Snow fully prepared to answer question from Fox's Baier about then-largely unreported Kerry remark on Iraq
SUMMARY: When Fox News' Brett Baier asked Tony Snow to comment on Sen. John Kerry's remarks on Iraq
a day earlier, Snow "was clearly ready" to respond and attack, even
providing a "fuller quote" of Kerry's statement -- although
the comment had, at the time, appeared in only local media and on conservative radio
shows and weblogs. This
raises the question of whether Snow and Baier coordinated to push Kerry's
comments into the national media.
The media firestorm over Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) remarks during an October 30 speech at a campaign rally in Pasadena, California, came after Fox News chief White House correspondent Brett Baier asked White House press secretary Tony Snow at an October 31 White House press briefing to comment on Kerry's statement. Specifically, Baier asked Snow to "react" to the following: "If I could follow up, on the campaign trail, Senator Kerry was in Los Angeles and speaking to some students, saying if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs, but 'if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.' " Snow did not merely "react" to Kerry's comments, he provided the press corps with a "fuller quote." As the Associated Press noted, Snow "was clearly ready" to address Kerry's remarks, "consulting his notes to read a fuller account of Kerry's statement and unleashing a sharp attack." Yet, prior to Baier's question, the only media that had reported on Kerry's comments were local California news outlets, two conservative talk-radio hosts, and right-wing weblogs. The Baier-Snow exchange, for which Snow was fully prepared, raises the question of whether the two coordinated to blow up comments by the former Democratic presidential nominee, a favorite right-wing target who is not running in the midterm election, that had until then received no national mainstream media attention.
As Media Matters for America has noted, during his October 30 appearance at a campaign rally for California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, 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." In response to Republicans and media figures seizing on these remarks, Kerry's staffers gave reporters what they claim were Kerry's prepared remarks, which make clear that he intended to criticize Bush's intelligence -- not the troops' -- and his handling of the war in Iraq. The prepared remarks read: "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. Just ask President Bush." Moreover, the Associated Press reported that Kerry made the remark after opening his speech "with several one-liners, joking at one point that Bush had lived in Texas but now 'lives in a state of denial.' "
Kerry's remarks were first noted October 30 in a Media News report about Kerry's campaign appearance supporting Angelides. The report ran in two local California newspapers, the Whittier Daily News and the Pasadena Star-News, and reported Kerry's remarks as follows:
Kerry charmed the crowd with tales of surfing at Mission Beach and got laughs for a series of one liners, including telling the crowd he had just returned from Texas, "Where the president used to live -- now he lives in a state of denial."
Kerry then told the students that if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs -- "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," he said to a mixture of laughter and gasps.
That evening, Los Angeles TV station KNBC also aired Kerry's remarks during a report on Kerry's appearance at Pasadena City College. The KNBC report did not characterize Kerry's comments in any manner but simply noted Kerry's remarks as part of his speech given during his Angelides campaign appearance. Right-wing California radio host John Ziegler heard Kerry's statements on KNBC and posted the audio of Kerry's remarks late in the evening October 30. Zeigler appears to be the first media figure to directly characterize Kerry's remarks as insulting the troops, stating, on the October 30 broadcast of his radio show, that Kerry "really believe[d]" that those who serve in military are "losers." Right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin, referring to Ziegler, initially posted an entry on her blog about Kerry's remarks at 12:32 a.m. October 31. Conservative radio host Bill Bennett followed, leading with the story on the October 31 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Morning in America, which airs at 6 a.m. ET. Bennett appears to be the first national broadcast media figure to have discussed the story, declaring that Kerry "ended his political career yesterday." Bennett claimed that Kerry meant "dumb people go to Iraq." Shortly thereafter, conservative columnist Sher Zieve posted Kerry's remarks as "exclusive news" on the right-wing blog The Conservative Voice, at 6:44 a.m. ET. Zieve's posting was quickly picked up by other right-wing blogs, such as The Jawa Report and the Media Research Center's NewsBusters. As ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper reported on the November 1 edition of Good Morning America, at some point on the morning of October 31, "Republicans emailed out the link" of Kerry's remarks "to YouTube and pounced." NewsBusters later updated its post to add a link to the YouTube video, which was posted October 31 by christia7373, who registered with YouTube that day and has only posted one video, a 10-second clip of Kerry's remarks.
At about 11 a.m. ET, Baier asked Snow's permission to "follow up" on his previous question about "a possible rift between the president and [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-] Maliki," by asking Snow to "react" to Kerry's remarks. As the AP reported, Snow "was clearly ready" to address Kerry's statement, using the opportunity to expand on Kerry's comments and to attack Kerry for "insult[ing]" the troops.
As Media Matters has noted (here, here, and here), after Snow's press conference, the mainstream media seized on Kerry's remarks, devoting significant coverage to the issue, leading to, as MSNBC host Chris Matthews stated during the October 31 edition of Hardball, the "choreograph of press releases" in which "Republicans collaborated in a chorus of attack[s] on" Kerry.
From the October 31 edition of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:
BENNETT: But that's not what we want to lead with. What we want to lead with is -- this is funny and horrible. But it's also significant. I told you, oh, a couple years ago -- oh no, I guess I didn't tell you, I wasn't on the radio. I wrote an article that [former Vice President] Al Gore's political career was finished with a speech he gave in San Francisco. John Kerry ended his, was it yesterday?
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
BENNETT: Ended his political career yesterday, with this comment. Listen to this. I want to play this once or twice. Go ahead.
[...]
BENNETT: So, dumb people go to Iraq. If you work hard at your education, you can stay away from Iraq, but if you study, you -- if you don't study, you go Iraq. Let's hear it again.
From the October 31 White House press briefing, as seen on the 2 p.m. ET hour of the October 31 edition of C-SPAN:
BAIER: Tony, on Iraq, can you wrap up [national security adviser] Steve Hadley's trip -- what was accomplished -- and address the continuing part of the story that there's a possible rift between the president and Maliki?
SNOW: I don't know. Let me -- let me start with the second half first. Let's see, we've now had the prime minister saying there's no rift, the president saying there's no rift, the national security adviser of Iraq saying there's no rift, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq saying there's no rift, the U.S. national security adviser saying that there's no rift, and my telling you, on the basis of my observation of the secure conference call the other day, that there's no rift.
So there's no rift. Now, I mean, you know, I don't know how many more people you can marshal, but it seems that all the people who've been in the room and have been in critical positions are saying that.
What Steve's doing is paying a visit and assessing the situation, and also talking about the prime minister.
I think -- again, let me stress the thing that has been most impressive to us, which is the assertiveness of the prime minister when it comes to wanting to take over important security operations within Iraq. We could not be happier that we've got a prime minister who is a man of action and a man who's making decisions. That is absolutely essential for the future of Iraq.
And he's not simply doing it on the security side. I mean, he's been very aggressive in recent weeks, as I've pointed out, on the political side, reaching out both to Shia and to Sunni. He's been very aggressive on the economic front, and he was giving a readout of economic success in the country. So, he understands that to be a prime minister means more than simply having to be a commander in chief. It means to be a unifying force in a country where a lot of people are yearning to have a free and democratic society. They expressed that with their votes last year.
So, far from having a rift between the two sides, what you have is precisely what the president hoped he would see when he first met the prime minister, which is somebody who is willing to make hard decisions, who is willing to lead, who is assertive and also pretty clear-eyed about the challenges that await him.
BAIER: If I can follow up, on the campaign trail, Senator Kerry was in Los Angeles and speaking to some students, saying if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs, but, quote, "if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Can you react to that?
SNOW: Well, yeah, I'll actually give you a fuller quote. He said: "You know, education, 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. And [sic] if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
It sort of fits a pattern. You may recall that, last year, Senator Kerry -- on CBS' Face the Nation -- accused U.S. soldiers of terrorizing kids and children in Iraq and recently also described troop concentrations in Baghdad as, quote, "having failed miserably."
What Senator Kerry ought to do first is apologize to the troops. The clear implication here is if you flunk out, if you don't study hard, if you don't do your homework, if you don't make an effort to be smart, and you don't do well, you, quote, "get stuck in Iraq." Bret, an extraordinary thing has happened since September 11th, which is a lot of people -- America's finest -- have willingly agreed to volunteer their services in a mission that they know is dangerous but is also important. And, you know, Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving but also to the families of those who have given their lives in this.
This is an absolute insult, and I'm a little astonished that he didn't figure it out already. I mean, you know, if I were Senator Kerry -- I mean, you've seen me, I say something stupid, I apologize as quickly as possible. And this is something for which he ought to apologize.
Meanwhile, it's probably reasonable to ask some of the Democrats -- ask a Jim Webb [Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia] or a Tammy Duckworth [Democratic congressional candidate in Illinois], both of whom are citing their military record -- OK, what do you think about it? What do you think about this quote? Do you agree with him? He was your presidential nominee. And as for the notion that, you know, you can say this sort of thing about the troops and say you support them, it's -- it's interesting.
From the November 1 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
TAPPER: But Republicans emailed out the link to YouTube and pounced.
Reporters could better spend their time better by being on the streets and gathering real news.
That Snow has a staff that keeps up with a story that had taken over the bloggers and talk shows that day.
Anyway, it looks like he was doing his job, being prepared at a press conference.
Why was it even relevant? Kerry isn't campaigning; there was no reason to bring it up. It is simply a wedge issue they're trying to get all the news organizations to squawk about while the more important issues go unattended.
Let's compare.. referring to the loses of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers to a "comma", or messing up a joke that was clearly in context of criticizing the Bush administration. Hrm. Toughie.
that it exposes the left for their disrespect for the 'troops'.
We hear all the time that the left 'supports' the troops. But time and time again, the Democratic leaders disaparage the military.
Kerry's repeated slanders against the troops both recently and during the Vietnam war.
Durbin - by his comparison of treatment of detainees at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Cambodia's Pol Pot.
The list goes on.
"I think the relevance is...
that it exposes the left for their disrespect for the 'troops'.
We hear all the time that the left 'supports' the troops. But time and time again, the Democratic leaders disaparage the military."
No, it's the Bush and the republican Party that disparages the military.
Repeating the same tired lies that his side will never let go
Disrespect for the troops to mangle a joke slamming Bush, THAT IS A LIE,
Kerry didnt slander ANYONE during Vietnam he blamed the policies and policy makers, citing winter soldier hearings and INDISPUTABLE attrocities that DID happen. As is usual with the people who give propaganda parrots their talking points, the agenda is to NOT talk about the policies because those making those policies are not to blame, those exposing things that NO KNOWLEGABLE DISPUTE HAPPENED the blame is on whoever didnt keep it our dirty little secret, that is from the AMERICAN PUBLIC, the only people that secret was being kept FROM in the first place. Its not like the Vietnamese didnt know those things happened to THEM. It is YOU conservative warmongers who disrespect the troops t9 the extent of getting them killed because you have no respect for their LIVES. It is conservative liars like YOU that misrepresent what was said in an attempt to end such a war and bring them home alive since you dont care if the die or not. So its KERRY that exposes the attrocities even when he specifically blamed the policy makers that is to blame for telling the absolute truth, anything to keep the focus OFF of such policies.
Durbin of course read directly an eyewitness report of events in Guantanamo and said they would more likely be attributed to Pol Pot or Nazis than to America. I would HOPE that were true. However again its not what actually HAPPENED that is the problem its that Durbin didnt keep it a dirty little secret from the American Public. No claim here that the FBI agent is LYING in his memo, only that it should be kept a secret from Americans. Conserviates like AA would have us arrest reporters who report Bank Robberies and allow no criticism of Bank Robbers. At least this was simply a misrepresentation not a LIE.
What gets me is that they don't mention what Bush and the republicans are doing to the military. Here are just a few things:
Sending troops into war based on lies.
Soldiers being slain, maimed, mangled, mutilated, and psychologically damaged for a war that did not have to be fought.
Sending the troops into battle without body armor.
Attacking soldiers who ask why they don’t have armor for their vehicles.
Exploiting soldiers like Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch.
Having his echo chamber attack the mother of a dead soldier.
Sending the National Guard to fight a war which traditionally has not done (Bush avoided going to Vietnam by having his father get him into the National Guard).
After the fall of Baghdad, the only order the troops were given was to guard the oil wells. Iraqis and foreign fighters coming across the border into Iraq had free reign to loot weapons’ cache all over Iraq and are now and have been using them to attack American forces.
Bush doing a fake Q & A with soldiers to fool the American people.
The families of American soldiers fighting in Iraq forced to go on welfare.
The over extension of the military.
Having military contractors in Iraq making five to ten the amount of an enlisted soldier.
Halliburton profiting off the war while American soldiers are dying.
Halliburton serving the troops tainted food and water.
No repudiation from republicans for Halliburton serving the troops tainted food and water.
Troops having to endure 18 to 20 hour bus rides to their homes after serving a year in Iraq.
Troops on their third, fourth or fifth deployment to Iraq.
The stop-loss program.
The administration writing torture memos then sending low ranking troops off to jail when they torture.
Falsely arresting a Muslim soldier because he supposedly was in cahoots with the terrorist.
Bush’s decision to dismantle checkpoints and downgrade search for missing soldier in Iraq.
Cutting VA Benefits.
No such thing as Gulf War Syndrome; the troops are faking it.
Proposals to triple the insurance costs for military retirees.
And this is probably the biggest slap in the face to the military: They are fighting a War on Terror to defend our freedoms while Bush and the republicans steadily erode them.
You must have stayed up all night working on that list!
My guess is that you got it from somewhere else. I'd enjoy reading the link, if there is one.
"loonz
You must have stayed up all night working on that list!
My guess is that you got it from somewhere else. I'd enjoy reading the link, if there is one."
I actually did the list in about 30 to 40 minutes. There's no link; those were just examples I remembered at that time (that's why the list is so short). I just came up with another one:
The Bush administration allowing the personal information of thousands of soldiers to be compromised.
You have the liberal slant down very well.
I disagree with most every characterization you made. I'm afraid many of your points don't make any sense to me. But you have earned my 'kool-aid drinker of the day' award for such a fine list. ;-)
Perhaps we can discuss them again sometime. Have a good weekend.
"I disagree with most every characterization you made. I'm afraid many of your points don't make any sense to me."
Too drunk off that Bush Kool-Aid™? Sober up and come back and read it.
I'll drink to that!
When I saw your response to everything.
My comment was meant for Solon.
that it exposes the left for their disrespect for the 'troops'.
In context, it was quite evident that Kerry was insulting Bush, not the troops. If you have trouble understanding this, then well.. you're likely to get yourself stuck in Iraq, too.
Durbin - by his comparison of treatment of detainees at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Cambodia's Pol Pot.
Hm. I'd say that's a pretty fair comparison. Okay, we're not that bad, are we? But how do you measure the suffering of a person?
If Americans were being treated like that by a foreign power.. you'd be PISSED. Even if the hypothetical American in question murdered innocents and raped women, you'd still be outraged. I would expect all decent people to take a stand for true American justice.
That Kerry knew what he was saying as evidenced by his refusal to apologize.
As for you second comment, there is a time and place for everything. To compare the US to those murderous regimes on the floor of the Senate the way Durbin did was reprehensible and gave our enemies something to cheer.
In case you hadn't noticed, decent Americans do stand for justice. However they don't like our elected leaders disparaging their sons and daughters serving in the armed forces.
"That Kerry knew what he was saying as evidenced by his refusal to apologize."
Moronic. The explanation that you refuse to accept, that he was attacking Bush, explains a refusal to apologize as well. Would you apologize for saying something you weren't actually trying to say? Or would you clarify yourself and apologize for the misunderstanding? Be honest, for once.
"...there is a time and place for everything. To compare the US to those murderous regimes on the floor of the Senate the way Durbin did was reprehensible and gave our enemies something to cheer."
Right, so in this "war on terror", which could go on for an indefinite period of time considering there is no real way of gauging total victory, nobody should bring up human rights concerns until it's over. He should have waited until...well, God only knows.
And if we're using the same tactics as those people, then whether our enemies cheer or not is beside the damn point. Is your contention that we shouldn't point out our own problems, and thereby avoid fixing them, because of the reaction of terrorists? That if we do something wrong, we should never address it, just to influence the opinions of radical terrorists that we say will try to kill us no matter what we do anyway?
That's beyond idiotic.
A quick comment regarding your apology of the non apology. :-)
As I heard it, Kerry's first or second go at ratcheting up this stupid statement had him explaining that everyone misunderstood him. Supposedly there was a joke in there and he implied that we were the ones who made the mistake by misunderstanding what he meant. Classic Kerry, if you ask me. Make it our problem, not his.
Now speaking of communications problems, you seem to be putting words into my mouth in order to insult me. (BTW, you lose points for that...)
Durbin's comments were made, in my opinion, for purely partisan political gain. Everybody knew of the report from which he cited. For Durbin to go on the floor and say such outrageous things about our military served only to weaken the U.S. in the eyes of the world.
In all the kool-aid defenses of Durbin I see here, I don't recall anyone mentioning that Durbin recognized that his comments were indeed as offensive as I mentioned. Here is what he later said:
"I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.
"I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apology," Durbin said, choking on his words.
So, if you insist on calling me idiotic, you are by implication, calling Durbin the same. I may be overestimating you, but I think you see how silly you must look. Anyway, thanks for the giving me the chuckle at your expense.
"Supposedly there was a joke in there and he implied that we were the ones who made the mistake by misunderstanding what he meant."
He said he said it wrong, and the transcripts and context of the remark show that's true. The context should have indicated that he was attacking Bush, but for anyone who heard the line isolated I don't think he implied that such an interpretation was a mistake. To be honest, the first time I heard the quote it was isolated, and I thought it sounded bad too, but I was a bit incredulous that he really meant that. So I understand how some people got that impression at first, but it's been explained already. Accept it and move on. If the White House isn't harping on it anymore, and is accepting the apology, then your clinging to your uninformed impression looks utterly absurd.
"Everybody knew of the report from which he cited."
Eh, if everybody already knew of the report, then the supposed damage is already done, no? Wouldn't terrorists therefore be upset that we were trying to fix the problem, depriving them of a reason to hate us? If we're really concerned about what they think, seems to me we should be very honest and eager to fix any lapses we have, so that we can't be as easily portrayed as evil.
"Durbin's comments were made, in my opinion, for purely partisan political gain."
I don't see how your clarification changes what you said, or how it shows I put words in your mouth (please explain, if you're going to make the charge!). Is your contention that it was the wrong time and place because YOU thought it was only for political purposes, disregarding the merits of what he said? "Yes, there are awful things that happened, but we can't talk about it because I think that would just be political maneuvering". And if not, then aren't you just saying that we can't discuss any such issues during a time of war, as I said?
"So, if you insist on calling me idiotic, you are by implication, calling Durbin the same."
You're suggesting Durbin is saying that we should never address human rights concerns...because he apologized to people who may have been offended by what he said, and not what he meant? Read what you quoted again. It's conditional and specifically directed. How does that show he's saying the same thing you are? What "implication" are we supposed to get from that, if Durbin isn't saying what you did? This is a very strange defense on your part.
And of course, you can't address the criticism of your actual comment anyway. If Durbin really was saying what you are saying, then he was idiotic too, and you're not showing otherwise. Did you really think that using him as a human shield would invalidate my argument, because I couldn't criticize "one of my own" or something? Hilarious!
it is quite evident...That Kerry knew what he was saying as evidenced by his refusal to apologize.
That's right. He knew he was ragging on Bush, not the troops. So he had nothing to apologize for. Finally he took the Tommyesque advice to just apologize to shut up the screeching right-wingers, but still they screech.
As I said earlier, dropping Kerry's career ending "bad joke" is too close to an election to let up now. However it looks like the mainstream media is moving on to other things.
I hate to say I told you so, but as I mentioned in another thread yesterday, it looks like the media arm of the Democratic Party, (i.e., the NYT,) did indeed find another conservative to 'out' in order to get Kerry off the front pages.
Not quite as good as a member of Congress, but a religious leader this close to an election has to be the next best thing. ;-)
But back to your contention of Kerry's knowingly smearing the troops...do you honestly believe any politician is that stupid? What would he have to gain? If you said it was a Freudian slip, I could fathom it being possible and then point out hundreds of times that Bush could be accused of that because the man is barely coherent.
I respectfully point out to you that no one this side of Ann Coulter said Kerry meant to imply the troops are not smart.
Kerry's comment is an old trope from the bygone Vietnam era. As you have undoubtedly read, his insult was not even accurate.
My guess is he had a flashback to his glory years as as a war protestor, (which, by the way, if I remember correctly, he did while still in the service.) In all his glibness, I susupect he couldn't read his notes and fell back on an old refrain.
I believe he meant what he said because he said he would not apologize..
Of course he flip-flopped and did apologize.
Besides that, it was a singular goofy and sophomoric slam to begin with. Everybody knows Bush did better in school than Kerry. Everybody know that Kerry married into money... twice and his wives supported him. Everybody knows that Kerry lost to the guy he is supposedly slamming. Even if he could have gotten it right, it was still a stupid thing to say about the President. But hey, that was your candidate in the last election. He's reduced to bungling idiotic insults and then not having the awareness to realize how utterly foolish he looked. Did you ever listen to his first defense. Did it occur to you how he rambled on and did not make any sense through much of it? How it was just laced with insults and nothing of substance?
My guess is not.
When you said he fell back on an old refrain is the best argument I've heard for your position. I did listen to his defense/apology and I think you are wrong, not because I like the guy (I don't) but because of the absurdity of the alternative. Kerry may have grandstanded a bit in the Congressional hearing back in the 70's, but do you doubt the war crimes he described were committed? Is it your belief that exposing war crimes disparages the troops? If you blame atrocities on war itself and hold no one accountable then you do not represent the America I believe in - that we are the greatest country as a result of a higher morality for life and liberty for all people, including those living under repressive regimes. The goal is to prove it to the world so wars will not be necessary.
"Everybody knows Bush did better in school than Kerry."
You can find my response to that here, about 3/4ths down;
[link to mediamatters.org]
"Everybody know that Kerry married into money... twice and his wives supported him."
And Bush has failed in every business he started, and was bailed out by his rich, politically powerful family. So...?
"Did it occur to you how he rambled on and did not make any sense through much of it? How it was just laced with insults and nothing of substance?"
Did it occur to you that his rambling and not making any sense only highlights the likelihood of him misspeaking in the first place? Sort of hard to claim that he MUST have meant what you think he did when you say he doesn't communicate well. Did it occur to you that his insulting Bush even more highlights that was his intent in the first place? If he really didn't see a need to apologize, which you said shows he meant it to insult the troops, wouldn't he make further insults to them?
You should really maybe read more, and actually find out what Kerry was actually saying back in the 1970's about Vietnam, and not just listen and repeat what Rush et all have been telling you. Anyone who reads the transcripts of what Senator Kerry was saying back in the 70's, and anyone who has any sense of comprehension about what he said the other day (silly botched statement that it was) will know that indeed, Mr. Kerry actually does support the troops with not just words, but with his actions. Go back, check out the DAV of America, see who they rate the highest amongst Congressmen right now, and who they consider help them the most. John Kerry. Read his statements about Vietnam. Does he blame the troops? The Swiftboaters would have you believe this, but indeed, in his statements, he is indicting the administration that has gotten them involved in the war in the first place. And at the time he was making those statements, nobody else was sticking up for the troops in Vietnam on the floors of Congress. Nobody, except John Kerry. He wasn't afraid to take on the administration then, and he's not afraid to do it now. And get this, I don't even like John Kerry, but those are some of the things that he has done over his years in Congress.
The biggest problem with our republican leadership as it stands now is that they say that they "support the troops", but exactly what are they doing? Sent them to war. Good support there. Ignore their needs and cut their funding when they get wounded, and are sent home. Really good support there. Cut veterans benefits. Super! So what is Bush doing to "support the troops" anyway? And why is it that democrats are allegedly anti military because we want them to come home and get out of harm's way? Only in the befuddled world of republicans does this make sense.
>>" But time and time again, the Democratic leaders disaparage the military."<<
Lord, you're an a$$.
I'd hold you up as a textbook example of The Limbaughian Candidate: programmed to ejaculate every last molecule of Rush and townhall.com crap you've eagerly swallowed.
Frankly, I'm suprised by the tone of your reply.
On a one to ten scale as far as insults go, I'd say it is 7.25.
;-)
out of your a**. Durbin did no such thing. He was READING VERBATIM from an FBI report. Of course that's not the way slanthead and limpballs REPORTED it. Even still, Durbin apologized if anyone was offended, yet the right-wing propaganda shills STILL spread this LIE.
disallowed insult. Previously used in comment above.
If the White House was truly interested in the troops' moral, they would've done all they could to keep the botched joke off the front page. Instead, Bush and Mehlman made sure every Republican repeated it day after day.
Today is so much fun!
I love it that your side comes up with the argument to blame the White House for lowering troop morale by calling on Kerry to apologize for his insult.
Hahaha.. Stop it. Your killing me!
Here's a nonpartisan group devoted to holding elected leaders accountable for their votes and policies regarding support or lack thereof of the troop.
Here's the website: www.iavaaction.org
Kerry earns a B in their rankings. In fact, many Democrats earned an A or B while many Republicans (though certainly not all) earned C, D, or even F.
Very enlightening. Durbin, btw gets an A-.
Perhaps, AnotherAmerican you might want to do a little homework before mindlessly parroting the talking points of the day from right wing propagandists.
I found these quotes at [link to www.opiniojuris.org]
IAVA's Executive Director, Paul Reickoff (a former Democrat) gave the Democratic Response to the President in 2004.
The scorecard is at odds with the assesment of the VFW, who has a long history of advocacy for the troops. For example, Ted Stevens got a D on the IAVA scorecard, Mike Bilirakis got a C+, and Bill Young got a C+, however all of these men received the VFW's Congressional Award for outstanding service to veterans and their families.
but as someone else said, I just find it hard to believe Dennis Kucinich (C-) sides with the troops more than John McCain (D).
I'd give you about 1.5.
But thanks for the link.
You can see, contrary to your Kerrylike insult, I did my homework.
Now, who again is the propagandist?
Snowjob has a highly professional staff consisting of Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Malkin, O'Reilly, et al. Maybe you saw the staff photo recently taken in the oval office.
Yes I know they all worked together at Fox.
Oh well.. whatcha gonna do?
Is because the Karl Rove machine wants it to be. They were desperate to change the subject, and Kerry played right into their hands. Even though thinking voters won't be swayed by it, you have to remember who the Republican base is. They believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that cutting taxes increases Federal revenue, that all Republicans have to pay the Estate Tax when they die, and that Jeeeezzzzzzuuuuusssssss is coming back next week. These knuckledraggers will now run drooling to the polls to save America from those godless Democrats and the Gay Agender, because John Kerry "insulted" the troops. Never mind that George Bush is getting them killed needlessly at a rate of 3 per day...John Kerry "insulted" them, and that's unacceptable!
It's the knuckledraggers and the willfully ignorant who are buying this "Kerry insulted the troops" crap. Since the Republics keep screwing them on their pet "values" issues it's all they've got to hang on to.
Snow job's remark about our president talking about the crash of the plane in Lancaster, Pa. which is about 120 miles from Shanksville, Pa. Just a slip of the tongue!!! Or just plain stupidity. To Another American...I hear the Repubs constantly talk about the HONOR and Courage our troops display by first, enlisting to defend our country and then fighting a horrible war. I believe you will agree with that and that all soldiers deserve this treatment. What I would like to know is your take on the SwiftBoater's and the Talking Heads of the Copnservatives blasting Lt. Kerry for his service. He enlisted, he fought, he was wounded for OUR country. But the Repubs tried to crucify him for being for the rest of us Nam vets. How is this justified in the mind of a REPUB? And I do not believe that you have ever seen the debate between Kerry and the SwiftBoat leader.
AA, like most on the right, has no need for the truth. He gets his truth spoon fed by those who evaded Vietnam and sold Iraq. He assumes that since the Swift Boat Scum got plenty of air time, that they must have the truth on their side. Because the right wing media and Nixon's hand picked man, John O'Neill has leeched onto John Kerry and stayed attached for the last 35 years, he believes he has truth on his side.
What no one seems to understand is that there are more than 3,400,000 versions of the truth out there. That's how many of us went. And I'll admit, there are some who are angry at Kerry for what he said after he came home. I'm not one of them. I was proud of him then and I 'm still proud. When I came home, he was the only one speaking for me.
Thank you, Senator kerry
Low on facts. High on insults.
Typical Kerry supporter. ;-)
Not that it matters, but since you asked...
No one disparages the fact that Kerry served. But as for me, I am suspect of some of Kerry's actions and medals.
If memory serves me.. please correct me if any of my facts are wrong... Kerry only enlisted after being denied his fifth deferment.
His transfer to the swift boats was supposed to be a safe one as they patrolled the coast. Their mission was then changed to patrolling the rivers after Kerry transferred.
His first purple heart is suspect. The doctor who treated him said it was a scratch and did not authorize any medal.
Another one of his purple hearts is suspect. Eyewitnesses claim he was too close to a grenade he himself put in some rice, and got some shrapnel in the behind. How much or how little I do not know, but I do believe Kerry says he got it later in the day during that fight where he pulled the soldier from water. Eyewitnesses say there was no enemy fire and there were no bullet holes in Kerry's boat from that incident.
His account of at least one of his bronze medals is disputed by other officers on the scene.
Eyewitnesses say he wrote his own after action reports.
His discharge papers have been changed years after he left the service.
Unlike Bush, He won't let the public see them.
I could go on with a little refresher, but that'll do. That'll do.
Oh, as far as the debates go, I watched what I could find during the campaigns. I found the Swift Boat Vets very credible. It seemed to me that the Kerry apologists could only point to the official documents that the Swifties said were based on Kerry's own accounts. I never seem to see a rebuttal for that. Perhaps you have one?
We're approximately the same age. I missed the draft by four so upon the request of my parents, did not enlist as my brother was already in Vietnam. Many friends and family members, including my brother, were drafted and did serve.
I applaud them and you for your service to our country. Even if we disagree politically, You have my utmost gratitude and I thank you.
This is an all to familiar chorus. Someone should really look into Brett Baier's past and see if he has a history similar to the last person who pulled this - our good friend Jeff "male prostitute" Gannon. For as stressful at Tony Snow's job has to be, he sure seems to smile a lot and I don't think all of this is coincidence.
On a more substantive topic, this is just sickening. A set up like this should be exposed again and again for how hateful it is.
I think the Dems need to stay on the attack. Keep pointing out that Kerry is not running for re-election. We had someone here in MN running for the House of Representatives that uninvited Kerry to speak for him, which is exactly what candidates should do. Marginalize Kerry and distance themselves from this and get back on the attack - keep pointing out the continuted failures of this adminstration and their policies and do their best to dominate the news cycle.
If Bush's croney's want to spin that Kerry intended to insult the troops, shouldn't Bush apologize for:
....being in favor of increasing the percentage of fatal street shootings: For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it." —Philadelphia, Penn., May 14, 2001
...being unconcerned about terrorism to the point of not hunting down the 911 terrorist mastermind: I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
....being a proponent of turning the presidency into a dictatorship(he can check that one off the to do list): "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
...being in favor of doctor's having relations with patients: "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
...being in favor of harming our country: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
...encouraging insurgents to harm to our military forces in Iraq: "My answer is bring them on." —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003
[link to tinyurl.com]
Nice list.