Third Party & Independents Archives

A Bad Joke

Once again today we are given an example of exactly why John Kerry was not elected president of the United States. At a time when the country was screaming for SOMEONE with any political savvy or even common sense to stand up against George Bush, the best that the Democratic Party could trot out is this poor excuse of a leader. It is a real shame to think that this was the best person that the Democrats had for the job in 2004.

Oh sure, you can blame voter fraud, swiftboating, dirty tricks, etc. But when you look at the situation with a clear and honest prism it's amazing to think about just how bad not only the candidate was as a potential president but even more how badly his campaign was handled.

But the real sad news is that because so many Democrats just refuse to admit that it was their candidate that cost them the election Mr. Kerry continues to think that he has some voice in national politics. Is he actually of the insane opinion that ANYONE wants to hear ANYTHING coming out of his mouth? Or that, heaven forbid, we want him to run again in 2008?

Perhaps that is the real cause for his latest blunder this week, saying "If you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Now, his explanation later is that he was referring to Bush being 'stuck in Iraq' but if he was he did a very very poor job of setting the joke up. In fact, perhaps making jokes is not his strong suit, or unscripted speaking for that matter. He always comes off with a 'better than you' attitude as if you shouldn't be daring to question him at all.

This was best exemplified by his response to Tony Snow, "I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium." That's a good way to get people on your side there, John. Especially since what you said and the way you said it seems very much to me as if you were saying something else, something very insulting to thousands of people. And this was something he wrote in an email, something he had time to reflect upon before sending out to reporters.

Instead of just saying "This isn't what I meant and I apologize for not being clear with the content of my joke." John decided that fierce chest puffing was the way to go, calling this an example of 'Republican politics'. I didn't realize they were running against you, John? I didn't realize that taking what you said and being rightfully offended by it was a 'tactic'.

Let me put it this way, I am a veteran and there is literally no way I would ever vote for you for anything.

In fact, this statement of yours makes me want to vomit.

"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy," Kerry said.

Really? Do you really have that much gall to say that? I've re-read the statement several times, Mr Kerry, and I still can't believe it came out of your mouth.

Did you perhaps say that EXACT same thing after retelling your stories of war atrocities that you could never substantiate or even bring into the public eye a single person who could back anything you said up in the 1970s? Trying to pass your own criticisms off as factual retelling from former veterans and not having the fortitude to just tell the truth?

Sorry, Mr Kerry, but your credibility is zero, your character flawed and exposed to the public. We know who and what you are and despite your awards while serving you have done nothing but serve your own political and personal motivations since you left your uniform behind and threw someone else's ribbons over the White House fence.

Do us all a favor and sit down and shut up, o.k.? Let the more competent of your party stand up and say something for a while, at least if you want your party to be taken seriously again.

Posted by Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 2:15 AM
Comments
Comment #192123

Rhinehold:

There is a wonderful Time magazine piece by Karen Tumulty that talks about Kerry’s attempts to learn from his mistakes. He seems to take the wrong actions at the wrong time. Castigated in 2004 for not fighting back soon enough or strongly enough against the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth (SWOT), he now comes out swinging after his botched joke attempt.

In 2004, righteous anger would likely have diffused the SWOT issue, so he tried using it now. But now is the time for him to apologize for his gaffe. I doubt he meant it to sound the way it did, but his anger and unwillingness to apologize is the wrong approach….once again.

There was a politician who once referred to Barney Frank as Barney Fag by accident in a public speech. He immediately offered up a heartfelt apology for his obvious mistake, which Frank politely accepted. The issue didn’t gain traction because the politician defused it by honestly apologizing for the misstep.

In summary, I think the GOP is saying….”Thank you, John Kerry, thank you”. On the heels of perhaps the most famous and detrimental soundbites of all time (“I voted for it before I voted against it”), Kerry has provided another gift that will keep on giving.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #192124

I think this is about the 50 story I’ve read in the past year and how the Democrats have handled the GOP the gift they need to win the election. The previous 49 gifts all turned out to be a lump of coal. The laws of induction say this one is coal, too.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2006 8:16 AM
Comment #192126

It’s amazing how a verbal gaffe by Kerry - someone you point out is not even running for office - becomes national news.

But when Bush lies with a straight face to the nation and our military and says that they were “never stay the course” on Iraq - as obvious a fabrication as there has ever been - it just doesn’t matter.

Which comment do you think is more of an insult to our soldiers in Iraq?

Posted by: Burt at November 1, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #192137
There is a wonderful Time magazine piece by Karen Tumulty that talks about Kerry’s attempts to learn from his mistakes. He seems to take the wrong actions at the wrong time. Castigated in 2004 for not fighting back soon enough or strongly enough against the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth (SWOT), he now comes out swinging after his botched joke attempt.

I actually found that piece pretty ironic. It is the GOP that is trying to rehash 2004.

Think about it. They have a few days left to make an impression. Bush can get anything he wants in the news. And he chooses to demonize a has-been.

Maybe it’ll work, but I doubt it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2006 8:46 AM
Comment #192139

Rhinehold,
You are right about Kerry not being able to take advantage of his own political blunder, but what do you think the Republicans would of done if the Democrats or better yet a Third Party Cansiate would of call the President and his Spokes persons out on doing nothing to help the High Scholl Graduates and Dropouts of America to include stopping the flow of illegal aliens?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 1, 2006 8:52 AM
Comment #192142

This is Kerry’s actual joke:

“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.”

Dumb joke. Bad, but it shouldn’t be news.

No offense, but you should really look up the real and full quote before posting here. Also, your statement that no individual ever corroborated Kerry’s actions is false many, many times over. Again, no offense, but as a vet, I would think you take a minute or two to look into a story before slamming another one. There was even a news interview where they found some of the Vietnamese people who remembered the battle. The same group that funded Swift Boat Veterans, funded the campaign against McCain falsely claiming he had a black child out wedlock. You’ve been suckered by the Republican attack machine, pure and simple.

Posted by: Max at November 1, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #192145

Think about it. They have a few days left to make an impression. Bush can get anything he wants in the news. And he chooses to demonize a has-been.

That’s nothing new. It’s not as if the Democrats are more isues-based. They’re using this election to demonize a has-been as well.

Posted by: TheTraveler at November 1, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #192147

Rhinehold,
I would agree that Kerry had a lot to do with the lost election of 04, but this is a minor misunderstanding that has been used by the repubs for political advantage. To have to apologize to Bush for a joke about bush , well… I wouldnt do it. I would go tell it on the mountain for the world to see, Get your education or turn out like Bush and his Iraq debacle.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #192158

j2t2,

No one is asking or expecting Kerry to apologize to Bush, they are demanding that he rightfully so apologize to the Armed Forces. If Bush had said the same thing the democrats would be falling all over themselves with demands for all kinds of things, not just apologies.

Max,

Talk about being suckered, you realize the swiftboat group was led by O’Neil who has been saying the same things against Kerry for 30 years, not just something that Rove came up with when Kerry was nominated, right?

I’ve done a lot of investigation into Kerry and O’Neil, you’re going to have to do better in your defense of Kerry than to try to say it was all a Republican dirty trick.

Further, I just wanted to re-iterate that I am not a Republican, I think that Bush has botched Iraq and in no way am I defending anyone by pointing out Kerry’s obvious inadequacies. So you can all stop the sad democratic deflection process and agree with me that if the democrats really want to be taken seriously they should start distancing themselves from Kerry.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #192160

Max,

Btw, your link has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said in my article or subsequent statements, I’m not sure why you included it in your comments. Could you elaborate please?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #192161
No one is asking or expecting Kerry to apologize to Bush, they are demanding that he rightfully so apologize to the Armed Forces.

It’s a trap. So Kerry shows that he is a big man by apologizing for something even most Republicans think he didn’t mean to do. And I suppose at that point, the GOP collectively claps him on the shoulder and let’s it go? Riiiigggghhhht.

They would say, “HA! HE ADMITS HE INSULTED OUR TROOPS!”

It was obviously dumb of him to say something that could be used against the Dems. But apologizing would REALLY be a gift to the GOP.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #192162

Rhinehold, I get the feeling you are on John O’Neil’s payroll or a member of the secret right wing attack machine.

You twist Murtha’s words, defend John O’Neil,who was coached by Nixon, and then Bush, staffers, and now you use a small gaffe by Kerry as a diversion from the real issue, Bush’s blunders in Iraq which have directly been responsible for the death of US soldiers.

If you aren’t a right wing zombie spouting the party spin, but a Libertarian as you often claim, then why this nonsense post?

Posted by: gergle at November 1, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #192164

Woody,

All he has to say is what I stated in my post.

“This isn’t what I meant and I apologize for not being clear with the content of my joke.”

And all of this would have just gone away quietly. Really, it’s his complete lack of any sense of reality that is his downfall.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #192167

Gergle,

1) Name one time I have twisted anything that Murtha said? I don’t think I’ve hardly ever commented on him at all. When did I do such a thing?

2) When have I ‘defended’ O’Neill? I have just stated that he has been an opponent of Kerry for decades, not just brought out of the woodwork in 2004.

3) I state in my comments that I think that Bush has blunderd in Iraq, that doesn’t take away from the fact that Kerry is a moron and if the democrats have any chance of being taken seriously as potential leaders of a military force they should distance themselves from him.

As for ‘why this nonsense post’ I would like to see my old party, the Democrats, abandon the progressive nonsense and return to defending our basic rights, more closely resemble party that spawned the real JFK not this knock off wannabe.

It’s a shame that the only defense you can come up with is that I must be a ‘member of the secret right wing attack machine’ when in reality I am an offended disabled veteran who is tired of Kerry acting like a horse’s ass.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #192170

Rhinehold,

The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. These witnesses disputed O’Neill’s charge that there “was little or no fire” that day; they said that the fighting was fierce. [42] SBVT supporters question whether these witnesses are reliable because they spoke “in the presence of a Communist official” [43], but their account of enemy fire is substantially the same as that previously given by another former VC to an AP reporter [44], and by the American witnesses, including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day, Larry Clayton Lee [45][46][“Tour of Duty,” pp. 290-292] [“John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography” (Boston Globe), pp. 100-103].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans#Truthfulness

So what do you want? You want Kerry to apologize for something even you seem to understand he really didn’t say?

And no, I don’t agree with you that Kerry lost based on substance. His ideas, such as policing terrorism through international task forces, still make a lot of sense. But people like yourself want to talk about gaffes made in speeches (or not even gaffes, just misinterpretations?) instead of ideas. It’s not okay. I’m sick of people talking about bullcrap instead of issues.

Let me understand, you are a veteran and so that gives you the right to slam another one? You’re self-righteously sick of Kerry being self-righteous? You’re not a Republican, but can’t see that with the number of Republican ties (outlined in the link above)the Swift Boat veterans were a campaign tool.

You’re right about one thing, we desperately needed someone to handle this mess of a war where soldiers and Iraqis (600,000 of em) die every day, and instead of debating the issues people like yourself chose to talk about this bull instead. It wasn’t worth a minute of my time then, and it’s certainly not now.

Posted by: Max at November 1, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #192172

Some people just cannot tell a joke.

You notice that Lurch (on the Adams family) did not try to be witty. Kerry (who looks a lot like him) should not either. He has not got the personality or the quickness to pull it off.

Anyway, I am not sure it was a joke. Kerry’s record with his post Vietnam antics and his last year talking about our troops terrorizing Iraqis indicates it might be what he really thinks.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 10:05 AM
Comment #192173

Rhinehold,
I thought he was speaking about Bush not the American soliders. I can see where one could get the opinion that he was directing his joke at the soldiers but it was actually directed at Bush therefore it was a particularly biting joke as it was a trueism, but no reason to apologize to the troops nor to Bush. Perhaps to be present a more gracious appearance he should have apologized to the Pres for making him the butt of the joke.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2006 10:05 AM
Comment #192175

Max,

Again, what does the Swiftboat issue have to do with anything I said?

As for having the right to slam another veteran, I have the right whether I am a veteran or not. He made a stupid statement, if he was trying to make the joke he claims to have been making, which I am taking his word for but am sceptical, he did so without any proper context and coupled with his past slams against the members of the military, not just in the 1970s but just a few weeks ago, it was an insulting thing to say.

I am not as much upset, btw, about the inability to tell a bad joke. Had he just accepted that the way he said it could have been insulting to so many people it would have been a non-issue. I am VERY upset that he refuses to accept that he might have offended anyone, apologize for it, and then bring out the line “If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy.” Given what he has ALREADY said about the military and those serving while he has been trying to make a name for himself it is INSULTING for him to stand there and make that statement.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #192178

j2t2,

What context provides for you to say that it was about Bush? He hadn’t mentioned Bush prior to the statement. Had he set the joke up properly and made it CLEAR that that was the joke he was making it wouldn’t be an issue. When I first heard the ‘joke’ I took it to mean he was saying that only the poor and uneducated go into the military, an assertion that he and other democrats have been making for years. Why on earth would anyone ‘assume’ he was making a joke about Bush? It makes almost no sense. Especially, as I mentioned, that he has never had an issue saying bad things about military personell in his history.

Why is it so hard to just say that he SCREWED the POOCH, is a poor excuse for a politician and he is wrong for not apologizing for making a statement that has offended so many people? Is it really so hard to admit that a Democrat might be a moron? Oh nO!

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #192189

Rhinehold:

You are absolutely correct that if Kerry had simply apologized for screwing up the joke, the whole thing would have blown over. He could have then been correct in saying that Republicans were making a big fuss over nothing.

His comment, as he said it, WAS offensive. It’s plausible that he meant to say it differently so that it was directed at Bush, in which case it would have been offensive towards Bush. But as he said it, it WAS offensive to the troops. His apology should be for saying the wrong thing, but he’s looking at it like his motives are in question. They are…based on his previous comments about troops etc, but he could defuse it so easily…….IF he had any sense.

He’s showing again the deer in the headlight glaze that he displayed in 2004, which made him a bad candidate. At least he’s become consistent in being what he is.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #192190

Kerry has nothing to apologize for, and I hope he doesn’t bow to to the rightwing slime machine. Those who don’t get the joke are either being disingenuous, or perhaps really do lack an education.

This was Kerry’s reply to the president and Snowjob supposedly not getting the joke:

“This is a classic GOP textbook Republican campaign tactic. I’m sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won’t take responsibility for their own mistakes.”

Some quotes from a statement Kerry released about this:

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq, and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy.”

“I�’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.”

“I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq.”

“It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.”

“These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.”

“Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won�’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions.”

“No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”

I say: Good for John Kerry.
And this strawman argument is pathetic.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 1, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #192199

Flawed character? Because people for political purposes deliberately misread/misheard his statement? Probably he should have made the joke idiot proof, but I seriously doubt that anyone truly misunderstood his point.

This article is a diatribe.

Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #192202

Trent, really? I mean, really?

You can’t see how the more obvious meaning is that he was saying stupid people end up in the military? Perhaps if you’re single thought in life is that ‘Bush is evil’ and ‘everything is about Bush’ you could see it the other way, but to anyone who isn’t focused like a laser beam on Bush being the antichrist it was very insulting.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #192208

The problem was a bad joke delivery, more than a bad joke. As written, it was about Bush. As spoken…

People talk about Bush hatred, but the fact is, there’s good reason to hate Bush out there, especially if you’re a resident of the Gulf Coast or a person who cares about taking the fight to the terrorists and preserving American power in the world.

But Kerry? Republicans have become addicted to the power trip of destroying opponents and their reputations, so they’ll even pick on a man who is no longer even running a race against Bush.

Republicans have become predatory in their pursuit of Democratic errors, but lambs to the slaughter on resolving their own errors.

The more they win on image and appearance, the more they’ll lose on simple realities.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #192212

Rhinehold-
Is this what we call being Independent nowadays?

Why do independents so easily buy the party line from the Republicans if they are truly separate in their considerations?

I’m disappointed that you haven’t had the initiative to go after the details of the SwiftVets on their claims. I’m disappointed you lash out at somebody who’s no longer a presidential candidate. I’m disappointed you’re playing along with this game of gotcha, instead of holding the Republicans to their real insult to the troops: years of “support” backed by little in the way of material help they need.

So avenge the ghosts of Vietnam past on Kerry, accepting Republican vitriol then, as you do now, and rest secure in the knowledge that you’ve struck a real blow for independent thinking in politics by buying the official line and rewarding political opportunism in the service of failed policy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #192213

Stephen,

You’re correct, as I said before if the Dems had put anyone up against Bush in 2004 that had a clue they would be in charge of the White House now. The fact that Kerry has been out in the public eye lately shows that he was going to try for another bid in 2008. I just want to make sure that the Dems rightfully run away screaming from him and perhaps he can accept that his political career on a national level is over (he can continue in Mass, he apparently fits their view of what a senator should be…).

I don’t particularly see this helping Republicans who are in trouble in 2006 or hurting Democrats who are running against them, they will rightfully run away screaming from Kerry. It is more of a ‘hey guys’ wake up call for the 2008 campaign than anything else.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #192217

Max-

You are right.

Rhinehold-

Partisan hackery. Libertarian my @ss! If you were, you wouldn’t care about this B.S. “news.”

—That’s all

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #192218

Trent:

No one misheard Kerry. He is on tape saying an offensive thing about our troops. Now…I don’t think he meant to do that, because even he is not that stupid or politically insensitive. But he did say it.

If he just apologized for mis-speaking, there would be no story. But his political antennae is telling him to fight. Its the wrong time to fight. Its the time to apologize for his poor delivery of a joke that left an unintended message out there.

Stephen:

Politics is a rough game. You say that “Republicans have become predatory in their pursuit of Democratic errors”, and that may be a true statement. But it is only fully truthful if you add that Democrats are the same. Look at what they did to Trent Lott, who made a comment that was wrong to have made. I know some will assume that Lott’s comment had meaning behind it, and that Kerry’s was just a mistake, but that’s simply a partisan viewpoint.

MY reality on this is that the comment itself wasn’t that big of an issue to me. I’m more appalled by Kerry’s reaction to the furor, and that he is going on the offensive to shift the blame to Republicans. He’s been a politician long enough to know that if you mis-speak, the opposition will jump on it. He’s jumped on comments made by Republicans—its part of the process, no matter how distasteful.

The reality is that he said a very offensive thing. The reality also is that he probably didn’t intend to say it…just like the guy in my earlier illustration who called Barney Frank “Barney Fag”. That guy owned up to the fact that he mis-spoke—there certainly was no intent to do it. It was simply a mistake. If Kerry did the same—and my prediction is that he eventually will—it would be done with.

But…by the time Kerry is done with his chestbeating, an apology will look like weakness. In the beginning, an apology would have looked like admitting that what happened was a mistake, and that’s exactly what it was.

In fact, he could have made a joke about “channeling Bush for a moment and mangling the English language.” People would have accepted his mistake and he’d have moved along.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #192219

Rhinehold-
This, to, will pass, and people will remember it as another of a long line of vicious slanders by an administration which employed them in their policy’s defense rather than improve it.

Meanwhile, What’s going on here? Is this the new Bush policy on our soldiers? I have no doubt that Kerry, who was heard to remark that he would take military action to get back our soldiers if the North Vietnamese refused to release our POWs, would have gone to this man’s rescue in a heartbeat.

This is the Republican Party’s version of support: cheerleading backed with inaction. Let’s cheer on our soldiers against the big bad mispoken Democrat. But if he gets kidnapped by a militia… Well, that’s his problem.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #192220
Libertarian my @ss! If you were, you wouldn’t care about this B.S. “news.”

jrb, how do you figure? Here we have a former and potential presidential candidate being a complete tool on national TV, how is this not fodder for political pundits like myself? I would be remiss for not commenting on it. And not being tied to the Republican or Democratic parties helps me be able to avoid the partisan blinders that some people have on about the issue…

As for not being a Libertarian, name me one thing (other than my support for the Iraq war, all parties are divided on that one) that makes me ‘not a libertarian’?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #192223

Joe-
Trent Lott said the world would be a better place if Strom Thurmond had been elected. There’s not an alternative interpretation of that which really excuses what he said. Either he knew what Thurmond stood for, or he didn’t.

Kerry’s comment was a misspoken one, a botched delivery which gave a degree of double meaning to his remarks he could not have rationally intended.

My attitude on this thing is that people should speak carefully in this line of work, but there are sometimes where the problem is not word choice, but idea choice. There’s no good way to say you support torture, no good way to support fraud, mismanagement, and other sins of government. Yet this administration has tried to put a happy face on so many things that Americans, when it comes down to the idea, do not support.

While I think Kerry’s best choice would have been an apology, I think this is the next best. He, like many other Democrats, are tired of having to walk on eggshells on every damn little error, when the ruling party itself is trying to get away with massive failures.

Go take the log out of your eyes before you take the speck out of ours.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #192224

Stephen,

Yes, I’ve been following this story as well and hope we learn more about it soon. I’m not sure why or how the military could abandon another soldier like this, I railed against Clinton for just this thing, and hope that it isn’t true. But I’m sure within the next 24 to 48 hours we will know more and we will either exonorate or eviscerate the military command on this issue.

As for this response to Kerry being seen eventually as a Republican attack, it will to diehard dems perhaps, but most people will see it as Kerry being an elitist by refusing to acknowledge he may have offended anyone. As I said, if he had acknowledged and apologized immediately this would have all been gone by now and any further pushing of it would have been seen as a partisan attack, but by displaying the ineptitude that cost him the 2004 election it just plays out like Kerry being himself, a JFK wannabe.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #192234

IMO, Kerry deserves the criticism. Not because of what he said. No one in their right mind would suggest that anyone is insulting the troops. Anyone that suggests such a thing is rehashing that old, tired adage of ‘not supporting the troops’ whenever someone speaks a voice of dissent.

No, he deserves the criticism for NOT acknowledging his mistake. (as an aside, if we asked Bush for the same each time he misunderestimated his speech, we’d never hear anything else.) Kerry should come out and say “i’m sorry if i suck at humor. i’m sorry that i screwed up the bush-bashing joke so bad that it gave Karl Rove an opportunutity to yell at the news organizations to create a non-news story. i’m sorry that the people serving in the military are now hearing that Kerry is bashing the troops, when that is not what i meant at all. What i meant to say was that BUSH was the uneducated goofball that screwed up enough to push us into a war. “

Sometimes it’s easy when you come clean.

Posted by: john trevisani at November 1, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #192239

John:

That is exactly my point as well. The partisans simply can’t even allow their favorite sons to admit when they make an obvious mistake.

Stephen:

My comparison using Trent Lott was not a good one. A better one would be the comment that Cheney made where he responded to a question about “dunking” with an answer about “dunking”. That inspired a thread on the left column that totalled 110 posts….and a number of them being yours.

What did Cheney mean? The left has assumed that he meant the worst. What did Kerry mean? The left has assumed that he meant no harm. See the hypocrisy, Stephen? Sheesh, talk about logs in your own eyes!!

I’ve been 100% consistent in my opinion on these situations, and in my comments on them. Cheney should have clarified the question before making comments that could be taken in different ways. Its his job to do that. Kerry should admit his mistake and move on. Both men erred in their communication, but only Kerry has gone on the offensive about it.

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in my earlier comparison. You were correct that it was a poor comparison. My apologies.

(Sidenote to John Kerry: See how damnably easy it is to apologize when you are wrong. And then it all goes away. Or….you can pridefully stick to your guns, which are bulletless, and try to bluster your way through a gathering storm.)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #192243

Trent, Adrienne et al

Watch the clip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuMWiQ6r2o) Now imagine Bush saying those exact words. Do you think they are offensive? Kerry is humor challenged. He should know that by now. We may accept that he just got the joke wrong. But what he said was clearly offensive. The proper resonse is just to say it is not what he meant and leave it at that. Instead he and his colleagues launch into attack mode.

BTW - as to studying hard, you may recall that Bush’s grades at Yale were a little better than Kerry’s. Neither was a wizz kid. Kerry has no standing to criticize Bush on this.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #192248

Rhinehold,

With due respect, to a Libertarian this is a free speech issue. Kerry is free to say whatever he likes about whatever he likes. Whether he mangled a joke or really feels those with less education are more likely to join the military doesn’t matter. What relevant issue does this affect? That is all I mean. It shouldn’t be worth your time to comment on.

With respect to your request for “one thing that makes you not a Libertarian, other than your support for the Iraq war.” That, IMO, is like a used car salesman asking me to tell him what about the car he is trying to sell me makes me not want to buy it, other than it doesn’t run.

In fact, that is one of the primary reasons you are not truly a Libertarian [this of course doesn’t mean you might not be registered that way, but we all know that’s meaningless—Bill O’Reilly is registered “independent.”

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #192253

Alright everybody, this is getting sad, sorry and pathetic.

This is the third party/independent blog. All of us who are truely third party people such as Libertarians, Capitalists, Green, and even those… ugh… Socialists have a reason to express opinions on this blog.

You could do us a polite favor and keep your LEFT AND RIGHT wings to your sides, no bird ever flew by flapping in the center.

As for a third party (Capitalist) of both Bush and Kerry…

Kerry is an overzealous individual who couldn’t do any better with the Iraq issue than Barney the dancing friggin dinosaur could do boxing Pretty Boy Floyd. He has an in house voting record that is about a quarter of what it should be for someone who has been in politics for as long as he has and is reknown for voting soley on a blue/red ‘push button’ mentality with no real concern or research into ANY subject to actually help the Amercian people at all what-so-ever.

… and for Bush, he WOULD BE a great president if he could stop trying to be daddies little puppet and start making his own decisions that he knows would help real problems, such as scoial security and education, but he isn’ because he doesn’t, not to any real extent anyway. As for the war effort in Iraq, this war has had less casualites on BOTH sides and among civilians than nearly every other war in the history of man kind. Mind you the average death toll for all the wars fought since the A.D. era has averaged around 300,000 and they generally have last anywhere from 30-170 years. People so often forget that 200 years is a short spurt of time and on a historical level of conflict, the U.S. has yet to be in all but one REAL war.

So as far as the petty disputes over who is currupt or who is ignorant, BOTH primary parties are a joke, has been a joke since the late 70s, and will be a joke long after the American people get completely fed up and start voting Libertarian, because each year the LP party support has consistantly grown. So to you right and left wingers, quite being ignorant and go out with pride instead of pathetic tactics of personal assualt and profitless bickering.

Pierce College
S.R. Senator
Bryan AJ Kennedy

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at November 1, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #192264

It’s disturbing to see that anyone is defending John Kerry’s latest blast against our brave fighting men and women. But it’s not surprising to see that the Democrats on this blog are blindly defending this idiot and even trying to change the subject by taking their usual partisan shots at Bush.
Fact is Kerry chose to go out on the campaign trail to try to help Democrat candidates elected. That makes anything he says open to scrutiny. And once again he’s shown how unqualified he is to even run his mouth much less the great nation.
If this is the best the Democrats can get to try to rally the party faithful and attract the swing vote they had best get used to not being in power.
And to think that the Democrats actually wanted this lying coward to be Commander in Chief of our military forces. And now they’re defending this idiot. Once again the Democrats have shown how they really feel about our brave men and women that are fighting for this great country.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 1, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #192265

When you look at Kerry’s past statement pertaining to men and women in uniform it is fully understandable that a logical person could conclude he was indeed disparaging our soldiers and not the president.

In the past on Viet Nam Kerry compared the troops to Genghis Khan and said that career military personnel “When they have a war to fight, they are just as happy in a sense”

More recently on our soldiers in Iraq Kerry accused them of terrorizing women and children.

Posted by: Kirk at November 1, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #192267

Rhinehold,

1)The time you chose to make Murtha’s admission of the truth about Haditha an attack on the Marines, which even then you acknowledged he was probably right about( especially since he was repeating insiders in the Marine Corps.

2)When you say he is not something Rove came up with. John O’Neil is a paid political hack who has benefitted himself and his law firm with his association to and as a front for Grover Norquist and Perry of Texas. Both are in lock step with Rove. He was a front for CREEP in the 70’s. You repeat his lies in your post. Kerry attacked the Civilian Leadership that was conducting an out of control military operation in Vietnam. You have been given the documetation in this thread by others,but continue to choose to ignore it.

3) We agree that Bush has so badly messsed up and continues to do so, that it would be either corrupt or moronic for anyone to ignore the damage being done to our military, the same way the damage was done in vietnam. Whether you are a Vet or not, choosing to make a mistatement the issue rather than the continued endangerment of our troops is sad, sick and deeply misguided.

Rove has pulled your chain, Joe, and you have jumped. I have too much respect for your intelligence not to call you on it.

Posted by: gergle at November 1, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #192280

jrb,

You’re hilarious. How is this a free speech issue? Who is saying that Kerry isn’t free to say anything he wants? Just like his right to be a moron, it is my right to blast him for it. Trying to suggest that a ‘true libertarian’ wouldn’t call him on it is one of the biggest reaches I’ve seen on these pages in a long time, and that’s saying something.

As for my not being a ‘libertarian’ because I supported the re-engagement of hostilities in Iraq, that’s equally a stretch. There are plenty of Libertarians who supported the action in Iraq, even though the party took a different approach on this one issue. It does NOT go against any party view or belief, either way. And the fact that I have run for office, as a libertarian, supported fully by the libertarian party while doing so would suggest that they can figure that out.

You don’t have a leg to stand on and know nothing about me or my politics to say that I’m not a ‘real libertarian’. It’s laughable to the extreme.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #192282

gergle,

1) Do you have a quote of mine that I can reference?

2) O’Neill may be used by Rove, but that’s not the same thing. O’Neill had a serious and in his mind legitimate gripe against Kerry, argued it in the 1970s and continued to bring it up every time Kerry ran for office since. That the Republicans funded his latest attack is not the same thing as saying that they manufactured him.

3) How am I being ‘misguided’, because I choose to attack a Democrat as well as Republicans on issues that I find needing attacked? That somehow pointing out how Kerry is a moron I am giving ‘credence’ to the Republicans who are mishandling the war? What a blindly partisan view of life you have there…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #192284

Btw, what O’Neill ‘lies’ did I repeat in my article? I don’t recall referring to anything O’Neill said, instead I think I focused on things that KERRY said.

A little help here?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #192289

Read it again:

“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.”

Kerry’s statement implies a simple truth - that for many in our society who do not posesss a high IQ, higher paying jobs are simply not achievable.
Study hard and you’ll be successful - isn’t that the message parents and teachers drilled into us as kids?

The military has always been an avenue for those of us who lack the ability to become brain surgeons. Is there something wrong with acknowledging this simple fact? No. What is so offensive about that?

Kerry’s statement obviously does NOT imply that all military people are stupid - which is the implication of the attacks being leveled at Kerry.
In fact, taking that message from Kerry’s statement says something about the intelligence of the person making that critique.

Is it also not a simple fact that most people who are under 5 feet tall won’t play for the NBA?

When did speaking the plain truth become so dangerous in this country?

Posted by: netjab at November 1, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #192290

Excuse, defend and ignore.
Feels like 1995 all over again.

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #192291

netjab,

Had Kerry actually said what you quoted, it might have been a better joke. But that is NOT what he said.

What he said was:

“If you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

So you can try to re-state what he said to change the meaning to it is ‘obvious’ what he meant, but that is not what he said and fortunately we have the video to show us the truth.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #192292

The point still stands, Rhinehold, even with your quote.

Posted by: netjab at November 1, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #192295

Netjab
“You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq”

I think what he said was: You end up getting stuck in a war in Iraq.
I did not hear him say “us” when he spoke.

So, what he was saying is: Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, aren’t smart and are intellectually lazy? In the military.

Whether he meant it or not isn’t the point. He refused to acknowledge his mistake and now looks like an ass again.
Any Dem candidate not willing to distance themselves from his actions deserves to loose.

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #192297

He’s acknowledged his mistake and his taking one for the team.

Joe-
There again, It’s difficult to imagine what else he might have been talking about. As the administration has defined Waterboarding as not being torture, though Cheney’s statement superficially discounts of the notion that “we torture”, its basic meaning is that “waterboarding is a no-brainer”.

The real question on waterboarding is whether we would raise bloody hell on this issue if a foreign power did this to one of our boys or girls in uniform. I think we would, and so we should be reasonable enough to call it torture.

Bryan AJ Kennedy-
Bush’s problem isn’t being daddy’s little puppet. The literature on the subject highlight Bush’s attempts to distance his foreign policy from his father’s.

On the subject of casualties, we are fighting this war in just one nation, with a modern army and modern medicine. about fifteen percent more wounded are surviving their injuries than did in Vietnam. If we’re wanting to make a comparison on body count, We’d be looking at 7045 dead, not 2818. As for major wars, I would count the Civil War as one of them. To not speak of Korea or Vietnam as major wars is silly. These were full-scale conflicts.

Let’s not get into the bad habit of thinking that any war we get into is minor.

Kirk-
He was relating the testimony of others. These details seem to escape the notice of true believers on the right. Just admit it: you’re looking for reasons to bash Kerry.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #192298

So, netjab, you’re saying that what he is accused of saying (and he DENIES saying) is that if you aren’t smart you get stuck in the military.

So someone like me, who scored in the top 1% of the country on my SATs, attended college and then joined the Navy to be a nuclear reactor operator was really just stupid, right?

And all of the officers and enlisted who have degrees are just stupid, right?

I’m not sure I see the point you are making but I have a feeling that it isn’t exactly enlightened or even accurate…

Posted by: rhinehold at November 1, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #192299

Rhinehold:

Kerry is not on any ballot. The issue of the day is the quagmire in Iraq, brought to us courtesy of our commander-in-chief George W. Bush.

Why all this talk about Kerry? This is a distraction to turn voters away from or to muddle the real issue of the Iraq catastrophe.

Vote for Democratic representatives and Senators to get us out of this mess.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 1, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #192303

Paul,

Bush isn’t on any ballot either, unless I miss something?

Are you saying we can’t comment or condemn something someone says if they aren’t on a ballot anywhere?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #192312

Rhinehold,

For someone as smart as you claim to be, I am surprised you didn’t read the 1st sentence of the 4th paragraph of my post…

“Kerry’s statement obviously does NOT imply that all military people are stupid.”

Come on, don’t put words in my mouth.

Posted by: netjab at November 1, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #192319

Stephen

I agree with your perception of our wars.

I am just trying to make sure that people start realizing that because we are in an age of technology and modern medicine, war is not nearly close to as damaging as it once was. No matter how horrible and poor of leadership we have, war will never be nearly as awful as it once was.

You are we are in an age of technology and medicine, where even the worst of conflicts are resolved with minimal casulties.

Instead we should be rejoicing the fact that had this war been fought under the same circumstances 300 years ago with the same people and key players involved the death tole would far exceed what it currently is.

As far as Bush Jr., the intent to distant himself from Sr.’s policy is there, but really how different is it?

It kind of reminds me of the Clinton (who am I a fan of) policy with N. Korea. They wanted nukes, Clinton gave them nuclear power in exchange for them to cease nuclear weapon development.

I admire the intent to solve things peacefully, but now we a have a long term issue of N. Korea believing that blind threats and chaos results in beneficial rewards.

Intent does not justify the outcome anymore the the ends justify the means.

I couldn’t begin to think of better ways to do these things as I AM still a student, but then again, I have never ran for the presidency.

=)

p.s. thanks for the intelligent discussion, I love an opportunity to exchange mutually beneficial political discussion, despite my poor spelling, so keep it coming!

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at November 1, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #192320

Jeeesh
This country is in a total mess, we have a chance to actually address some of the things that are a major issue for this country and what gets all the “light and heat”?????
A pedophilic Repugnican porno e-mails and a botched joke by Kerry (actually Bush is the botched joke, but that’s for another day)
This country gets the politicians it deserves — if our electorate allows this sort of shallow, BS crap to go on without taking to the streets, then they deserve the severe Rear-ending they routinely receive at the hands of these corrupt politicians.

Reinhold
big friggin deal about your SAT and all the other BS you spout — what has THAT have to do with anything? with the validity of any position you might espouse, with the lack of credibility to the information you posted above???
Are we supposed to sit back and roll over at the mere mention of your superior intelligence???
Give me a break.

Posted by: Russ at November 1, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #192321

Ok, Kerry has been a good boy now and officially apologized for his “botched joke”. Since you guys say that’s all you wanted, I’m sure you will let it go now, right?

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #192324

Rhinehold,

Read other posts I’ve written before you accuse me of being blindly partisan or single-minded. You guys saw the opportunity to get all righteous over a less than well-told line. I don’t know. You think a combat vet meant to insult troops, many of whom where in the military before the Iraq War? At any rate, for those who didn’t understand, he explained it. I guess you could choose to believe what you want, but since his explanation fit perfectly from what I got from the remark, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

But go ahead and make as much political hay was you want. Frankly, I think focusing on Iraq War issues is what we should be doing right now, anyway.

Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #192328

Rhinehold,

Reread your own article before you accuse me of being blindly partisan. Good grief. It’s so over-the-top. Remember the Biblical verse about planks and eyes.

Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #192334

Trent,

Most combat vets, no. But this one has many times in the past so why would we ‘assume’ that he wouldn’t be doing it now? Or did you miss that part of my original article?

As for what we should be ‘focused’ on, are you serious that because we have serious issues we shouldn’t be discussing this issue either? Please…

Now, explain to me how my article is ‘blindly partisan’ hmmm? I have a huge dislike for Kerry, I won’t deny it, but it isn’t because of any partisan views. It’s because HE is IMO a complete moron, this situation is just a prime example of why.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #192336
Reinhold big friggin deal about your SAT and all the other BS you spout — what has THAT have to do with anything? with the validity of any position you might espouse, with the lack of credibility to the information you posted above??? Are we supposed to sit back and roll over at the mere mention of your superior intelligence??? Give me a break.

Russ,

I never once suggested such a thing, I was using the facts to illustrate a point. That you didn’t get it does not point to MY intelligence. I also usually attempt to type the names of my opponents correctly since they are listed right in front of me.

Now, what ‘credibility’ is lacking in my post? Or do you want me to just ‘roll over and accept your position’ without you presenting any facts or arguments that can be debated?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #192338

Rinehold-

I never said you don’t have a right to discuss or say what you wish about this topic. You have the right to call anyone on anything; just like I have the right to call you on being a hypocrite, partisan hack. It is my opinion at this point.

As for your stance on Iraq, I was not aware that Libertarians supported the unprovoked attack of a soverign nation. I thought that kind of fell under the whole “impinging on anothers rights” thing. Can you clarify for me how it is o.k. to do so when YOU see fit but not o.k. for others.

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #192343

jrb: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001765.html

I’ve already gone over it several times, have at it if you like.

To put it simply though, it was not an unprovoked attack to remove from office the person who violated a cease-fire agremeent with the UN, called for continued war with the US, attempted and plannned further terrorist attacks against the US and it’s allies, shot at US and UK airplanes and supported international terror with funds and logistics, including the deaths of several americans.

Of course, that is counter to the current argument that Iraq was safely contained and a bother to no one, but seeing as I think that argument is mindless dribble, I don’t necessarily find myself beholden to it.

And several Libertarians supported the Iraq invasion for just those reasons (as I supported Clinton for making the the policy of regeime change in Iraq as well for the same reasons) but it’s besides the point.

I disagree that we are still there, that we look completely inept for how we are running things and that we rejected leaving the rebuliding of Iraq to the UN when they offered, but that does not invalidate the support for the invasion.

Are you now going to say it is against Libertarian beliefs to use force to prevent a man from murdering his wife? I mean, since you want to completely miss the point on what libertarians necessarily believe and don’t believe…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #192350

Rinehold,

Are you now going to say it is against Libertarian beliefs to use force to prevent a man from murdering his wife?

No. That man is infringing on the rights of another, thus it could be justified. Depends upon the situation though. Of course, you know you are trying to bait me by comparing apples and oranges with this line.

I mean, since you want to completely miss the point on what libertarians necessarily believe and don’t believe…

What? I WANT to … Huh? Maybe you could argue I DO miss the point, but I WANT to? Odd tactic.

… person who violated a cease-fire agremeent with the UN [then why not let the UN deal with it], called for continued war with the US [we have long called for the ousting of Castro, should they have the right to attack us?], attempted and plannned further terrorist attacks against the US and it’s allies [proof/support?], shot at US and UK airplanes [which were continually invading their airspace in order to provoke such attacks] and supported international terror with funds and logistics [proof/support], including the deaths of several americans [where/when are you speaking of].
Of course, that is counter to the current argument that Iraq was safely contained and a bother to no one, but seeing as I think that argument is mindless dribble …

Why?

Is a nation’s sovereignty this unimportant to you?

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #192351

jrb,

Of course it is, but at some point they forfeit that. When they attack other countries smaller to themselves, someone has to stand up to them. When we leave them in power (to continue murdering, torturing and raping their own citizens) because they agreed to very specific things and then refuse to follow through, someone has to stand up to them. When they use the mindbogglingly evil tactic of terrorism on their fellow human beings, someone has to stand up to them. That is what the US did. Of course, our quarrel was with Saddam and his thugs, once they were out of power we had little reason to remain but that’s where I diverge from the current administration. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do for all of those reasons.

It’s the same with the man and his wife. There are times when using force is necessary and this was one of those times IMO. You can disagree but you should be able to see that my belief that this was a proper re-engagement of the previous conflict based on all of those factors I’ve listed is not counter to my libertarian beliefs.

I also believe we should be doing something in Darfur, is that counter to my libertarian beliefs as well? When do you think as a libertarian I should be supporting the use of force and when shouldn’t I?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #192353

Rhinehold,

I get that you don’t like Kerry. You think he is condescending etc. Ok, that’s your opinion. You do make a lot of unsubstantiated charges, such as he is incompetent, but ok, that’s your opinion. In fact, your article is pretty much all opinion, and that’s your right. There are politicians of various political stripes I don’t like much either.

Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #192354

Stephen:

It’s difficult to imagine what else he might have been talking about.

I think I’ve come to a shining example of where you’ve gone wrong. It SHOULD be difficult to imagine what else Cheney might have been talking about. It would be easy to determine, though, simply by asking a followup question.

You show that you are willing to “imagine” the possibilities in Cheney’s answer. It was a poor answer, but the reporter should have followed up to clarify. You don’t just guess or imagine what the answer really means.

In Kerry’s case, there is no question that what he said was wrong. It was wrong if he intended to say it differently, and it was wrong if he intended it just as he said it.

As I stated, the biggest thing this shows me is how badly Kerry’s political acumen fails him when he needs it the most. His judgement of how to handle issues is simply awful. He seems to plan his next approach based on his previous one. Since he was blamed for not coming out forcefully against accusations in 2004, he now comes out forcefully this time. But the circumstances are different and he just doesn’t seem to have the capacity to understand that.

His comment was innocuous to me. I know he didn’t mean to say what he did. But his arrogance in not wanting to be held accountable for what he did say is astounding. And its politically damning for him, since it reinforces all the negative stereotypes that people have of him. And it hurts his party in the process.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #192360

I agree with you on Darfur [I am not a Libertarian though].
Yes, I do believe it is counter to Libertarian beliefs to support doing something in Darfur. The prime function of the state [according to Libertarian principles] is to operate a military for the defence of this country. Never to attack unprovoked.
As a Libertarian, to be consistent with your strict reading and adherence only to those authorities prescribed in the Constitution, the government should only use force to defend itself.

When they use the mindbogglingly evil tactic of terrorism on their fellow human beings, someone has to stand up to them.

Where is the authority for us to do this derrived from? Is there Constitutional authority?

By the way, the reason that we are still there is the same reason we went in to begin with. Not to simply remove Saddam, that has always been a red herring. Military bases, greater access and influence in the region, this is what this is all about.

P.S. sorry for the tone of some of my earlier postings. I have been grouchy today …

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #192368

jrb,

The reason *I* supported the action in Iraq was to remove Saddam. That we are still there is against my support, we were just talking about my beliefs.

Libertarian principles do not necessarily put us in a defense only, isolationist, strategem. I disagree with that assessment and always have. By that regard we would have never entered WWII (and almost didn’t) or WWI (and almost didn’t) etc.

However, by removing from power a madman who employs terrorist activities, is attacking US planes, still holds that his country is at war with the US and is planning attacks against the US, are we not providing defense to the country?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 1, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #192377
He’s acknowledged his mistake and his taking one for the team.

“Of course, I’m sorry about a botched joke,” he added. “Everybody knows I botched a joke.”

You are right, he has acknowledged his mistake. Too bad he still hasn’t done what he needs to do and apologize the the men and women in uniform.

Kirk- He was relating the testimony of others. These details seem to escape the notice of true believers on the right. Just admit it: you’re looking for reasons to bash Kerry.

I may give you the Genghis Khan quote even though when reading it it is not clear if he was repeating what he had been told or adding this himself for emphasis.

However, the others are all John Kerry.

By the way, don’t have to look for reasons to bash Kerry. He has a knack of handing them to you on his own.

Posted by: Kirk at November 1, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #192379

I felt compelled to send personal messages to Kerry’s campaign twice because of their strategic mistakes. Kerry chose not to explain things he should have. When he voted against the $87 M, Democrats were trying to get an amendment that part of the tax cut for the top 1% would be repealed so the government could pay for it. When that was unattainable, he voted for it… Why can I explain it to my friends and coworkers but he won’t do it when he’s directly challenged in a debate?

This failed reading of his scripted joke makes me sad, but it doesn’t surprise me.

Christine

Posted by: Christine at November 1, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #192382

Ok, Kerry has now done everything his helpful Republican friends said he should do:

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

So, is he off the hook now?

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #192383

I was looking for a news article link about the 87M, but now I can’t seem to find one. I think I should have included a link anyway though…

Christine

Posted by: Christine at November 1, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #192402

Rhinehold,

With respect to WWII Japan had declared war on us. Germany, being their ally, in effect did too. That would alone be enough for a Lib. to justify action. However, no one said that either WWI or WWII could stand up to the scrutiny of Lib. belief structures. Personally, I don’t think many things we do can.

However, by removing from power a madman who employs terrorist activities,
do you have support for the assertion that he “employs terrorist activities” against the US?
is attacking US planes,
the only planes he was attacking were those which were continually invading his airspace attempting to bait a confrontation
still holds that his country is at war with the US
So what? Does that mean he was a threat to us which required us to defend ourselves?
and is planning attacks against the US,
Can you offer ANY support of this?
are we not providing defense to the country?
Until we clarify some of those, No
The reason *I* supported the action in Iraq was to remove Saddam. That we are still there is against my support, we were just talking about my beliefs.

If you and a friend decide to rob a bank, and your friend kills everyone inside. Is it really a legitimate defense to say, “I just wanted to rob the bank—he killed everyone.”

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #192417

Wow Adrienne after reading your post on what John Kerry has said as a follow up to the Bush joke all I can say is You Go John. I now have a newfound respect for John Kerry.
And for all you guys having to go back to the days of Viet Nam to find John Kerry bad mouthing troops I would say think back to those days and “ye without sin cast the first stone” cause you may not have been involved in the anti war movement etc. but I would not be suprised if something stupid came out of your mouths back then I know it did mine. Just think about it, then ask yourselves is this the same person I am today?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #192424

Rhinehold
Sorry about the misspelling, mine is a tad simpler

I got your point about the SAT etc — but again whoopee, skippee doo. I took it as you taking an opportunity to flout something about yourself in this arguement — and not really being one bit germain to the arguement.

Your points have been discredited already by those who have access to the sources (to which they provide links) — again, I don’t need to go there, as my point you made, and continue to make so clearly by keeping this drivel going is that
with all the important issues facing this country the only thing that seems to take traction are sex and sleeze.

and this thread only compounds the problem.

Posted by: Russ at November 1, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #192427

Now that Kerry has apologized to everyone and his sensitive kid brother for a silly joke that hurt no one, I have to ask, “Any chance that Bush will apologize for his mistakes that have actually gotten troops killed?”

Notice how charitable I was by using the word “mistakes?”

Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #192437

Okay, all other things aside…

fact is…

McCain just ranked Kerry hard.

Seriously, that was a good rank worthy of entertainment purposes from either end of the spectrum. If you can’t enjoy a good ranking then you need to remove the the ‘proverbial stick’.

=)

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at November 1, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #192455

Rhinehold:
1) We have rounded that circle before and I see no need to repeat it here. We agreed to disagree and your need to be refreshed is disingenuous. Break the Zombie trance. Wake up, Joe.

2). O’Neill had a serious and in his mind legitimate gripe against Kerry, How do you know this, Joe? A mystical mindmeld? We do know he was funded by Nixon in the 70’s and funded by Bush accolytes in the 00’s. We do know he benefitted enromously financially both times. C’mon, Joe, snap out of it. Focus.

3)You’re misguided and misguidng by your lack of proportion. Feather meet Lead. One is “the Google” the other invloves damage to our military and death. Halloween is over, Joe, wake from your Zombie trance. Say it with me, “I will not trivialize poitics for Karl.”

4) Happy? He apologized. News day cycle and story over.Major political crisis averted. Did you notice Fox talked about nothing else,today, like Paul’s piece on Al Sadr dictating US military policy? How about some real issues, Joe, now that you’ve paid your political patronage to Bush today ?

Posted by: gergle at November 1, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #192457

OOPs, it was AP’s post not Paul’s

Posted by: gergle at November 1, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #192467

WOody

No Kerry is not off the hook. He is a stiff a-hole. He is still trying the shift his share of the blame. He says he is sorry IF anybody is offended by his remarks which were misinterpreted. The passive voice is the sign of the weasel.

He could have said, “I am sorry if I seemed to imply disrespect for the troops. It was not my intention.” It gives a very different taste.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #192477

Jack,

Ha! I knew it would work this way, at least with a least of his critics. Kerry apologizes, but you come up with some BS reason not to accept his apology. Passive voice, please. Just admit you don’t like the guy.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #192481

Woody

That is the way he is. I do not think he can be otherwise. I do not like him. He is exactly the kind of rich kid, stiff snot that I have always disliked. He is the nerdy kid in class, who just cannot get top grades but is so persistent in his brown nosing that he gets ahead. I do not think I would vote for him if he was a Republican. You guys will not nominate him again, so I admit that I am motivated more by this animosity than by practical partisaness.

As for his appology, it is like when you are having a fight with your wife and you manage to prove your point (a rare occasion). I don’t know about yours, but mine doesn’t give up. She says something like, “If YOU feel bad about that, I am sorry.” She is generally nicer than John Kerry, so I don’t go after it, but it clearly is NOT an appology.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #192483

Woody;

For my part, I accept Kerry’s apology. If you read back at what I said before he apologized though, you’ll see that I predicted it and that I predicted it would serve more to make him look weak after his outburst from yesterday.

I’m glad he apologized. Don’t have a clue as to why he felt the need to beat his chest over this issue, unless he was advised that chest beating makes him seem more manly. What it did was make him look stupid.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 1, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #192486
Once again today we are given an example of exactly why John Kerry was not elected president of the United States.

Rhinehold, are you saying John Kerry lost because he’s not a very good comedian?

Posted by: American Pundit at November 1, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #192495

AP

I think he did. Bush was weak in 2004. A generic Dem could have won. Unfortunately (fortunately for us and the country), you had stiffly stifferson.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #192499

With due respect, to a Libertarian this is a free speech issue.

No, JRB. Recognition that he has the right to say what he said is not the same as saying he shouldn’t take criticism for it. Quite the opposite.

Posted by: Wulf at November 1, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #192511

Wulf-

Point taken.

Though I still don’t understand why it was worthy of all this discussion.

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #192514

I don’t personally like Kerry one bit. But I’m not reading too much into what happened. He flubbed it, and the fact that it was supposed to be a cut on Bush was not clear. Trent, Adrienne, and others are clearly willing to toe the Democrat line, as surely as we have people here who would have attacked Kerry even if he hadn’t actually said anything wrong.

Sure, it was a stupid comment, but it’s shameful when any public figure can’t just own up to their mistake. I would at least respect that. But Kerry couldn’t do that - he has reacted to this whole thing like the most typical and repugnant of politicians (any party). First he complained,

I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.
I’m sorry… “despicable attacks” like the one Kerry was making at the time? What an ass.

And the cheap shot about those who can never be found to serve in war simply ignores the fact that Jon McCain was among the first to say that it was an unacceptable insult and demand an apology for our service members. Oops.

That “apology” that was issued today was a piece of crap. Kerry would have been better off not having issued it, in my opinion.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended.

Senator, nobody misinterpreted your words… you misspoke. Still, I will be happy to accept the apology if it means we can go back to forgetting about him.


Posted by: Wulf at November 1, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #192522
Jack said:

As for his appology, it is like when you are having a fight with your wife and you manage to prove your point (a rare occasion). I don’t know about yours, but mine doesn’t give up. She says something like, “If YOU feel bad about that, I am sorry.” She is generally nicer than John Kerry, so I don’t go after it, but it clearly is NOT an appology.

In an argument with a wife, you should note the end of her sentences. It helps you know when to nod.

Posted by: Trent at November 1, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #192525

Trent,

LOL, ROTFL! Soooo true.

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #192528

Rhinehold, why do you post in this column? This rant could have been written by Sicilian Eagle or Dana.

Posted by: pianofan at November 1, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #192544

Kerry’s negative comment was extremely inappropriate, but his apology seemed to be forced and not sincere. Even if his intentions were aimed toward President Bush, it still put down all the servicemen and women fighting for us overseas. One of the hardest most proud job anyone can do and we should always show respect towards the troops. Kerry’s act displays him as a bitter person with a derogatory behavior. He would ultimately be an incompetent leader. His speech was down right inconceivable.

Posted by: Kristie at November 1, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #192545

Is it just me, or is this the stupidest scandal in years?

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 1, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #192613

Republicans needed a good distraction from the issues. Lots of righteous posturing from people who think torture is just fine. I thought the Foley flap was silly too, though a flap with more substance.

For my part, I wish Kerry would just shut up until after the elections.

Posted by: Trent at November 2, 2006 7:09 AM
Comment #192629

This sums up my feelings about Kerry’s comments. The really bad joke is on the troops who have been put in the middle of a conflict where it’s unclear who the enemy is and what our goals are. That joke is GW Bush.

Posted by: gergle at November 2, 2006 9:00 AM
Comment #192644

Russ,

Your points have been discredited already by those who have access to the sources (to which they provide links) — again, I don’t need to go there, as my point you made, and continue to make so clearly by keeping this drivel going is that with all the important issues facing this country the only thing that seems to take traction are sex and sleeze.

First, no one has provided any counter to anything I said in my article. What the heck are you talking about? My article never references the swiftboat guys or O’Neill, it just seems that any time anyone references something stupid that Kerry does these guys get brought out. Try arguing the issues I’m making not the ones you want me to make…

Second, what has this issue got to do with sleeze or sex? He made a stupid remark, which is bad but pretty par for the course, but then compounded it by being a baby about it. Taking his ball and going home, so to speak. This is not the type of behavior I want or expect out of a leader, a leader he wanted this country to think he was capable of being.

I’m glad he apologized, even though he did it through a web site and the apology lacks. But don’t expect me to think he’s a great guy or qualified leader of any sort because of it, he’s shown why he isn’t capable.

And before the expected and tired Democrat ‘defense’, no I don’t think Bush is much of a leader at all either, if you read my post http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001717.html that I posted before the 2004 election where I bemoaned THEN that we needed some kind of real leadership in this country but we just can’t seem to be offered anything from the two big parties.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #192647
Rhinehold, are you saying John Kerry lost because he’s not a very good comedian?

AP, you know better than that. As I said in the article if he had apologized straight away this wouldn’t have been nearly the issue it turned into. It was his chest-beating, crybaby suggestions that he’s above reproach and we are just stupid for not getting him that did that. Coupled with his mind-bogglingly moronic statement that as a combat vet he would never make disparaging remarks about other military personnel when we all know he had and does this whenever he thinks it fits in with his personal goal of being the new JFK.

Are you actually defending the guy?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #192674

“Trent, Adrienne, and others are clearly willing to toe the Democrat line,”

Nonsense. You see, even though he flubbed it, I got the joke. I realize that Bush can be considered “plenty smart” so even before seeing Kerry’s rebutal to this twisted and spun accusation, it was incredibly easy to see what the man was getting at. Aside from that, why the hell would Kerry set out to offend every member of the US military by implying they were stupid? Answer: he wouldn’t. He was a soldier who went to war himself.

Lawnboy
“Is it just me, or is this the stupidest scandal in years?”

It’s only been turned into a scandal because the Republicans have imploded due to their own mountains of failure — so yes, I agree it’s appallingly stupid.

Jack,
Who is the Stiffy Stifferson? I remember you once wrote an article of praise about Republicans entitled “Never Explain, Never Complain, Never Apologize?” The rules are entirely different for Democrats in your eyes, aren’t they? We’re expected to continually apologize whenever your party’s slime machine cranks out a new lie about who or what we are, what we say or don’t say, and what we mean or don’t mean.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #192676

Whoops, that should have read: “I realize that Bush CAN’T be considered “plenty smart”

Now I guess I’m supposed to bow and scrape for making a little mistake. :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #192684

Before Republicans get too smug about this, imagine a world where every one of Bush’s verbal slips is turned into a headline.

BUSH ENCOURAGES AMERICANS TO PUT FOOD ON THEIR FAMILY

BUSH PROMISES TO VULCANIZE SOCIETY

BUSH: FAMILIES ARE WHERE FLYING IMPLEMENTS DREAM

You guys would screaming bloody murder about the liberal media trying to make him look foolish.

Original quotes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/piehigher.asp

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 2, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #192687
You see, even though he flubbed it, I got the joke. I realize that Bush can be considered “plenty smart” so even before seeing Kerry’s rebutal to this twisted and spun accusation, it was incredibly easy to see what the man was getting at.


Dead Eye Dick meant Waterboarding. We all know this.

Adrienne,

Your mind reading abilities are amazing. You know, maybe you should call the SciFi Network, they could put your show on just before Crossing Over with John Edward.

Posted by: Kirk at November 2, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #192694

No Kirk, no mind reading abilities here. It’s just that I’m not dumb as a stump.
Cheney didn’t mean America allows prisoners to frolick in a pool, he meant we torture them until they’ll say anything to make it stop.
And Kerry didn’t mean our troops were idiots, he meant the Commander in Chief was an Idiot — and I agree.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #192733

Adrienne,

Don’t bother with kirk, it is not worth your time. He can’t follow multiple sentences strung together.

Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #192736

Why doesn’t Kerry come out and apologize for being disrespectful of the troops? And not for “seeming to offend someone”?
Because he hates the Military and does disrespect the troops. And it’s his disrespect that I have issue with. His statement which nobody will convince me wasn’t intentional shows his disrespect for our troops.
My son and three of my nephews are currently serving in Iraq. And I can tell you as a fact that all where good students in school. All are very good at there jobs. Three could have better paying civilian jobs. And one does.
My son is a helicopter mechanic with 17 years experience. A civilian helicopter mechanic with his experience makes about twice as much as one in the military.
One of my nephews maintains computer systems that help in guiding ground troops and cooridating support fire. He’s been in the Army 5 years. He could make three times as much as a civilian than he can in service.
Nephew Two is an Army Doctor with 10 years experience. If you’ve been to a doctor lately you know he’s way underpaid.
Nephew Three is in the National Gaurd. He’s been in for 13 years. His military job is using the computers that nephew one maintians. In civilian life he’s a lawyer.
Do these four sound like they didn’t do good in school? According to Kerry they didn’t. And that’s why they’re in Iraq.
Besides these four I have a neice in the Navy (1 year). Another nehpew in the army (9 months)that’s fixin to go to Iraq. A brother-in-law fixin to retire from the Army after 30 years. And a son-in-law that’s career Army with 15 years under his belt.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 2, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #192739

Adrienne,

why the hell would Kerry set out to offend every member of the US military by implying they were stupid? Answer: he wouldn’t. He was a soldier who went to war himself.

So, he wouldn’t call them stupid but calling them war criminals (both in the 70s and just last years) is ok then?

Of all of the people who it wouldn’t suprise me would say exactly what it sounded like he said, he is right up at the top of the list.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #192760
And Kerry didn’t mean our troops were idiots, he meant the Commander in Chief was an Idiot

OK. So, I get it now.

When he said of our Viet Nam era career military personnel “When they have a war to fight, they are just as happy in a sense”. What he really meant was When they have a war to fight, the Commander in Chief is just as happy in a sense.

And when he said And “there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the—of—the historical customs, religious customs.” What he really meant was there is no reason for the Commander in Chief to be going into the homes….

Have to give Kerry credit though he is an equal opportunity soldier insulter.

In September 2003, Kerry said that “this President’s pride has brought us a coalition of the few, barely willing to do anything at all: 160 Mongolians, 43 Estonians, and 83 Filipinos isn’t a coalition; it’s a cover-up.”
Posted by: Kirk at November 2, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #192780

Rhinehold,

Given your short term memory loss, I understand why you say no one addressed your points.

My article never references the swiftboat guys or O’Neill, it just seems that any time anyone references something stupid that Kerry does these guys get brought out. Try arguing the issues I’m making not the ones you want me to make…

Oh sure, you can blame voter fraud, swiftboating, dirty tricks, etc.

Did you perhaps say that EXACT same thing after retelling your stories of war atrocities that you could never substantiate or even bring into the public eye a single person who could back anything you said up in the 1970s?

A little article about intentional misunderstanding and Republican desperation is what this amounts to.

Posted by: gergle at November 2, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #192785

Ok, so where is the swiftboat guys mentioned other than the off handed comment about one of the reasons that the Dems say Kerry lost then?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #192802

Adrienne

I heard what he said. He was very unclear if he did not mean what most people thought he did. He does not need to explain it or appologize, but if he doesn’t people can draw the conclusions his speech implies.

BTW - thanks for remembering my articles. It is better to be talked about than not talked about.

And he is stiffly stifferson.

Posted by: Jack at November 2, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #192810

Just the facts, Rhinehold.

Posted by: gergle at November 2, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #192811

Jack,
I’d follow Stiffly Stifferson (I thought that was Gore) long before Bumbling Booberstein.

Posted by: gergle at November 2, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #192820

Sorry, Gergle, but if you can’t actually articulate what I said that was countered by the links provided about the Swiftboat guys then I’m going to have to assume you’re just taking the piss.

If, on the other hand, you want to actually discuss the issue someone brought up that ‘all of my points were countered by the links provided’ then please, explain to me how this was done by pointing out those points and how they were countered.

Personally, I’m a little tired of being treated as if I’m somehow a ‘lesser person’ for not getting it without having it explained to me, whatever it is, just like Kerry does to anyone who doesn’t intuitevly read his mind as well. Acting superior is not a great way to influence people.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #192824

Jack:
“He was very unclear if he did not mean what most people thought he did.

Yeah, right. Bright guy like you just didn’t get the joke.

“He does not need to explain it or appologize, but if he doesn’t people can draw the conclusions his speech implies.”

The ridiculous and insulting conclusions your party had to spin and then broadcast ad nauseum in a last ditch effort to smear your way to victory at the polls.

“BTW - thanks for remembering my articles. It is better to be talked about than not talked about.”

Your welcome. How could I ever forget such arrogance?

“And he is stiffly stifferson.”

Maybe because I’m a woman, I’ve always been able to appreciate a Stiffy Stifferson. ;^)
Personally what I’ve never been able to abide for a moment is a Twisty MacPretzeliar.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #192887

Rhinehold,

My thoughts exactly when you dismissed Max’s comments with

I’ve done a lot of investigation into Kerry and O’Neil, you’re going to have to do better in your defense of Kerry than to try to say it was all a Republican dirty trick.

and then continue to say you’ve said nothing about John O’Neil.

Kerry has made it clear and the context of his speech has made it clear what the comment was about, but you choose to be obtuse. So be it. It says a lot about the value of your argument.

The game of feigning offense, is an old one and frankly beneath many of your other posts. You’ve set a new low.

Posted by: gergle at November 2, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #192900

To all you people who are defending Kerry’s remark, I know you must, in the dark of night when no one is watching, wonder WTF did we ever see in that man. And then the doubts have to set in about all your other beliefs.

Posted by: tomd at November 2, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #192906

“And then the doubts have to set in about all your other beliefs.”

Posted by: tomd at November 2, 2006 07:01 PM


My beliefs are fine, thanks. Personally, I’m wondering if some doubts are setting in about the beliefs of others:
Ted Haggard, one of the most prominent evangelical pastors in the nation, resigned today as president of the National Association of Evangelicals amid allegations that he carried on a three-year sexual relationship with a male prostitute.

LOL! In my opinion, we should no longer speak of the GOP as being merely “in the closet”, because instead, it’s starting to look like a huge, hypocrital, auditiorium.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #192916

Gergle,

I’m not sure why you’re being purposely obtuse. I never said I didn’t say anything about O’Neill, I said I didn’t say anything about him in my article. Which was the comment made, that ‘my points made in the article were all debunked by the link’.

I also wasn’t referring to the 2004 campaign at all in the comment you quoted, I was meant to say he was going to have to do a better job to defend Kerry about this quote gaffe than to suggest it was all a dirty trick.

Of course, according to you you should have recognized that right away and I shouldn’t have to apologize about it, right?

As for ‘being beneath me’, if you think I’m feigning anything I’m not sure why you just can’t come out and say what you think instead of trying to be cute. We could have worked out the issue several comments aqo and saved everyone the time and trouble.

And I will say that I have done research into O’Neill, he has been saying what he said about Kerry before getting donations from anyone, including Nixon, and has continued saying them when he was getting no money at all for them. That tells ME that he is sincere in that he thinks what he is saying is the truth. That doesn’t make it true but it does suggest that he was not a Republican ‘dirty trick’. And neither was being offended by an insulting comment by Mr Kerry. That he has apologized is good, had he done it in public it would have been better, had he done it sooner it would have been better still. So take from that what you will, I suppose.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 2, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #192958

Rhinehold:

I’m not being obtuse, I am only using your same argument technique against you. As to what I am being obtuse about, I have no idea. I think your argument is phony.

It is you who are being disingenuisly obtuse. You know very well what Kerry meant. You confessed your true reasons for the post:

You hate Kerry.


Then you repeat John O’Neil’s lie:

So, he wouldn’t call them stupid but calling them war criminals (both in the 70s and just last years) is ok then?

Since you’ve researched John O’Neil you’d know he had no political standing or celebrity until he was RECRUITED by Colson to counter Kerry and he has been a Republican back titty sucking sycophant ever since. He’s never been off the payroll.

In case your memory fails you again, I live in Houston, home of Baker, Botts and the Baker Institute. Some other right wing Republican law firm named Clements,O,Neil, Pierce sucks bucks from a guy named Bob Perry. You might know him……the creator of Swift boats

Oh yeah,

I never said I didn’t say anything about O’Neill,

My article never references the swiftboat guys or O’Neill,

Posted by: gergle at November 2, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #192997

Adrienne,

I love your posts. :’)

Posted by: jrb at November 3, 2006 1:46 AM
Comment #193028

Gergle,

Then you repeat John O’Neil’s lie:
So, he wouldn’t call them stupid but calling them war criminals (both in the 70s and just last years) is ok then?

You are trying to tell me that John Kerry’s own statements “War crimes in Vietnam are the rule, not the exception.” and “We were sent to Vietnam to kill Communism. But we found instead that we were killing women and children.” are just O’Neill lies?

Seriously, Gergle, your credibility is really being stretched here.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 3, 2006 9:12 AM
Comment #193029
It is you who are being disingenuisly obtuse. You know very well what Kerry meant. You confessed your true reasons for the post:

You hate Kerry.

Hmmm, I never said that I hated Kerry. I said I don’t like Kerry. This event is just another reason why I continue to dislike Kerry.

But my ‘true reasons for the post’ are detailed in the post, I thought his comment and more specifically his reaction to the backlash from the comment, were just another example of why he is no leader and why he lost in 2004.

Posted by: rhinehold at November 3, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #193060

Rhinehold,

Your continued waffling, parsing of words is great testament to your disingenous post. The very things of which you accuse Kerry.

Please attribute,in context please,your attributed quotes. I followed Kerry’s comments during his testimony to congress in the 70’s and during the 2004 campaign. Your “quotes” are complete mischaracterizations of his positions. You continue to use right wing twists of his statements as you have in this “issue”. The only position you have strengthened is the continued use of lies by a corrupt administration and Republican Party.

Since your hate and huge dislike seems to be based
on these mixcharacterizations, it is very telling of your motives.

Your denial of hate reminds me of the thief who insists he is just borrowing items. I hugely dislike when someone does that.I think the police do to.

Posted by: gergle at November 3, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #193062

Rhinehold,

I want to add this. I don’t hugely dislike you and usually find your posts insightful and diligently thought out. This post I don’t. I think it is purely partisan and poorly founded.

My only point was that this post was based on political hackery, which the world could use less of. It is a non-issue. I’m hopeful you will soon return to your usual standard of excellant posts.

Posted by: gergle at November 3, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #193101

jrb:
“Adrienne,

I love your posts. :’)”

Thank you sir (or madam?)! That’s nice to hear, and very kind of you to say.
However, I fear I’ve insulted Jack since he didn’t reply. :^/
I also noticed that I made two spelling errors in a row in my last post right next to each other, and now I’m overwhelmed by the need to correct:

“In my opinion, we should no longer speak of the GOP as being merely “in the closet”, because instead, it’s starting to look like a huge, hypocritical, auditorium.” :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at November 3, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #193121

Gergle,

My post has nothing to do with partisan anything. If anything I am trying to help the Democrats by pointing out what NOT to do if you want to be seen as a leader.

Kerry did say those things, he has been asked about them and does not deny saying or suggesting them. He admitted to himself committing war crimes when he said “Yes, we did participate in war crimes in Coastal Division 11 because as I said earlier, we took part in free fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, and search-and-destroy missions.”

You may consider this a ‘non-issue’ and in context of the 2006 campaign I would pretty much agree. But in context of what we want out of leaders and who will run for office in 2008 (as I stated, Kerry was thinking that he might do just that) this is a very important issue. For some of us who are tired of the candidates offered up by the Democrats and Republicans both, this is a very very serious issue.

John Kerry should sit down and shut up (which it looks like he has for now) and stop trying to be something he isn’t, a qualified leader of anything. Does this mean anything other than that? I don’t think so. I don’t and haven’t implied or suggested that all democrats are incompetent. In fact, I said in my article that if the Democrats really want to be taken seriously they need to keep people like Kerry out of positions of power or leadership, get people who are qualified and capable to represent their party.

That you dismiss this as being a ‘partisan non-issue’ is just an example of how many Democrats are willing to sacrifice their standing as a serious opposition to the Republicans by short-sighted attacks and defense and not recognize that those that hurt the party should be set aside and not be used to campaign for your current congress candidates.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 3, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #193134

Rhinehold,

Being that I am not a Democrat, I doubt this reflects at all on them.

You at least acknowledge that this is a non issue. It is too bad you blindly refuse to understand it’s genesis, a means to divert attention from real issues. As an apologist, by complicity with this tactic, you further the lack of discussion of real issues. Your cynical remark regarding leadership is a vain attempt at elevating the level to which you’ve sunk. It does not serve your argument.

Posted by: gergle at November 3, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #193138

Gergle,

It’s genesis was John Kerry trying to make a political point and sticking his foot in his mouth, making a statement that was, again, very insulting to many in the military and veterans alike. His refusal to accept that what he said could have been insulting, instead acting like a spoiled child, exposes to anyone who didn’t see before his complete inability to display any type of leadership qualities.

You can attempt to dismiss it as much as you like but to those of us it did offend you will just come off in the same vein. Dismissing people who have been offended as being not worthy of concern does little to endear them to you, something Kerry still doesn’t understand I’m afraid. He’s been doing this for decades and hasn’t learned anything yet by the looks of his response.

As for your attempt to label my legitimate and heartfelt concerns as ‘political hackery’ and accuse me of being a tool of the Republicans, you’re entitled to your opinion. It falls flat, since I know what I feel and believe, but we can let the other readers make their own mind up.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 3, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #193207

One question: Who made this an issue? Troops? or Political Hacks?

Where did you hear about this, Rhinehold?

Ok 4 questions.

You may be as ofended as you like, and I was born at night, but not last night. You are not a political neophyte. Pretending you are belies your claims of pious indignation.

Again, Rhinehold, I respect your intellect, but I am bothered by this posturing.

John Kerry never said troops were stupid. John Kerry never denigrated the troops in Vietnam . Republican hacks said that. You just repeated it.

Posted by: gergle at November 3, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #193211

Perhaps there is another explaination for this.The unwillingness to accept the incompetence of this party and administration.

I guess I can understand someone looking for a sacrificial goat in that circumstance.

The Neocons have chosen G.W.Bush.

Posted by: gergle at November 3, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #193229
Who made this an issue? Troops? or Political Hacks?

A little bit of both. I have seen quotes from several members of the military, relatives of veterans, vets I know and Republicans AND Democrats who were offended. Actually, it was Kerry who made it an issue by 1) saying it and 2) not apologizing immediately after he said it.

Where did you hear about this, Rhinehold?

Local News mentioned it as I was driving home from work, I got home and turned on CNN so I could see the clip of what Kerry said. I was shocked. I called my wife and told her word for word what he said and she couldn’t believe it. It was a few hours later that Kerry mentioned it was a joke but that we were too stupid to understand, etc. This was before Bush commented, Tony Snow was just starting to talk about it.

You may be as ofended as you like, and I was born at night, but not last night. You are not a political neophyte. Pretending you are belies your claims of pious indignation.

I’m not pretending to be anything. I’m quite simply stating my opinion and how I feel. If you think less of me because I was offended again by Kerry’s careless words, that’s not my problem.

John Kerry never said troops were stupid.

Yes, he did. He just didn’t MEAN to say it apparently.

John Kerry never denigrated the troops in Vietnam.

Yes, he did. I saw him do so, I read his quotes in magazines, I’ve provided them to you and you pretend they aren’t valid or don’t exist. Watch the video of Kerry’s debate, he clearly states that he committed war crimes and so did other soldiers. He stated that war crimes were the norm, not the exception. These are not made up quotes or statements by Republicans. Kerry has not denied saying any of them. It’s hard to do that when they are on video and anyone can watch it.

Heck, let’s take what he wrote at the time:

“I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown. We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply ‘doing its job.’”
Posted by: rhinehold at November 3, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #193275

Rhinehold-
The problem with your assessment of Kerry’s quotes and those of the others is your inability to take their word for what they saw and did.

Hidden among the other premise is the habitual claim that those things didn’t happen. I think you should reexamine that claim before alleging that the people recounting such things are liars.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #193307

Thank You, Stephen.

It always amazes me when supposedly intelligent people assume they can twist someone words to fit their agenda and then stand upon that quicksand to wave their flag of righteousness in the face of others, in some sort of triumphant revery.

Kerry never said the troops were stupid. “Yes he did”, says Rhinehold. Yet that is his twisted interpretation and not at all a quote. I presume I can say that Rhinehold believes all Bostonians or college kids are haters of the troops, since based on that same twisted logic, that is what HE said.

Your quotes simply support the idea that you either cannot read and interpret or choose to be offended irregardless of the meaning of words.

Posted by: gergle at November 4, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #193324

Stephen,

Kerry spoke on things he had no knowledge. By saying that war crimes were the norm, not the exception, he is asserting something that he had no real knowledge of, especially only being in Vietnam for a few months. He based this off of his limited experience in his area of operation, based on his version of what constitutes a war crime. Even if he was right, he was making the statement off of flawed logic, and the number of vietnam vets who are upset with his assertion are so great that it makes much more logical sense that he was not accurate with his assertions.

Couple that with the fact that when pressed to provide someone to back up his assertions at the time and he could not do so, it starts to look much more like he has just plain wrong. And in doing so insulted many Vietnam vets.

Gergle,

Yes, Kerry said that if you don’t work hard and get an education you end up in Iraq. You can try to twist that to mean any number of things if you like, but I know what that sounds like to me (and most people who heard the statement). That it is not what he MEANT to say is his assertion, but that doesn’t change what he said. It is not a ‘twisted’ interpretation, it’s pretty clear. Especially given Kerry’s other comments on an all volunteer army, it seems to fit in with what he thinks. The fact that the makeup of the armed forces is NOT as he asserted would happen shows that he was again wrong.

If he just screwed up the joke, which is plausable, his actions afterwards to lash out at anyone and everyone who was offended by his words displayed for all to see his lack of any sense of proportion or humility, his inability to lead and his contempt for anyone who disagrees with him.

You can continue to try to defend him, please continue of if you like, but it continues to fall flat trying to accuse me of being a hack and being politically motivated to the point of not getting what I am talking about and trying to assert that I am supporting people that I have not even used as evidence to back up my points.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #193409

Rhinehold,

I think I’ve made my point. You carry this argument to extremes, denying any partisan motivation, yet ignoring common sense and casting slyly indirect associations to support your argument while denying that you are using them.

This non issue only became an issue when the likes of Tony Snow made an issue of it. I doubt anyone but devout Kerry foes and supporters were even aware of this small speech prior to the professional spinners use of it to deflect the cacophony of Republican corruption and incompetence in the news.

That you twist, ignore and extrapolate, and then waffle to make your point is most telling.

Posted by: gergle at November 5, 2006 10:19 AM
Post a comment