Andrea Mitchell pronounced Kerry's explanation for his Iraq comment -- that he was referring to President Bush -- "hard to imagine"
During the 2 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC News Live, several NBC correspondents baselessly suggested that Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) explanation for a remark he made during an October 30 appearance at Pasadena City College in California lacked credibility, with NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell stating that it was "hard to imagine" Kerry's explanation is true. As CNN reported, in his speech, Kerry told "a group of college students they could either work hard in school or 'get stuck in Iraq,' " and later reported Kerry's assertion that "the remark was a 'botched joke' meant to target the president, not U.S. troops." According to CNN, a Kerry aide said "Kerry 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.' " The Associated Press reported that Kerry made the remark after opening his speech "with several one-liners, saying at one point that Bush had lived in Texas but now 'lives in a state of denial.' " The White House, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and other conservatives have seized on Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" remark to claim that Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran, smeared U.S. troops, and have demanded Kerry apologize.
According to CNN's October 31 article:
[T]he senator took the stage to roaring applause before regaling the crowd with one-liners, Bush barbs and tales of surfing at nearby Mission Beach.
He then said: "You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and 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."
[...]
A Kerry aide told CNN that the prepared statement, which had been designed to criticize President Bush, "was mangled in delivery."
Kerry 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."
While reporting on Kerry's comment and subsequent explanation, Mitchell stated that "[I]t's hard to imagine," as Kerry claimed, that he "really meant to say," "getting us stuck in Iraq [emphasis added]." Mitchell opined that "it's going to be very tough" for Kerry to explain his remark, "given the context." She added: "It's hard to believe that the Democrats could give away a national security advantage ... this close to Election Day." Mitchell concluded that it was "understandable" that "[White House press secretary] Tony Snow and others in the Republican camp are jumping on" Kerry over the remark.
Responding to Mitchell, NBC's Today weekend edition co-host Lester Holt asserted that "these words, no matter what Democrat would utter them, would have been jumped upon," but, "coming from Senator John Kerry," the "liberal lightning rod" may "make this particularly difficult" for the Democrats. Mitchell replied by commenting on how "this is just another example" of Kerry being "his own worst enemy."
Similarly, during an earlier report on Kerry's remark, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell opined that it was "going to be tough to explain away the fact that some people will have the impression that he was being unflattering about the educational level of U.S. troops."
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the October 31 edition of MSNBC News Live:
HOLT: And, Kelly, as you noted, we're going to hear from Senator Kerry shortly. But I'm looking at that same statement you are. On it, I don't see anywhere he denies actually using those words and, with regard to him apparently making a mistake, that only came from someone described as a source close to John Kerry. So, to our knowledge, he's not -- he's not come out and said, "I didn't say these words."
O'DONNELL: Well, I'm the person who talked to that source, and worked that. As you may remember, I covered the Kerry campaign in 2004 so, I'm familiar with people close to him. I was able to reach out to that person, try and get some context for this. Clearly, you heard the words on tape. The senator will not refute that the words came out of his mouth the way that they did.
What his campaign is now trying to do is say it was a mistake -- that the senator simply messed up his words. He was making a series of jokes about the president, partisan jokes, and that he misspoke. That's really up to the interpretation of viewers who will listen to his words -- listen to his response later today. But whether he intended to say it or not, it has certainly caused a controversy.
The Kerry side is trying to reframe this, saying that, given his whole record, he would not talk in an unflattering way about the troops, while Republicans say that Senator Kerry has said some very tough things about U.S. personnel in Iraq and, of course, his longtime criticism of the Vietnam War when he was a young man.
This is a volatile subject, especially when John Kerry is involved. And now, because of the clock -- the calendar toward the midterm election -- it becomes more important in the Iraq debate of present day. So, it's -- it's something that when we hear Senator Kerry today, I would anticipate he will reiterate his written statement, but it's going to be tough to explain away the fact that some people will have the impression that he was being unflattering about the educational level of U.S. troops. It's a tough one for John Kerry and, certainly, an opportunity for Republicans.
[...]
HOLT: The White House is being joined by a long list of Republicans now in calling on Senator John Kerry to apologize to U.S. troops in Iraq. It's all over this comment. Watch.
KERRY [video clip]: -- education. If you make the most of it, and you study hard, and 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.
HOLT: Kerry's camp said this was a joke about President Bush that got slightly mangled. They say he left out two words, "get[ting] us stuck in Iraq." He reportedly wanted to say, "[Y]ou end up getting us stuck in Iraq."
NBC's Andrea Mitchell is live in Washington, D.C., with reaction. I kind of mangled that lead but help me out there, Andrea.
MITCHELL: No, you didn't mangle the lead as much as John Kerry mangled either the thought process or what he meant to say. It's hard to imagine that he really meant to say, "get us stuck in Iraq," given the context. He was speaking in Los Angeles about education, about students -- to college people, so I'm not entirely clear on what's happened.
He, we understand, is about to have a news conference and explain this, but it's going to be very tough. It's hard to believe that the Democrats could give away a national security advantage, hard-fought, this close to Election Day, but this is going to cause a ruckus. And as you've already seen, Tony Snow and others in the Republican camp are jumping on him, and it's understandable.
HOLT: And Andrea, these words, no matter what Democrat would utter them, would have been jumped upon, but coming from Senator John Kerry, is he still positioned somewhat as a liberal lightning rod in terms of the Republicans? And does that make this particularly difficult -- potentially difficult for Democrats that it came from him?
When I heard the quote on Ed Shultz, I didn't know there was a controversy surrounding it. I immediately knew Kerry was taking a shot at Bush. It got me to chuckle. Only later did I find out that people actually were trying to pretend Kerry meant the troops. I do wish Kerry would vet his jokes a little better. For instance had he said, "If you don't, you'll lead a country into a quagmire", his meaning would have been obvious to even the most nuance-averse.
Kerry's statements were plainly made and psychologically transparent. Listeners' inability or unwillingness to acknowledge facts is a defensive strategy that will not serve any group, in the long run. Kerry's prior military involvement is irrelevant, esp. considering his many public actions in the past decade.
how hard it is to put food on your family.
Good one.
What about when Bush said that the government won't stop finding ways to harm our people? Liberals cracked jokes about it, but they understood that it was a slip of the tongue and not a real reflection of Bush's beliefs.
They have no word for entrepenuer. My personal favorite was when he asked the president of Brazil if they had blacks there too. Of course Brazil has the largest black population in the world outside Africa
still has french people scratching their heads, and asking WTF.
I am with them on that one.
but you can believe it if it makes you happy.
[link to www.snopes.com]
The snopes article you provided a link to doesn't prove that Bush's "blacks" statement was untrue - just poorly sourced. Could you please provide the correct link? I'd love to read the article you were referring to in your post.
Thanks!
Once again the judges say Leatherdude makes a claim NOT supported by his citation. They snopes article says straight out, directly that Bush might have said this just like the sources SAID he did. All snopes says is it is poorly sourced. Beleive what you want, but you dont get your own facts. This might not rise to the level of absolute proof but it has certainly NOT been debunked. I notice the president of Brazil didnt do Bush a HUGE favor and DENY he made this gaffe. Poor leather one of these days he MIGHT learn to READ.
Rove has his own math. ;)
she attacked kerry for criticizing alan greenspan, the fed chairman, during the 04 debates. nowhere during her tirade did mitchell happen to mention that she is married to mr. greenspan. this could have been phased way better, but it's hard to imagine that kerry really meant to say what they republicans are portraying it as. i think he clearly gets the benefit of the doubt, but not from a shill like mitchell. had he said " you end up in iraq" they might have a point.
.. is the fact that there is a certain truth in how Kerry phrased it. I'm certain that there is an 'economic draft' going on, given the lack of decent job opportunities for people just leaving high school, or who do poorly in college. As risky as a military career is, it still actually looks good to a lot of young people, given the lack of alternatives.
Solon and others think Kerry was just talking about Bush.
Kerry said it was a botched "joke".
Kerry's vague reference leaves open the point you brought up and also what others felt was an elitist slam against the military.
There are several elephants in the room which is why Kerry was an idiot for not apologizing.
For stubbornly repeating the propaganda parrot talking poit. SKWAAAAAK Kerry is an idiot. SKwWWAAAAKKK Kerry should appologize SKWWWAAAAAKKK Kerry insulted the troops. It is one week from the midterms, stop chanelling the spirit of Bozo the Clown and ask yourself this simple question. Would Kerry be most likely at this time to be A)Bashing the troops or B)Bashing Bush, the only elephant in the room is your delusional ideologiacl blindness.
Bruce Braley, democrat, sqwaak says Kerry was cancelled for inappropriate remarks about the war.
Sqwaak.
Braley's a coward for not sticking with Kerry. Kerry handled this exactly right.
Because some Democrat doesn't want any extra political heat before the election. What does that demonstrate?
Are you arguing that makes the heat legitimate?
I agree completely. No matter how the statement is interpreted, it is still a criticism of Bush rather than a criticism of the troops. I am sure if one examined the facts, it would be discovered that the troops are in fact less educated and more likely to have come from challenging economic circumstances. Those with fewer options are easier to recruit and are bearing more of the burdens than those more well-off. This is not an insult to the soldiers themselves. In fact, this issue should be talked about openly and would probably help the Democrats if framed in a truthful manner!
Problem is, we have all this mudslinging to contend with. Democrat's hope for some honest discussion will always be trumped by the republican's wonderlust for dirty laundry. And unfortunately, it is true: a vast majority of our country's fellows are so intellectually incurious (read: conservative/fundamentalist Christians, among so many others) that they will indeed allow an election to be decided on this very kind of nonsense, perpetuated by the lazy likes of Karl Rove who clearly prefers to play games with the subject of war instead of engage in a sober, thoughtful process of developing a plan, a strategy, a purpose.
Okay... show me where any of the so-called 'liberal' media would even dare jump all over, say, Bush or Cheney or Rummy, et al. Sheesh. Give me a break.
...The man should stay away from trying to tell jokes. He would have been better off just saying, "Hey the President is dumb, huh?" Would've gotten a bigger laugh and there would've been no question as to what he meant...
I have respect for Kerry. But he should stay away from the comedy. Not a smart move by Kerry.
John Kerry clearly meant to criticize Bush, not uniformed members of the military. To think that a man decorated with the Silver Star would insult soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines is ridiculous. Kerry is right and he shouldn't give an inch. The media may not be with him and the DC pundits may not be either, but the voters are. If Kerry had demonstrated the kind of outrage two years ago that he demonstrated to those who mischaracterize his comments today, he'd be President.
"To think that a man decorated with the Silver Star would insult soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines is ridiculous. "
So, essentially calling them rapists, murderers, and sadistic torturers as he did a few decades ago, wasn't an insult? Saying they go around terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the night; that wasn't an "insult?" Oh wait, that's right: that was slander.
As the song goes, "another one bites the dust."
They did what they were ordered to do. The criticism is for the people who ordered ordinary men to do extraordinary and horrible things. Kerry was right then, and he's right now.
I find it hard to imagine as well. Bush has a bachelor's from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, and we're supposed to think Kerry was insulting Bush's education? Call him dumb for his poor speaking skills if you want, but the fact is that his education is one many would envy.
consists of a "gentleman's C" from a university where his ancestors (the men of course) have attended for generations. Before he went there, he was denied entry to the University of Texas Law School, due to his "lack" of scholastic acheivement. Did you ever hear him try to explain the "cost drivers" during his social security-palooza last year? Listen to that "intellectual monument" and tell me he has an "education".
"consists of a "gentleman's C" from a university where his ancestors (the men of course) have attended for generations. "
A C at two Ivy league schools is better than my grades at two Ivy league schools, namely because they don't exist. how about you? And you mention "a university." I named two. What about Harvard, the "other" Ivy league school he attended and graduated from?
"Before he went there, he was denied entry to the University of Texas Law School, due to his "lack" of scholastic acheivement. "
Yeah, and he went to Harvard instead. I think most people would consider Harvard degree at least almost as good as a degree from Texas law school, wouldn't you agree?
"Did you ever hear him try to explain the "cost drivers" during his social security-palooza last year? Listen to that "intellectual monument" and tell me he has an "education"."
I never denied his poor speaking skills. Says nothing of his education, which is what John Kerry supposedly attacked.
So if I set foot on an Ivy League (whatever that means) campus, I'm automatically smarter than someone who doesn't?
I have a college degree, and numerous certifications. All of which would mean diddly-squat if I sat around smelling my own farts and drooling all the time.
I don't care if George W. Bush has a freakin' PhD. He's proven his double-digit IQ on MANY occasions.
Bill Frist is a freakin' DOCTOR for pete's sake, and we ALL know how amazing he is. He has magical powers. He can diagnose diseases from hundreds of miles away...
Sorry bro, having Ivy League degrees is not a point for Bush, it's a point against the Ivy League.
"So if I set foot on an Ivy League (whatever that means) campus, I'm automatically smarter than someone who doesn't?"
Did I say smarter, or did I say he had a good education? Kerry was talking, again, about someone's education; in his words work hard do your homework, etc. al. You think Bush didn't have to work hard and do his homework to attain two Ivy league degrees?
Not to get a "C" average.
"Not to get a "C" average."
OH, okay then! That means Kerry didn't work hard either to get through Yale (he only attended one Ivy league university; he wanted to go to Harvard but was R-E-J-E-C-T-E-D) and thus, has absolutely no right to talk on issues of working hard to get an education, whether he was talking about the troops or Bush.
[link to www.boston.com]
"In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.
Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years."
"The transcript shows that Kerry's freshman-year average was 71. He scored a 61 in geology, a 63 and 68 in two history classes, and a 69 in political science. His top score was a 79, in another political science course. Another of his strongest efforts, a 77, came in French class[<<
Oh but no fear! Kerry got better:
"Kerry gradually improved his grades, averaging 81 in his senior year. His highest single grade was an 89, for a political science class in his senior year. "
Compare to Bush, who receieved one D in his four years. And yes, while Kerry's single 89 is higher than Bush's highest, 88, Bush received 88's in in multiple classes (anthropology, history, and philosophy).
Kerry's response?
"'I always told my Dad that D stood for distinction "
I was always told it stood for "disgusting." Disgusting that for so many years Bush has been portrayed as the stupid guy in class when in fact, Kerry was the one who "just sailed through" school.
If Bush is smarter than Kerry, he's certainly lazier, intellectually. There are smart people who don't apply themselves, and average folks who succeed by working harder with lesser gifts. If you are correct, then Bush must be the former, and Kerry the latter.
He had the OPPORTUNITY to get a good education one that he squandered on drugs, drinking whoring and getting by on gentlemans C's. Just because you GO to a school doesnt mean you get an education there. You COULD end up like well like Bush did, ignorant.
You could end up maybe like you, ignoring the fact that Kerry was a worst student than Bush, receiving multiple D's whereas Bush recieved one. See my last post with the link to the Globe article. And then please get back to me and kindly say "I just got OWNED."
So Bush must be an intellectual slacker then, and Kerry an overachiever. Bush hasn't applied his moster intellect to Iraq. Any person of average intelligence could have done a better job.
So tired of calling GWB stupid. He's an inarticulate speaker, but so are probably 90% of us (we just don't run for president). No, the problem with GWB is simply ambition and power, ignorant of anything else but that. He was conferred to hold the Repub empire with his "aw-shucks, have a beer with me" attitude, nothing else. He let's other people do the heavy lifting. He's a rich boy used to getting his way. He ain't stupid, he's corrupted.
It's really quite a stretch to interpret Sen. Kerry's words as being a slam against the troops and not against Bush. Only pathological liars, right wing Corporate Media hacks and the morons who buy into their crap could believe otherwise.
I discovered in 2004 that Kerry will just pack up his panties and money and go home anyway. The Greasy Old Perverts have been waiting for a slip for weeks. After the election, don't be surprised when some of the students get notices that, after the current semester is finished, they are to report for basic training. The Unimpeached Bush has already fully staffed most draft boards with politica shills.l [link to writ.news.findlaw.com] The Military Commissions Act of 2006: A Short Primer Part Two of a Two-Part Series
...Bush is going to start a draft after the election? Right. Just like he was gonna start one after the 2004 election too, right?! ("Vote or die!") Come to think of it, the only people who actually tried to materialize a plan for a draft in the last couple years were DEMOCRATS like CHARLIE RANGEL who thought we needed one because the military is, according to folks like Rangel, composed of poor people, dupes, and disadvantaged minorities. Apparently, given this statement from Kerry, he thinks the same way Rangel does. Maybe he'll propose a draft?
If my memory is correct, Congressman Rangle, a Korean War Vet, was discussing the shortage of people enlisting in the military and was saying that with a draft, the sons and daughters of those responsible for sending troops to war would be risking the lives of their loved ones. If their families were sent to Iraq, you can bet your ass that most would not be in support of this war. It is an unarguable fact that, for most of this nations history, it's been mostly the working class, the poor and the underprivileged who have been the ones to fight and die in our wars.
for your addition, but it had nothing to do with what I was responding to and why. I'm so tired of explaining what I say to idiots who want to take bits and pieces out of my posts that are RESPONSES to other people and try to analyze them, ignoring the post that I am responding to and the context set within.
1. The pitiful fella I was responding to uses typical liberal fearmongering about the draft by implying that after the election, BUSH WILL INSTATE THE DRAFT. OooOOOooooOOOOOoooo, spooky!
2. I responding by reminding him that 1. we were told that was going to happen after the 04 election, but it never did; and in fact, I added, the only person who really tried to start a draft was a Democrat. In other words, the person I was responding to was either a. a dupe for liberal scaremongering or b. being patently dishonest by making it appear as though Bush wants to reinstate the draft, when in fact, it is a certain liberal in Congress who wants to reinstate the draft.
IN THE FUTURE: Read everything in context. It's hard, and it might take a few extra seconds of your day. But I will no longer respond to any foolish posts attacking my words while ignoring context. Thank you!
Bush's policies make a draft the only possible fair solution to the Iraq problem. He certainly has shown that he knows how to stretch a military to the breaking point.
Has someone put something in the water in this country that causes people to loose their ability to think critically?? John Kerry's statement, no matter how you view it , makes an extremely important point. View #1; too many young people have joined the military because they had limited options, leaving them at the mercy of any loose cannon/Commander-In-Chief whos own children would never dream of putting their lives on the line in such a manner! View #2; If Bush would have been a better student of history, particularly, Middle Eastern history, he would not have expected the Iraqi people to greet us as liberators! SURPRISE!! We have a person in the White House who is not much interested in being educated! Let's get on the with the real issues at hand, America.
" too many young people have joined the military because they had limited options, leaving them at the mercy of any loose cannon/Commander-In-Chief whos own children would never dream of putting their lives on the line in such a manner!"
Thats a liberal myth. More recent data shows that our military is probably not recruiting people who are joining "because they had limited options." In fact, the education levels of people in the military is statistically higher than the rest of the general population. You should do some research before simply regurgitating what fat iconoclastic lying politicians like Charlie Rangel tell you. [link to www.heritage.org]
You posted an analysis by the right-wing Heritage Foundation as your proof?
In order to determine the income level of the soldiers, it looked at the neighborhoods they came from rather than the individual income levels of each family. The report admits:
"Because we lack individualized household income data, our approach does not indicate whether or not the recruits came from the poorer households in their neighborhoods. "
How can you possibly reach conclusions without having acess to individaul data? Within my own neighborhood there are huge differences in income levels.
I agree that that is indeed the weakest part of the report. Two points: No report is full proof. Second, however, the income level portion was not the portion of the study I was using as a basis for my argument. I was discussing education. Read that portion and get back to me.
Thanks for pointing it out with a respectful tone, though.
The only thing the report can say with certainty is that most soldiers have high school educations. That is a pretty a pretty ludicrous standard to judge education by. Doesn't the military only accept you if you have a high school diploma?
It then makes the same error it did with income by generalizing by neighborhoods. Again, within a neighborhood there can be a huge discrepency in education.
"The only thing the report can say with certainty is that most soldiers have high school educations. That is a pretty a pretty ludicrous standard to judge education by. Doesn't the military only accept you if you have a high school diploma? "
It's not ludicrous at all. Most soldiers have AT LEAST high school educations, to clarify that first off. And its not ludicrous because as the report points out, more people percentage wise in the military have at least an HS education than in the general population. As for you having to had an HS education to get into the military, the answer is an apparent no, since the statistics say 98% of military folks have one.
"It then makes the same error it did with income by generalizing by neighborhoods. Again, within a neighborhood there can be a huge discrepency in education."
There is one single bar graph that does that. The rest uses more sound statistical information than that.
Please hang up and try again.
The report only knows with certainty that the soldiers have a high school education. That is all it knows. Saying they have at least a high school education is not any different from saying that they know the soldiers only have diplomas. That hardly refutes the original your original claim that the soldiers had good job oppurtunities before them. Having a high school diploma does not mean you hav good job oppurtunities.
As for your bar graph comment, I think you are being deliberately vague. The report has no individual data for education levels. It just genralized by neighborhoods, a very flawed technique.
And as for hanging up and trying again, now you are just trying to substitute trash talk for reason.
Going to sleep after this one, I promise, cuz I'm not even going to try with the other person's cute little post with the "BS-Meter." You on the other hand are an intelligent person and as such I see a need to quickly respond to one of your points before I finally (and seriously this time) go to sleep.
" The report has no individual data for education levels. It just genralized by neighborhoods, a very flawed technique. "
This is just not true, and people can simply click the link, scroll down to the education portion, and see for themselves. Perhaps you're misunderstanding the paragraphs on "zip codes" in the education portion; these are addressing the potential argument that "highly educated recruits are being pulled from underprivileged areas." This is in no way an implication that there is no individual data being utilized in the education portion, and again, people should just read it for themselves to confirm that.
And as for talking trash talk-- hey, nothing wrong with a little of that, so long as you have consistently proven yourself to be factually stable. But (and I'm not doing this to be taunting, seriously) if you so wish I will stop, because I do understand that it does nothing to bolster the debate and also could potentially offend you.
I'll have to read all your responses tomorrow. I really have to get some sleep now. Good night and good luck.
Since about 85% of Americans overall are high schoolgraduates to say that most (which would mean only more than 50% are) really isnt saying much.
[link to factfinder.census.gov]
unsatisfactory, thats a-okay. But at the least, I attempted to support my assertion with evidence. The person I was responding to, who claimed that the people who join the military are doing it because of "limited options," offered no evidence. He simply repeated conventional wisdom. You can criticize my source all you like, but there is still a burden of proof on that person's back to prove that the military is made up of people whose "limited options" led them to have to join the military.
So you're saying that it is more plausible that Kerry insulted Bush because the military is indeed educated. I was wrong about you, reluctantrepublican.
"So you're saying that it is more plausible that Kerry insulted Bush because the military is indeed educated. I was wrong about you, reluctantrepublican."
No. This is the second time in the course of less than an hour where you pick parts of what I say IN RESPONSE to someone else. That person said that even if Kerry was talking about the troops, he'd still be correct, because many of the troops are servicepeople because they had "limited options" in that individual's words, due to not working to attain a good education. (Not those exact words, but clearly the implication; read the post yourself.) I responded by pointing out that actually, servicepeople have quite good educations on average.
Is this your MO, not reading a full discussion and just picking and choosing what you want to read? If so, please leave me alone.
I knew exactly what you meant. But "ignoring context" is something that the GOP has perfected and this Kerry situation is the latest example.
since the GOP has mastered taking things out of context, you've decided to punish me for it by taking my words out of context? I believe you just won the award for "most illogical reasoning in the history of the world." Congratulations!
BTW-- in case you can't see, I don't care too much for either party, and will only be reluctantly supporting the GOP this year because I disagree more strongly with the alternative (and that was a decision that took about three months of long hard thinking.)
I'm going to respond right after posting this if there's anymore anyone has said and then going to bed.
"since the GOP has mastered taking things out of context, you've decided to punish me for it by taking my words out of context? I believe you just won the award for "most illogical reasoning in the history of the world." Congratulations!"
Liberals don't punish people. In fact, punishing people is another thing that the GOP has perfected.
You’re joking, right.
"Liberals don't punish people. In fact, punishing people is another thing that the GOP has perfected. "
Then what were you doing, exactly? I guess you had no real explanation for why you have continually ignored the context of what I've said on this website, so you just thought you'd point out that the GOP ignores context.
Good to see you're trying your best to to hold on to the title awarded to you a few posts above! :)
If I were punishing you, you'd be bleeding.
You post blatantly false far right wing talking points and expect people here to take you seriously?
[link to www.heritage.org] In this report Tim Kane, Ph.D. pits the poor against the middle class when it comes to who serves our country in the military. If he focused on the wealthy vs. the middle class he would have a more truthful report. Here is his conclusion.
TIM KANE: This evidence directly contradicts Representative Rangel's claim that underprivileged Americans are the source of military manpower and that the privileged are underrepresented. In fact, Chart 4 shows that every ZCTA income bracket below $40,000 provided the same number or fewer recruits after 9/11, while all brackets above $40,000 provided the same number or more.
SAM: Kane doesn't get it. He thinks $40.000 and above are the super rich and privileged. Furthermore, I'll venture to say he doesn't know what a Chicken Hawk is. It's the pack of pro Iraq War Republicans who chose not to serve with me in The Vietnam War.
George W Bush was cowering here at home while I was serving my country in The Vietnam War. There is a long list of Chicken Hawks who are responsible for the deaths of our troops in Iraq. Bush is too stubborn to fight a smarter war on terror. He has created a total mess in Iraq. The War in Iraq is lost already, and the longer he continues to allow our poor troops to die in vain there, the more stubborn he gets.
Making battlefield adjustments does not cancel out his policy of Stay the Course. “Stay the Course” is still in force no matter how much you hear to the contrary from the White House.
Chicken Hawks Responsible for almost 3000 of our poor troops deaths. Thousands are seriously injured. (60,000 dead in Iraq)
George W Bush
Rubber Stamp Republican Congress and Senate.
Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Riely and Other Republican Pundits
It was a joke.
Kerry said so. Is anyone laughing?
How can a joke attacking Bush not be funny?
But you must have missed that.
Really, Emptyhelmet, you've got to do your homework better or people around here are going to think you're an idiot or something.
"consists of a "gentleman's C" from a university where his ancestors (the men of course) have attended for generations. "
A C at two Ivy league schools is better than my grades at two Ivy league schools, namely because they don't exist. how about you? And you mention "a university." I named two. What about Harvard, the "other" Ivy league school he attended and graduated from?
"Before he went there, he was denied entry to the University of Texas Law School, due to his "lack" of scholastic acheivement. "
Yeah, and he went to Harvard instead. I think most people would consider Harvard degree at least almost as good as a degree from Texas law school, wouldn't you agree?
"Did you ever hear him try to explain the "cost drivers" during his social security-palooza last year? Listen to that "intellectual monument" and tell me he has an "education"."
I never denied his poor speaking skills. Says nothing of his education, which is what John Kerry supposedly attacked.
We all know he got into Yale by way of legacy admission but I cannot understand why Harvard would take him. Maybe his Daddy or Grand daddy pulled some strings or maybe Harvard accepted him because he went Yale (which would mean that he got into Harvard because of the legacy admission to Yale). I seriously doubt the president passed any courses on his own while attending these universities; he was a drunken cokehead.
"We all know he got into Yale by way of legacy admission but I cannot understand why Harvard would take him. Maybe his Daddy or Grand daddy pulled some strings or maybe Harvard accepted him because he went Yale (which would mean that he got into Harvard because of the legacy admission to Yale). I seriously doubt the president passed any courses on his own while attending these universities; he was a drunken cokehead."
So let me see if I understand the gist of your post:
You cannot understand why Harvard accepted him, so therefore, thats a moot point. You support this assertion by baselessly asserting that his "daddy or grand daddy pulled some strings" or that he was accepted simply for attending Yale. In conclusion, you remind us that he was an alcoholic and apparently had a cocaine problem. Problem solved! Kerry vindicated!
The point is that other than baseless assertions such as the ones created by you, there's no reason to assert that BUSH had a problem with education. The only somewhat solid point you made is that Bush's admission to Yale was at least in part due to his family legacy. You failed, however, to reasonably argue that he should not have graduated from Yale.
Bush has an education most would envy. It is therefore doubtful that Kerry was talking about Bush's education.
Sorry, but I have advanced degrees and I am not fooled by Bush's going to an Ivy league school. It speaks nothing of his intelligence and nothing of what he has learned. That is what Kerry criticized in his joke.
Do you really expect us to believe that Kerry thought "Why I can't insult Bush's intelligence because he went to Ivy League schools?" Comedians regularly make fun of Bush's intelligence. So it is far from being hard to believe that Kerry did the same thing. It is in fact easy.
Once again, do you really expect us to believe that Kerry personally insulted the troops and committed political suicide? That assertion is almost impossible to believe. You are stating that Kerry, with prepared jokes in front of him, planned to say that only dumb people become soldiers? What politician would ever say anything remotely like that?
"Do you really expect us to believe that Kerry thought "Why I can't insult Bush's intelligence because he went to Ivy League schools?""
He didn't, supposing he was speaking of Bush, attack his "intelligence." He specifically spoke of education, homework, etc.
"Once again, do you really expect us to believe that Kerry personally insulted the troops and committed political suicide?"
Well lets see, over the course of Kerry's life, he's accused the troops of, among other things, torturing people, killing people, terrorizing people, attatching phone wires to peoples genitals and turning the power on, poisoining food stocks, and ravaging South Vietnam. Do you expect me to believe that it is beyond Kerry?
And haven't other politicians done essentially the same, though in less harsh wording? Charlie Rangel tried to reinstate the draft because supposedly the military is made up of a bunch of poor, uneducated minorities. See his op-ed last year for the Times.
Don't put stupidity beyond politicians.
>>He didn't, supposing he was speaking of Bush, attack his "intelligence." He specifically spoke of education, homework, etc.
Yes, but that is exactly my point. Kerry insulted Bush's lack of hard work--not the schools he went to. You are pretending that just because Bush went to an Ivy League school, it is impossible to imagine that Kerry would insult his intelligence. Since comedians and other media figures do it all the time, it is quite believable.
>>Well lets see, over the course of Kerry's life, he's accused the troops of, among other things, torturing people,
But as I wrote below, he was not personally attacking them. He was reporting what they said they did, what was later confirmed in the Pentagon Papers. So he wasn't saying a dumb thing at all.
Again, with prepared jokes in front of him, you think he said something like "only dumb people become soldiers?" When he himself served, when in our country that would be politcally suicide?
">>He didn't, supposing he was speaking of Bush, attack his "intelligence." He specifically spoke of education, homework, etc.
Yes, but that is exactly my point. Kerry insulted Bush's lack of hard work--not the schools he went to. You are pretending that just because Bush went to an Ivy League school, it is impossible to imagine that Kerry would insult his intelligence. Since comedians and other media figures do it all the time, it is quite believable. "
The latter half of that is virtually a cut and paste of something I already responded to, so not dealing with it. You're right: Kerry was more specific, in that he criticized the lack of work to achieve a good education. But, again, assuming he was talking about Bush (a stretch), are you saying that its not hard work to attain degrees from Harvard and Yale? Even if he did graduate Yale with C's.
">>Well lets see, over the course of Kerry's life, he's accused the troops of, among other things, torturing people,
But as I wrote below, he was not personally attacking them. He was reporting what they said they did, what was later confirmed in the Pentagon Papers. So he wasn't saying a dumb thing at all. "
That's a hotly contested claim, and if you want me to trust you that what Kerry said was true, you're going to need harder evidence (ie a link to a reputable source) than a simple "take my word for it." It is my understanding that some of the very troops Kerry claims who "Admitted" such crimes to him have now admitted to lying.
"Again, with prepared jokes in front of him, you think he said something like "only dumb people become soldiers?" When he himself served, when in our country that would be politcally suicide?"
Yes, he would say such a thing, because it wouldn't be political suicide. He had no problem a few years ago saying troops in Iraq are "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women, breaking sort of the customs of the historical customs, religious customs." He got a pass for saying what should have been an outrage to everyone in the U.S. So yes I would say given his record of bashing our troops, insulting their intelligence would not be beyond him, and thats been my point from the beginning.
I'm going to sleep now. I'll try to remember to check on here tomorrow and respond to anything else that I didn't get to after this post.
And knocking such policies. So what? No it isnt hard to get C's at an Ivy League school. That is if you are a scholarship student you better get your grades but if your Father is head of the CIA and your grandfather a famous Senator who gave the school big donations, yeah you are going to do real well at Yale or Harvard as long as you show up. Gentlemans C. Bush majored in drinking and whoring. with a minor in cocaine consumption
He didn't get a pass; the far right was distorting that comment for weeks. They tried to make something out of nothing and they failed.
"He didn't get a pass; the far right was distorting that comment for weeks. They tried to make something out of nothing and they failed."
Oh yeah, I forgot! Liberals never say anything stupid... it's always the Big Evil Republican Karl Rove Right-Wing Disinformation Machine © "distorting" what they said! Actually, he said what he said. The problem is, many people with views quite similar to your's still stand by them because you're confident they're true.
You can't just say words are being distorted without any evidence. And you also can't act all outraged at distortions of people's words when you earlier admitted to me that you had been "ignoring context" of what I have said on this very site (you later defended your actions with a pathetic "the GOP does it!")
You finally get it. I was wrong about you reluctantrepublican.
"Oh yeah, I forgot! Liberals never say anything stupid... it's always the Big Evil Republican Karl Rove Right-Wing Disinformation Machine © "distorting" what they said! Actually, he said what he said. The problem is, many people with views quite similar to your's still stand by them because you're confident they're true. "
Most people knew exactly what he meant and that's why the far right's campaign against him failed.
"You can't just say words are being distorted without any evidence. And you also can't act all outraged at distortions of people's words when you earlier admitted to me that you had been "ignoring context" of what I have said on this very site (you later defended your actions with a pathetic "the GOP does it!"
Stop whining. It's very unbecoming. You can't take a joke?
What's your explanation on how that moron got into Harvard?
No. My point is that his admission to Yale was entirely based on the legacy admission.
I wish we all were as wealthy and as well connected as Bush then we all would be able to have that type of education.
"What's your explanation on how that moron got into Harvard?"
What's your explanation on how you know he's a moron?
"No. My point is that his admission to Yale was entirely based on the legacy admission. "
Yes, I know, and if you carefully read what I transparently said in my post, that is the only somewhat valid point you made. I challenged you, however, to prove why he GRADUATED if he's a moron.
I'm done, goodnight.
He says it everyday when he opens he mouth.
Go back to where I first posted the drunken cokehead comment for the explanation.
Goodnight.
"He says it everyday when he opens he mouth. "
And so? A lot of people are terrible public speakers, me being one of them. Says nothing of their intelligence, only that they get extremely nervous in front of people.
"Go back to where I first posted the drunken cokehead comment for the explanation. "
I've already wasted valuable time reading it, unfortunately, and rest assured, it does not answer my question (surprise!).
Most of the time it looks like Bush doesn't know what he's talking about. That's not nervousness; it’s genuine stupidity.
What's you're problem? Are you as moronic as Bush?
Ask the president of the country with the worlds largest black population outside of Africa if they have blacks there too, or to tell reporters the problem with the French is they have no word for entrepenuer, or to tell reporters we had to invade Iraq because they wouldnt let in the inspectors in. If Bush loses one more IQ point they will have to water him and point him toward the sun twice a day.
do you do stand up? Very nice, though I've heard all of them before and while I found them quite amusing, again, for probably the 100th time I have said this, it says nothing of his education or work ethic (what Kerry was talking about supposing he was talking about Bush) or even really his intelligence. After all, every politician has had his gaffes. I
do you do stand up? Very nice, though I've heard all of them before and while I found them quite amusing, again, for probably the 100th time I have said this, it says nothing of his education or work ethic (what Kerry was talking about supposing he was talking about Bush) or even really his intelligence. After all, every politician has had his gaffes. I found Bush's to be quite funny, but I've also had a few belly-laughs over some of the ones Chief Intellectual Al Gore made during the 2000 campaign. Remember "www. white house... (dot gov) dot"? Or "Who are these people" in response to statues of Ben Franklin, George Washington, and Marquis de Lafayette?
OH wait, that's right, of course you don't remember those: the "corporate media" barely spoke of them
You are essentially creating a straw man argument. Kerry said nothing about what school Bush went to. He said he didn't work hard and learn. So yes, it is completely beievable that's what he meant.
Do you really expect us to believe that Kerry has any motivation for personally attacking soldiers, commiting and act of political suicide?
However it is EASIER to get into Yale as a legacy than it is to get into Uof T apparantly. The Gentlemans C in Ivy League schools is well documented. IF you are one of the rich kids no matter how poorly you do on tests or in class if you show up you dont do worse than a C. Its probably a good thing he didnt get into the U of T or he might have actually had to do his work and earn his grades.
Since Bush had a higher grade point average at Yale than Kerry did, what explanation does Kerry offer for his own lackluster performance?
[link to www.sfgate.com]
Then criticize him for that. But to pretend he meant the troops when he was targeting Bush is beyond despicable. It's con politics as usual. Thankfully, Kerry is fighting back.
Anyone who isn't lying to themselves, or who isn't trying to desperately demonize the Democrat should realize that it was not Kerry's intent to disrespect the troops.
Kerry is one of my least favorite Democrats (and there are many) but I am not going to sit and try to convince myself this man went before an audience and purposely criticized the troops in Iraq - all just one week before elections.
It's pretty clear it was Kerry's intent to criticize Bush, not the troops. Why would he criticize the troops level of intelligence? After all, didn't Kerry serve in the military? (Oh, that's right! NeoConservative pundits and mouthpieces tend to dismiss this notion, as they do other things, like science.)
Clearly he was insulting the circus Bush is running in Iraq, not the men and woman sent to die in Iraq by Bush. Sometimes we say things wrong and it comes out stupid. Bush says things wrong most of the time and it comes out stupid, so, ummm...hello?
This is just another desperate smear tactic by the radical right. It's gonna take some kind of eleventh hour miracle bestowed upon them by Diebold for the Republicans to win the elections.
By the way, if the Republicans want to win, they may need better ammo than this Kerry thing, and if they want to pull an election victory out of their elephant *ss, they had better stand up!
"Why would he criticize the troops level of intelligence? After all, didn't Kerry serve in the military? "
Oh, yes, I forgot! Why would someone who served in the military-- and then later declared that the troops "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 Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam"-- criticize the troops level of intelligence!
[link to www.vietnamwar.com]
Gimme a break. We "neocons" don't try to hide Kerry's service. We remember it quite well-- along with all the awful things he said and did after his service, the part the Left likes to forget.
Getting the U.S. out of a war based on lies which killed 58,000+ Americans; maimed, mangled or mutilated 150,000+ and which threatened to kill or wound tens of thousands more (all while our current president was supporting the continuation of this death and destruction from back home) is such an evil thing.
Please go back and read the post I was responding to. That way, you can comprehend the context I was posting in. I was making no comment as to whether or not it was an "evil thing" for Kerry try to get us out of the war. The poster I was responding to essentially said it wasn't logical to believe that Kerry, a veteran himself, would ever criticize US troops' level of intelligence. I rebutted that by pointing out that he had no problem accusing them of being rapists, torturers, etc. al.
Hopefully you understand now. But please don't expect me to go back and summarize everything for you every time you make unreasonable responses to what I say, based on an apparent ignorance of the context of what I said. If this should occur in the future, don't be surprised if I simply ignore what you post.
Kerry nevre attacked the troops on a personal level the way you are accusing him of doing now. He was criticizing the atrocities that went on in the war. Nowhere did he say something like "If you become a soldier, you will become a torturer."
As to his present comment, you really expect us to believe that Kerry would personally insult troops, thus committing political suicide?
Kerry has never insulted the troops. His testimony before Congress were stories told to him by soldiers who had just returned from Vietnam and he made this clear in interviews shortly after the appearance. Maybe if your boyfriend Bush had gone to Vietnam, he could have refuted what the soldiers who went there were saying.
a difficult subject for conservatives, I've tried to explain it too many ways to my Righty co-workers, but I'm in a beating-my-head-against-the-wall mood;
Reporting on the horrors of war, even those perpetrated by ones own side,takes courage. Much more than coming back and waving a flag and whitewashing history.
Reporting on atrocities of war, especially those that took place on ones own side, is rarely if ever intended to hurt the troops, but to expose the leadership whose policies would hurt those troops.
Your argument, in post after post, is that Kerry must have been insulting the troops with his recent remarks because he admitted to the horrors that happened in Vietnam. Many Vets didn't speak of these horrors, to the delight of the chickenhawks running the show, as they could continue their policies.
That's insulting to the troops.
Anyone who denies that atrocities took place on both sides in Vietnam, wasn't there.
John Kerry showed more courage taking a stand against the war than any of these chickenhawks ever did. It always amazes me when they speak of how they supported our "efforts" in Vietnam, yet very few of them had the balls to put their asses on the line.
"Anyone who denies that atrocities took place on both sides in Vietnam, wasn't there. "
Anyone who has hard proof that everything John Kerry said was true, and can show it to me, will get me to shut up. But unless you have evidence of people, for one example from Kerry's long-winded broadside against the troops, troops hooking up phone wires to peoples genitals and turning the power on, I suggest you shut it and quit acting like Kerry is a hero for regurgitating hearsay and rumors about our troops in Congressional testimony.
And I won't allow anyone to shut me up. Anyone who was there knows what went on. Were you there?
I WAS!
Kerry criticised the POLICIES that led to such attrocities, which by the way are verified and can be found in the National archives. Along with the Winter Soldier meetings a copy of which was sent to the Pentagon and they never refuted a word of it.
Many parts of the Winter Soldier event has come into question, for instance Guenter Lewy's book, which supposedly found sworn statements of veterans who had NOT EVEN ATTENDING THE HEARING. Kerry is no hero for relying on what a few angry soldiers said and using it without question in Congressional testimony. John Kerry himself has admitted that what he said was over the top. Not one instance has been found of people being sadistically tortured by our troops in the ways Kerry described. Just because My Lai and a few other assorted incidents occurred, doesn't mean Kerry had the right to baldly assert that soldiers had been attatching phone wires to Vietnamese people's genitals and all the other awful, specific, graphic things he said.
Maybe Kerry had a flash forward premonition about Abu Ghraib. It would be beyond imagination to think that something like that happened during a ten year war where three times the number of troops were in theater. You're right. That's kooky.
if we minus out the education level of those in the Reserves or National Guard, what would be the education level of the ground troops in Iraq? How is this total education level determined? Does anyone hear really believe that the Reservists counted on being called up and sent to a war zone? And please, don't tell me that they knew what they were getting into when they signed up. They thought it was Weekend Warrior time. And they also would've hoped for better leadership.
I would like to hear from those who worked hard to get through Harvad and Yale and have them explain how proud they are that this President carries on the tradition and pride of their Alma Maters.
Sen. Kerry, you have the whinners coming out of the woodwork on this one. Keep it up and keep Iraq as the number issue for Tuesday. They are too blind to see that Mike Fox is off the front page and Bushs' Foolery ,IRAQ, is again number ONE. And to you Rep. Hastert, you should kiss Sen. Kerry because your Foley is also page 8.
Kerry, the brainiac, received a grade score at Yale of 76...Pres. Bush received a 77.
The Yale system is 90's=A...80's=B...70's=C.
Additionally, Kerry got five times as many D grades as Pres. Bush...while failing to rack up even one course grade of "A".
The supposed punch line could have just as easily been..."or you become a loser in a presidential election".
You bring up a good point. Since Bush is obviously an intellectual powerhouse, why has such a brainiac gotten himself in this mess in Iraq? I used to think he was just dumb. But with your evidence, he must have the intellectual capacity and just chosen not to use it.
What I may conclude from your description:
You probably left out how many F's Bush got or that Bush rarely scored above a C. Since Kerry had 5 times as many D's as Bush, the average would have to even out somehow. Do you think no one understands basic statistics?
You also didn't mention how many A's Bush had, which makes me suspicious of that. Again, all in all, since the averages were essentially the same, the individual classes would have to even out in the end.
Either way you are being dishonest by not supplying a legitimate link to the complete original data so we can make our own analysis with your figures for transparency. What else is new from Wesley?
What qualifies you to pronounce, with authority, that Sen. Kerry's explanation was not true. The sad part is that you and your like, have such clogged minds, that it is becoming increasingly difficult for you to have a thought that is independent of the Rethuglican spin machine. To a very common man, like myself, it is conceiveable that Sen. Kerry bothced the joke. Should he not have the benefit of the doubt?
And, Andrea, it's hard to imagine that you are stupid enough not to know that he was referring to the president.
C'mon.........Kerry was falling back on the "stereotypical" impression of military members' intelligence by the snobbish elite. It probably was true once, maybe, like after WWI and the Depression when any job would do. But snobs never let loose anything that enables feelings of superiority so no one should be surprised at Kerry's letting loose. Rock on John, you dummy...............
Kerry has the right to rub Bush's Iraq failure in his face. Somebody should. There's no elitism involved. They both went to the same school. One applied his intelligence, Mr. Kerry, and the other squandered it. Only conservatives could say criticizing a silver-spoon Yale graduate is elitism.
that the knuckledraggers over at NewsMax were saying was "liberal" in her reporting. What idiots.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
reluctantrepublican,
"So, essentially calling them rapists, murderers, and sadistic torturers as he did a few decades ago, wasn't an insult?"
Since he never said that feel free to provide the quotes. What he *did* was read the sworn statements provided by other vets in the investigation, admitting to having raped, murdered and tortured. If that too confusing for you, I can try and simplify further.
"Saying they go around terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the night; that wasn't an "insult?" Oh wait, that's right: that was slander."
To be "slander" it would have to be untrue. Please feel free to tell us how US troops do *not* break in doors and terrorize Iraqis (men, women and children).
Extra bonus points for the person who can identify which RW chickenhawk did not serve because "so many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."