<p>Are you saying you actually believe Kerry would be dissing the troops like that? C’mon, regardless of what you think about him, it’s just obvious that he respects the actual soldiers - he was a veteran himself! </p>
<p>Sure, he flubbed the line. He left out one little word which made all the difference. But to refuse to believe him when he explained that it was intended to mean BUSH IS STUPID AND GOT US INTO IRAQ is just a ‘stategery’ (ha, couldn’t resist) to criticize the Democrats for every little thing even though it’s obvious it’s not what was intended.</p>
<p>In other words, I have ZERO respect for the Repubs. who are having a field day with this. They are refusing to accept his apology and acknowledge that it was directed at BUSH.</p>
<p>Kerry was trying to be subtle. He didn’t want to come right out and call bush stupid, so he tried to say it in a clever joke. It backfired and didn’t sound right. OK, well how many times has bush screwed up his words??? Remember, regardless of which political party Kerry is on, he is a veteran. And, he despises bush. It’s obvious it was aimed at bush. Why would he be insulting himself by insulting soldiers?</p>
<p>FF - I’m relying on published stories describing the previous lines, and Unsoccer-mom’s report of what Pat Buchanan (no friend of Kerry’s) is reported to have said after seeing a tape of the entire speech. In fact, I find it interesting that in this era no recording - not audio, not video - of anything but the 14 seconds containing the line about Iraq seems to be available anywhere on the internet. Of course, the 14 seconds are ubiquitous.</p>
<p>As to “freudian slip” - I recognize that the more rational members of the right wing - and I do consider you to be in that category, FF - would eventually acknowledge the improbability of the claim that Kerry intentionally set out to say what the press is trumpeting that he meant. That you would resort to claiming that even if he didn’t mean to say it out loud he “really, really meant it down inside because that’s what he really thinks, by gum!” - ie, a freudian slip - probably shouldn’t come as a surprise. As I noted earlier, what came through, load and clear, in the “Thing’s I like about George Bush” thread I started a while back is that we’ve definitely entered a scorched-earth stage of politicization of society, where people are primed to believe only bad things about anyone on the “other team” and to be unable to back off from that sort of blanket condemnation. So even if a rational person has to conclude that Kerry didn’t actually mean to say what he’s being painted as having said, well, he would have said that because he must really mean it, because IhatehimIhatehimIhatehimIhatehim!!</p>
<p>Irregardless of how the words were SUPPOSED to be directed - the words were said - in or out of context - the words were said - and very publicaly. Kerry ADMITS to a botched joke - that one important word left out - (most likely due to toe stomping from TED) - but it still stands - the words were said and then reacted to. </p>
<p>Just like we tell our own kids - don’t say anything you don’t mean…cuz it can come back to bite you - well this sure did!!!</p>
<p>I got a good chuckle out of the headline of the article/interview from Heather’s dad… TED Kerry!!! LOL - talk about freudian!!! ROFL</p>
<p>kluge, perhaps I’m just having a bad day or perhaps your normally eloquent writing style has taken the day off, but I have read your second paragraph a few times and I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Do you mind taking a second attempt?</p>
<p>We tell our kids to be responsible and they will be held accountable for what they do and say - so this falls into that catagory also - Kerry needs to be held accountable for whatEVER he does and says - botched or not - when the words are said - and recorded for posterity - it is pretty hard to rewind and take them back - and there will be flack flying around him for a long time on this one I think. The accountability factor will be his lack of ability to run for higher office.</p>
<p>Okay, FF, second try: No matter how much contempt you may feel for Kerry, you realize that he wouldn’t intentionally express the sentiment that his words have been reported as meaning – even if only for the fact that it would be disadvantageous politically for Kerry. And you are probably able to realize that if Kerry had meant to say what he was interpreted as saying, he would have said “sent to” Iraq, not “stuck in” Iraq, which actually doesn’t make sense if you’re intent is to denigrate the intelligence of the troops instead of the politicians. So, like several others of the more rational right who post here on CC, after taking a deep breath you’re probably able to admit that Kerry didn’t set out to say that the troops are stupid - but you have to say something negative about him, right? I mean, he was a Democratic presidential candidate, and therefore, he must be contemptible in all ways. So you designate it to be a “freudian slip” - which is to say, a verbal mistake which reveals a person’s true inner feelings about the subject, even though he didn’t intend to voice those feelings out loud. </p>
<p>So, in sum: being rational you’re forced to conclude that Kerry didn’t intend to say that our soldiers in college are a bunch of dropouts, if only because that would be politically disadvantageous for him to do; but being politicized, you’re forced to find some way to make Kerry the bad guy anyway, so you ascribe the error to an unintentional disclosure of what you project to be Kerry’s true feelings; and therefore, he’s guilty anyway.</p>
<p>I think Kerry did take responsibility for his words when he apologized for his remarks, whether he made a botched joke (as I believe) or whether he truely has such low regard for the people in the military (as Bushies will have you believe). I come out on the side of Thomas Friedman’s op ed in today’s NYTimes (which, at least to me, seems to be along the lines of kluge’s remarks). </p>
<p>Maybe someone above already posted this, but in referring to Bush and Cheney, Friedman wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The above is true whether or not Kerry (who is not running for office) likes or dislikes the troops and whether he truely stated what he meant to say or whether he got something wrong. </p>
<p>I especially like Friedman’s analogy, as follows:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, FWIW, I did see the entire section of Kerry’s remarks the other night, I think on Hardball, after Chris Matthews admitted that after seeing it two or three times, it was clear to him that Kerry was referring to Bush – not the troops.</p>
<p>Kerry running again…ooooo he had left that door open for himself - but it has a pretty squeaky hing on that ole door - could slam shut at any time - me thinks it already has :D</p>
<p>so, jeepmm and driver, please explain to me what “support the troops” means, and do you think Bush supports them beyond saying, yeah troops?</p>
<p>whne you have troops having to pay for their own care when they lose a limb, when troops are coming back with brain damage, being blamed for bad reporting, when we are lied to about how they have been killed, you call that support</p>
<p>bash Kerry all you think you need to, does not take away that Bush and Rumsfled don’t support the troops, or vets</p>
<p>Thanks for the re-write. However, my position is not one of being politicized - given that his words are consistent with what he has been saying since the Vietnam war days, consistent with views of such people as Charlie Rangel (i.e., those who serve in the military are “victims” of either poverty or poor education), and consistent with the views of many of the liberals here on CC, I think it is quite a reach to assume that what he meant was that the only poorly educated, unstudied person that he was referring to was Bush.</p>
<p>Just saw a very funny Conan O’Brien clip at the end of the Fox 6 o’clock news. Conan’s doing that thing where he has the big screen up and he’s interviewing someone—it’s a big still picture, but the lips move when it talks–and it’s John Kerry, wanting to tell another joke so he can show that he doesn’t always botch them.<br>
Kerry:
<p>FF - do you have a quote for me that’s less than, say, three decades old, in which John Kerry has expressed the kind of opinions you ascribe to him?</p>
<p>And let me add, I have absolutely no opinion one way or the other on John Kerry. I’d have voted for a yellow dog against George Bush in the last election, and didn’t have to fall in love with the candidate to do it. Kerry might be a great guy, he might be a weasily conniver - all the same to me. I just analyze the situation from the point of view of what is reasonable to conclude from the known facts. But I think for you to believe that your opinion is unclouded by partisanship is a stretch. I said you were rational. I didn’t say you were reasonable. ;)</p>
<p>Sure, i think it was last yr when Kerry said that american soldier during the night break into iraqi homes and terrorize women and children, its not the exact quote but you can look it up, and it has the same meaning to what i said. Kerry just has the liberal intellectual mental state</p>
<p>"Just saw a very funny Conan O’Brien clip at the end of the Fox 6 o’clock news. Conan’s doing that thing where he has the big screen up and he’s interviewing someone—it’s a big still picture, but the lips move when it talks–and it’s John Kerry, wanting to tell another joke so he can show that he doesn’t always botch them.
Kerry:
Quote:
So, this guy walks into a bar, and says to the bartender “Gimme a Purple Nehi.” The bartender says “What’s a Purple Nehi?” And the guy says, “Our soldiers are idiots.”
No…no…no, wait that wasn’t it, I botched it! "</p>
<p>does this mean you get it? Is it more than just someone who shouldn’t tell jokes? You know he’d be president if he could learn to speak less. By the time he answers a question, usually we regret asking. He’s a dork. However, his dorkiness is still trumped by the guy in office… isn’t it? c’mon now.</p>
Is it more than just someone who shouldn’t tell jokes? You know he’d be president if he could learn to speak less. By the time he answers a question, usually we regret asking. He’s a dork. However, his dorkiness is still trumped by the guy in office… isn’t it?