that 'If you agree with me, you're smart; if you disagree you're stupid'? Read through the hundred-plus posts in this thread and see how many synonyms for "stupid" [or "nut-job" or "moron" or whatever] you find used to reply to anyone who does not agree to interpret Kerry's words the way he claims he intended them.
Since we were not discussing Bush, I chose to ignore your gratuitous comment on Bush.
Not at all. Sorry my ironic twist was not clear. [I guess I need to spend more time on Left-wing blogs learning better techniques for diverting the point.] I was commenting on the fantastic Kerry mind--his penchant for contradicting himself. In the quote from the Imus interview he first says the problem is not sending enough troops, then says we should not send more. At least that's what he seems to say. Without speculating, it's often hard to tell what he wants to say.
Your main point appears to be that Kerry should have said something earlier. I believe he did. The problem is that apparently the press smelled blood and the first explanation was deemed (for whatever reasons) insufficient. Maybe it was the chorus other Democrats, who hadn't apparently heard the original explanation from Kerry. Maybe it was the chorus of right-wing talk-show hosts who apparently wanted to bat the issue around some more. I personally think many factors including these had something to do with it. I don't really blame Kerry (although I am not a huge fan). No one is "on" all of the time. Everyone misspeaks at times.
As for your post, I found the last line the most interesting of all: "Without speculating, it's often hard to tell what he wants to say." I think this exposes the biggest problem in politics today. Partisanship leads people to expect the worst from people on the other side (no matter which party or ideology to which they belong). I often find that the least partisan and sane among us tend to speculate the least. They tend to rely on facts much more than anything else and ask questions when they don't know something.
is that what Kerry said is arrogant and insulting: If you take his statement at face value, it's insulting to military personnel; and if you take it as he claims he meant it, it's insulting to the President. In either case, it's less than dignified comportment for a US senator.
For Kerry and MM.dot.org to try to shift the blame for the whole kerfuffle to Fox News, or Tony Snow, or right wing nut-cases, or whomever is disgusting and disingenuous....
... so, actually, that's my second, subordinate point. He should have climbed down off his high horse much earlier. Even some Democrats and others on the not-too-far-Left have been saying that.
If you are speculating [sic] that I am not able to interpret Kerry's cryptic messages because of my partisanship, I think that is a cop out. If Kerry's statements were so crystal clear as your conclusion implies, they would not cause such brouhahas.
The fact is, as the headline of the piece I linked from the Telegraph says, "Kerry is not as smart as he thinks", and the reason he continues to get himself into these jams from which the Left and its organizations must come along and extract him is his vanity.
Don't try to blame partisanship for the unintelligibility of Kerry's malicious malapropism.
"My main point is that what Kerry said is arrogant and insulting: If you take his statement at face value" --Expat
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do YOU take it at face value?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"For Kerry and MM.dot.org to try to shift the blame for the whole kerfuffle to Fox News" --Expat
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kerry can only offer an explanation. If it keeps going after that, then one can conclude unreasonable people are keeping the story alive and often completely disregarding the explanation in lieu of the original (disowned) remarks. If Kerry's explanation is continually poo-pooed or ignored, I can only conclude that other factors are contributing to the further spread of misinformation. Undoubtedly the Right-Wing machine has something to do with it. That would not be unreasonable speculation considering what is known about the way the Right-wing has often coordinated messages in the past.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If you are speculating [sic] that I am not able to interpret Kerry's cryptic messages because of my partisanship, I think that is a cop out. If Kerry's statements were so crystal clear as your conclusion implies, they would not cause such brouhahas." --Expat
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe partisanship is the wrong word. You do however exhibit a fairly blatant and undeniable bias against John Kerry as evidenced by your attempted justification at speculating and mind-reading about him above.
You are being a little unclear in the above statement. Where did I imply Kerry's statement was "crystal clear"? If you are referring to Kerry's original statement, then that would be a mistaken inference on your part. I don't know how you could have made that mistake. However, Kerry's clarification was fine as far as I am concerned. Your Monday morning quarterbacking aside, it should have really ended everything.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As for your link that "Kerry is not as smart as he thinks he is". I should think that is true for most of us mortals. I don't find anecdotal stories like that one very compelling especially when they contain petty prejudicial comments about his hair and amateur psychoanalysis like: "Many people in Washington have similar DYKWIA – Don't You Know Who I Am? – anecdotes about Kerry that reveal his narcissistic conceit that it is all about him, all the time. This trait is the key to the kerfuffle over Kerry's comment"
Who are these "[m]any people" anyway? What kind of journalism is that? I will say that kind of amateurish anecdotal journalism appears to fit in pretty nicely with your whole attempted justification of speculation/mind-reading as well. There is apparently no pre-ordained conclusion you cannot reach with such methods.
Kerry does share his part of the blame in this for not being more careful. However, he explained himself, provided a copy of his prepared remarks, which contained the correct phrasing. That really should have been the end of it. For you to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
I take it as arrogant and insulting, as I have already said.
... plus diatribe: [link to www.johnkerry.com]
I'd be the last to deny my bias against John Kerry. I didn't start out that way, though; he has earned every whit of my disdain for him over the years.
More accurately, you implied that presuppositions due to partisanship are the reason Kerry's statements are misunderstood, rather than any intrinsic flaws in the statements themselves.
I have read others, but I'm afraid I can't cite the sources. Somehow, though, I don't disbelieve the writer.
It's called Op-ed journalism, among other things. You know, like you find on the front page of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.
Going back to my original point in citing the article, though: the article is from a British newspaper, illustrating the fact that not everyone on the other side of the Atlantic thinks John Kerry is God's gift to America.
Amen.
"I'd be the last to deny my bias against John Kerry. I didn't start out that way, though; he has earned every whit of my disdain for him over the years." --Expat
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That pretty much seals it. Looks like we've wasted each others time. No need for me to go on.
Be sure to keep that "open_mind" on John Kerry.
"Since we were not discussing Bush, I chose to ignore your gratuitous comment on Bush. " --Expat
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What exactly are you referring to from the previous post. It's late and maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see it. Where is my "gratuitous comment on Bush"?
I guess you were just responding to the wrong post then.
++++++++++++++++++
"Why does every discussion of a Democrat or Liberal always have to get twisted around into an indictment or discussion of Bush?" --Expat
++++++++++++++++++
Your rhetorical question actually has an answer to it. You originally smeared Kerry and his ilk. If you bring the ilk into it, your ilk is fair game by comparison. No?
I was just demonstrating that binary thinking isn't necessarily restrained to those pointy-headed liberal elite folks (or may not even be the case at all). I brought President Bush's quote into it to juxtapose his actual example with your apparently imagined one.
to drag this discussion into oblivion, you've succeeded: I don't get the logic of this post at all.
"So once again we get the heavy-handed condescension: Agree with me and you're smart; Disagree with me and you're a nut-job." --Expat
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, so unlike your treatment of Yellowdog above. I suppose if anyone should know about heavy-handed condescension, you would be him/her.
But I don't see any heavy-handedness. Rather, if my irony was heavy-handed, it certainly was no more so than her "We all know..." support for her wild claims about those who express their support for the troops.
OK. Your "glass houses" point is well-taken. [But I'm not apologizing. ;-]
Just wanted you to realize that liberals aren't the only ones who employ such logic.
I feel pretty much the same way.
as questioning the patriotism of Americans who simply disagree with the government.
quite similar to questioning the intelligence of anyone who DOESN'T disagree with the government....
expat wrote: That would be quite similar to questioning the intelligence of anyone who DOESN'T disagree with the government....
No, the two do not equate in that this government has used the strongest possible emotions that Americans have always stood for - love of country and patriotism - and which you have always been admired for, as tools to demean and to squash dissent against other Americans. What kind of supporters does Bush feel he has when he now comes out, after three years of repeating stay the course, and says he has never been a stay the course guy and he thinks this is believable? Yes, I would question the intelligence of people who will believe this and give undieing support.
Republicans asking democrats or those in the media who don't fawn at their feet "Do you want America to win?"..... is disgusting ! So, yes I would love to know why people still undisbutibly support a government who thinks it is more important to go after other Americans with a greater vengeance than the enemy? If Bush and his administration put a quarter of the time they spend campaigning and ridiculing those with a differing opinion into the war effort, your troops might be home already.
Oh? Is that a fact? I'm afraid I'm just too ignorant to get this. Please cite a couple of specific instances.
Again, I don't quite understand. Please cite a couple of specific cases.
Out of context or not it is fodder for the right. Why can't Kerry preview what he is going to say? Especially so close to the election. Heck, I know that the GOP is running scared, waiting for any opportunity to jump on a misstep. It reminds me of Kerry laying down after he lost a controversial election due to voter fraud (Ohio). I really wonder whose side he is on.
His four year average at Yale was 76. The Presidents four year average at Yale was 77. Kerry's IQ 120. The Presidents 125. The premise of his silly explanation is false! See link. [link to www.boston.com]
Then criticize him for that. That's legitimate. What's not legitimate is to pretend he was slamming the troops. It didn't work. Republicans are backpeddling as we speak. Kerry's counterpunch was exactly the right strategy.
Inadvertent or not, Kerry told the truth. People with money and education, like Dick Cheney, can get deferments and then toss off a "I had better things to do" and get away with it. Young people without money or education have fewer choices, and sometimes choose the military option--which puts them at the mercy of idiots like the aforementioned DC, et al. Apologize? W Bush should apologize for his entire terms in office! Having said all that, I just have to sigh heavily . . . the November Surprise came from our own side.
Of course Fox 31 is going to misrepresent what Kerry said. They are Bush supporters. DUH. Bush has said and done far worse things. So has his mother when the Katrina disaster happened. Consider the source. Think back to the convenient announcement that Fox 31 made about Bush winning the election before the ballots were even finished being counted. If I recall he has some family member or a friend who is with Fox 31. They have recently been reporting about things that the Republicans are supporting. I personally do not believe what Kerry said is offensive and it is being totally taken out of context. Fox 31 is intentionally presenting it that way.
... and weigh them against all the other media's premature announcements that Bush had LOST the election.