White House Spokesman Slams Kerry Remark

Yeah, he's right. Kerry is right.

I remember the heavy recruiting from the armed forces in high school. They didn't go after the top students. They went after the bottom rung of students. They didn't even talk to me.

They military target high school students that just barely make it out of high school, or don't have money for college. The reason that is bad is because it isn't much of a choice for those people. It kind of "picks on" people who don't have many choices available to them.

And lets be honest- we've all seen those ads on TV. They praise how the army give you money for college, job opportunities, life long friends, a new found pride, etc etc. They never mention the part where you get pulled into foriegn countries to get shot at for trying to deliver medicine.

The truth? I know people who chose to go to the military over college. I also know people who go to college then go to the military... Yes, there are is a good number that go straight from high school but his generalization just doesn't cut it.

I guess I should prepare myself for extreme bashing from both sides as the elections come closer. Time to get out my "BS" headset that just filters through the crap.

Well, he's right only if a "partial truth" = "right". Which it doesn't.

Listen, this is not something he should be saying anyway. It's an insult.

But given that he does, it is not really accurate. I was 18/350 in my high school class, went to a top ranked university and served for four years in the military, being deployed three times to gulf, including the start of the Iraq conflict in 2003. As far as I recollect, a did just fine in school.

The fact of the matter is that the military appeals more to the under classes (the middle class and below) because it offers money and a way out of your lifestyle if you don't like it. It is only coorelated to education insofar as class is coorelated with education. This may be a high degree, and may not - I met a lot of dumb people in the military, but I met a lot of brilliant people as well.

This was not a fair statement, and certainly wasn't good political move.

There are countless military soldiers in Iraq right now who graduated from West Point and other Military Academies who CHOSE to go to Iraq and are serving multiple tours. They are not being stuck over there because they didn't study in school. There are countless other examples of High School graduates who were moved by 9/11 and sacrificed their college to serve. There are countless examples of college graduates, scientists, and engineers serving in Iraq. Anyone, including Kerry, who has this opinion of our soldiers in Iraq should be ashamed of themselves.

Those over there are making a difference for our future generations - those who died sacrificed for our future generations. They received the call to arms and served bravely. Anything to diminish their duty in Iraq is just plan embarrassing.

This should finally be the end to Kerry - his true self keeps coming through and it's hard to hide behind these words with an excuse about Bush...believing that is an easy scape goat.

In addition, the comments on this story in Newsvine demonstrates the ignorance of Americans and what they really know and understand about the military.

Great comments. Also, I'd like to point out that recruiters in high schools is nothing new and are not due to the Iraq conflict.

I'd like to put two cents in for the media's policy of ignoring how well the troops are being supported in policy terms. There's a group of vets who have ranked all the Members of Congress on their recorded votes supporting troops with benefits, health care, etc. Before we bite off on anyone's claims, let the money talk. My article talks a little about what the numbers show and the link straight to the IAVAACTION.org ranking database is here.

I know I am going to get flamed on this, but even though there are plenty of college grads, and people who decided to go to the military over college, there are far more people from rural and urban areas that chose the military as a way out. A way off of the farm, or out of the ghetto. Those people didn't have the opportunity to get a scholarship, or have mom and dad pay their way, so trying to better themselves they chose the military.

It is a fact, and you can't ignore it.

ThePef - you are correct and no reason to get flamed for speaking the truth. However, do you think it is fair to the thousands who are educated and chose the military and chose the battle in Iraq to have this said:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Is that showing appreciation for the MANY smart people in Iraq trying to make a difference for their country - or does it show disdain? How would you feel if you just got done utilizing 4 years of military history and strategy studies in Iraq to squash an uprising...you were feeling a sense of self accomplishment as many of us do with our work. Then you pick up the paper and read Kerry's remark? A remark from a U.S. Senator in the very country you are risking your life for - the very country you swore to protect and gave years at college and training to defend?

Do you see the problem here?

I'll ask this, if a person doesn't go to college, does that mean they are stupid?

There are a lot of people in American history that did not go to college or dropped out and went on to be extremely successful and very smart. I am sure that it would only take you a second to think of a couple of those people.

Lufberry, I agree the comment was definitely in bad taste.

michbed, unfortunately, college has nothing to do with intelligence. It is really a matter of opportunity, and those in our society with greater opportunity tend to go to college. That is a fundamental problem with our society, where privilege plays a big role in who goes where.

Like many have said before here already, Kerry's statement is true for some in the Miltary...but definitely a generalization that can easily be jumped upon by Republicans who want to show how "Democrats are against our troops."

It was a dumb statement and I think Kerry should try to do some damage control on this as soon as possible. And yeah...He shouldn't run again.

People take out loans and go to college to get out of their poor town, people join the forestry department to get out of their 'small poor town', people join the Peace Corps for the same reasons, people start their own companies for some of the same reasons, people go to work on deep sea oil rigs for the same reasons. The fact that some people join the military because to them it is a ticket out of where they are in no way validates Kerry's insulting statement. Sorry, you can spin it anyway you want, it was still wrong and insulting to the military.

You're completely missing the gist of this article though. Kerry was NOT aiming his comment at the military, but was making a jab at Bush.

Go back and read the article. You apparently missed paragraph four and several other pertinent parts. *sigh*

You're completely missing the gist of this article though. Kerry was NOT aiming his comment at the military, but was making a jab at Bush.

Go back and read the article. You apparently missed paragraph four and several other pertinent parts. *sigh*

Patti, *sigh*. I missed nothing in the article. Kerry is backpedalling hard. He is trying to remove the attention from himself and his thoughtless comment.

I will tell you that i do not think that he went out to intentionally insult the Military, I do however think that he accidentally let some of the true kerry come through. It is not the first time and it is likely not the last.

An exception to the rule? Or that it is just one of the circumstances that some are in and who Join because they can't afford College? I'm sure that is one of the reasons they join. In a wealthy family where money for college is not an issue, how many give that up to Join? Lets make it fair and have a draft. No that's not fair the rich like Cheney's family managed to get their son 5 deferments to keep him out of Vietnam, that was not fair. The poor will still get Drafted, more then the rich. But at least it's better now then when I was a kid out of High School, now you have more choices. Go to college so you can have a decent life, and if you can't afford school, You can get a good service oriented position in the food industry flipping burgers, or you can throw the dice, Join the service and hope you live long enough to cash in on the GI bill.

So now you have to be rich to go to college? When did that happen? I know it takes money to go to a university but I know guys/girls I went to college with who were definitely not rich. My family was by no means wealthy.

Most of my friends who joined the service straight out of high school did so as either a family tradition (there are a lot of these), a sense of pride, not wanting to go to college, or they wanted their college paid for.

Some people just want the structure that the military offers. Maybe they had a rough life and see the military as a way to correct it. Saying that the poor and stupid are who join the military is a rude and arrogant position to take.

How could Kerry be making a jab at the military when the military has no power in where it goes or what it does? That power lies solely with the Commander-in-Chief.

So, the only person 'stuck in Iraq' is Bush, as he is the person that ordered our troops to Iraq in the first place.

@Mitchbed

No, but historical perspective skews the arguement. You see, college is the new high school. You are as limited now if you don't go to college as you were 40 yrs ago if you didn't go to high school. So, if you didn't go to high school 4 yrs ago, did it mean you were stupid? No, but it did mean that you had MUCH fewer opportunities.

peterperez21,

I appreciate your argument that you have fewer opportunities if you don't go to college. My point is that people who don't go to college are not stupid. There are a lot of people that do not want to go to college. Not everyone does well in a classroom environment, but those people can go on to be master mechanics, chefs, builders, a soldier... a lot of things that can be learned by experience.

I have met quite a few people coming out of college that were not that impressive.

One more thing, I think education is important and should be valued and stressed. If I could have done things different...

mich, it is not a question of stupidity. It is a question of opportunity, or perceived direction to take advantage of an opportunity. Many use the military to take advantage of the GI bill, as a means to pay for college. So, in reality we have many people in the service that are destined for college, but have to be "stuck in Iraq" to get there.

Just noted on the CNN broadcast of the Fox affiliate KCPQ in Seattle (where Kerry is campaigning for Maria Cantwell), Kerry said that the White House did not understand his "bad joke".

Yikes.. now he's digging.

It wasn't. I was actually there when he said this, and it was made in the midst of some comments that he had made about Bush. Unfortunate choice of wording, but this was aimed at the Commander in Chief himself.

Yes, it sounded strange when he said it, but he did not intend it as a remark against the armed forces. A classmate of mine(a Marine Reservist scheduled for active duty come May - someone who is going to school and in the military, showing its not an either or proposition) was sitting behind him on stage and clapped - he got it. Too bad the White House did not.

It is not what you think it is. I do agree with bmvaughn above.

The right criticizes the left insessently for being unable to talk about anything because it is un-PC. Kerry is raising a point that many people think in their heads but are too afraid to say. Bill Cosby is criticized by many blacks and the left for pointing out the elephant in the room.

I'm not a fan of Kerry, so don't make that assumption.

There is a clear conflict of interest: the people who make the decisions about going to war are not the people who have to put their lives or the lives of their children on the line.

Kerry is raising a point that many people think in their heads but are too afraid to say.

Wow, I never thought I'd agree with you Vas, I need to go take a shower I feel dirty.

Kerry is raising a point that many people think in their heads but are too afraid to say.

Vas - you may be correct, but the "thinking" people have in their heads is incorrect. There are enough young people who choose the military as their career instead of a last resort option to make a statement such as Kerry's very incorrect and insensitive. I am the first to stand up for non-PC statements and wish we all spoke a little bit more of the truth. However, this example is not a good one. It is being VERY insensitive to the many who choose this vocation for their career for multiple reasons (Family tradition, likes science, patriotism, to fly, likes the strategy, etc.). There are absolutely exceptions - but there are businessmen who settled on being a computer engineer when they would rather have been studying ants in Brazil but failed zoology. Does this mean Kerry should say do well in school or else you might end up a computer geek?

It is so hard to defend this statement by Kerry, that I recommend people don't try. It was said because that is how he feels about the military. He appears to have always had a bad taste in his mouth about the military for some reason and the truth sometimes slips out.

Full disclosure. I was never a Kerry fan. I looked at the three purple hearts he got in six months with no injuries in order to get a ticket home and lost all respect for him. Nothing to do with the swift boat fiasco...hard to know the truth there as it's all here-say. However, the fact is he got three purple hearts in six months...it takes three to get an honorable discharge. Anyone wishing to stay in the military would have shook off a scratch or whatever it was he was injured for (he doesn't say and won't release the records).

Lufbery, do a google search. Kerry signed the release quite some time ago.

I'd like to see the full extent of Bush's military records... oh, but they've been destroyed, how convenient.

Again, I agree Kerry's chose his words poorly. But people should be given more slack -- unless there is a history of statements that indicate something deeper. This was nothing like George Allen's "Macaca" slur. Does Kerry have a history of demeaning or disrespecting our troops?

As to the wrong thinking: What do you mean by "enough"? I agree that many people choose to serve regardless of their socio-economic standing or whether they have other opportunities that are both safer or financially lucrative, and do so out of patriotism or simply a love of the military life. I highly respect those who do so out of patriotism. But that does not discredit the notion that a disproportionate number of soldiers are soldiers because they need the money and the military needs them to avoid necessitating a draft (I'm pro-universal draft, men and women, by the way).

You're statement about computer geeks: I'm a software developer. And frankly, there are a lot of developers who have their job because of the scarcity of good software engineers and the Internet boom. They write crappy code. They have the job and make big bucks because of supply and demand, not because they are that smart. How's that for an un-PC statement?

It is so hard to defend this statement by Kerry, that I recommend people don't try.

Fair enough, if you also agree that there isn't much merit to attacking it.

The most important thing to me is the conflict of interest issue I raise above. I think this is something that the country should really address head on. Are we willing to?

Does Kerry have a history of demeaning or disrespecting our troops?

You opened the door....

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation.

-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971

Aine MacDermot - Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize he released the records. My opinion still holds on the three purple hearts and the "scratch" he received for the first one (according to his commanding officer the wound resembled a scratch...). Regardless, I apologize for making the erroneous comment above that he "did not" release the records. Since there wasn't any new information in them - I think it would have behoved him to have released them during the campaign and eliminate a lot of the speculation.

Vas - You asked if Kerry has a history? I'll add this beauty to bmvaughns above:

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...

If you accuse someone of terrorizing are you calling them terrorist? That might be a stretch, but I think we have a history of Kerry demeaning the military effort in our wars.

bmvaughn, it's a matter of opinion, worthy of a separate debate elsewhere, whether you believe war, especially one that may have been immoral in its underpinnings, brings out the "worse devils of our nature".

Yes, some of Kerry's statements are hard to believe. And that they were said by someone like Kerry, with such an obviously politically-driven nature, doesn't help. But how many people believed the many accusations against Catholic priests years ago? I'm sure most people wrote the off as ridiculous, and assumed the accusers to have some evil motivation. Now that we know the facts, how many are willing to say these people were speaking disrespectfully or demeaningly of the priesthood?

Lufbery,

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...

I see nothing demeaning about the troops in this statement, as we all know they would be acting on orders. Is it accusing the United States of acting like terrorists? Yes. That's exactly why many Americans, myself included, are against the war. That is why America has lost much respect in the world in the last 6 years. We have damaged our own moral credibility immensely. I am not accusing Americans who supported the war as being immoral or being terrorists, but the aggregate behavior of America is terrorist-like. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." We can admit our mistake and begin to redeem ourselves.

There is a clear conflict of interest: the people who make the decisions about going to war are not the people who have to put their lives or the lives of their children on the line.

I still fully believe that if you vote to go to war with a country, your eldest child is not only enlisted in the military but is one of the first to go into hostile territory on the ground. Now granted this won't work in every instance (I think Bush wouldn't mind seeing his daughters go away when they hurt him politically, same for Cheney who is embarassed that his daughter is a lesbian), but this sort of mentality would certainly help make people a little more hesitant to enter into frivolous wars like the one we are currently in.

Aine - "Lufbery, do a google search. Kerry signed the release quite some time ago."

More than a hundred pages are missing from this "release". Kerry's records have not been released. Don't be fooled, and read the Swiftboat book. It reads as highly credible.

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=8109

You should read a NON-partisan site regarding the Swift Boat group. Their credibility was thrown out a long time ago.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

I think the point of it is that he allowed his true feelings to come through. Do we really want a man with that kind of an opinion of our military in a position of power? I know I don't.

He must have meant it as a slam on the educationally-challenged President

Didn't Bush go to the same college as Kerry? Oh yeah, he did. And then went on to get an MBA from Harvard. Bush is the only president to hold an MBA. So Bush has more degrees than Kerry but he is "educationally-challenged."

If he's so smart, how come he can't pronounce NU-CLE-AR properly?

Bush smart? Oh My... Let me quote Forrest Gump on this one:

"Stupid is as stupid does"

Can you name 1 thing - just 1 - that Bush has said or done that would be considered smart.?

To attack Kerry's patriotism or his support for the miliatry is horrific and simply mis placed. Can you name 1 member of the Bush's team that served in the military? Cheney? Rumsfield? Bush? Snow? Rice? How sad that one cannot decipher the difference between the support of a President and patriotism. How Un-American.

Again, switch the focus. Don't argue the point that your statement is in error, or that your random pot shots at the president are mean spirited. Refuse to accept the obvious, that being you are wrong, and continue to emulate Kerry.

Can you name 1 thing - just 1 - that Bush has said or done that would be considered smart.?

Three Things he did (not to be considered the only three, but just three):Banned Partial Birth Abortion Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history
Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people.

Three things he said:em>strong>

Why do you put everything in bold? Bodhi1, are your opinions somehow more important than everyone else's?

Loudness makes right no more than might makes right. From your above statements, you don't seem to get either of these points.

Noting the em>strong>, I doubt the intent was to make it all bold/italic.

That said, I love the quote:

Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.

Reminds me of Reagan for some reason.

Keep in mind Reagan had some silly quotes and some amazing quotes. In the same vain, I hope this becomes the equivalent of Reagan's "tear down this wall".

Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.

Good quote... if you take it in the vain of people wanting to be free.

Bad quote... if you take it in the vain of one country interfering with another.

Something we can all agree on, I hope.

vas
you are a queer one. does "bold" hurt you? i am holding my caps just in case they hurt you too. "bold" helps me scan... in order to determine what i really want to read. i don't have a problem with "bold"... or colors in print. they do not hurt me, like say, a knock on the head.

it was easy for me to scan the boldly written bodhi1 comment and determine he was full of crap...

the bigger question is why? why does "bold" hurt you? can you read a newspaper? jesus... that must hurt -- BIG TIME.

I stand corrected. Apologies to you, Bodhi1.

Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.

The reverse of this is also true: Everywhere that tyranny stirs, let freedom fear.

Unfortunately, there are many in the world, not just in the Middle East, and not just outside of America, that feel that the US is behaving like a tyrant with respect to Iraq.

JRO, if you feel so confident about this, why don't you create an article that points to your above comment and poll other Newsviners of their opinion?

To clarify, my original criticism was because I though Bodhi1 intentionally used bold for his entire post. If you don't see anything wrong with that JRO, then see my previous comment.

Um, I am sorry, I think you are correct in that he was playing to what he thought the crowd wanted to hear, but insulting the military is a very strange way to get in a 'zinger' on Bush. I just don't see it.

you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

So, you are speculating that Kerry was saying that Bush isn't smart and didn't study hard and got stuck in Iraq? He graduated from Yale and believe me, your Dad can't help you do that. I am not here to defend Bush and his intelligence or lack of intelligence - but I have to say this a stretch for Kerry to say. For one thing - Bush didn't get stuck in Iraq, he got the highest position of office in America. How could Kerry use Bush as an example if the result was he accomplished the highest office in America - something Kerry hasn't accomplished? Wow, I think you are drinking the cool aid.

You missed my point completely. I don't believe he was insulting the military. He was insulting Bush for being stupid and getting "stuck" in Iraq.

daweb,

Um, I am sorry, I think you are correct in that he was playing to what he thought the crowd wanted to hear, but insulting the military is a very strange way to get in a 'zinger' on Bush. I just don't see it.

I agree with you, except that I'd add "inadvertently" in front of "insulting".

He got our country stuck in Iraq and has no plan to get us out. President or not, it's a pretty big flop up.

That was EXACTLY what it was, a zinger aimed at Bush.

I'd really like to know how everyone READING this article is entirely missing the 4th paragraph:

He said he had been criticizing Bush, not the "heroes serving in Iraq," and said the president and his administration are the ones who owe U.S. troops an apology because they "misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it."

Also the fact that his little zinger was prefaced with another zinger:

[Kerry] opened his speech at Pasadena City College with several one-liners, joking at one point that Bush had lived in Texas but now "lives in a state of denial."

I think people are just looking for excuses to bash Democrats and/or Kerry.

I'd really like to know how everyone READING this article is entirely missing the 4th paragraph:

He said he had been criticizing Bush, not the "heroes serving in Iraq," and said the president and his administration are the ones who owe U.S. troops an apology because they "misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it."

I didn't miss that paragraph, I expected that when called on this he would attempt to turn it around and point it at Bush. The problem is that what he said takes a ton of spinning, turning, slicing, and mangling in order to actually make it point at Bush. It was clearly an attempt to make the audience feel superiour because 'lucky them, they were here listening to him and not over in Iraq' and in doing so it was an insult to those that are serving our country!

At the beginning of his speech he made several 'jokes', one of which was directly aimed at Bush, as I pointed out in my post above. When taken in context, the questionable quote that everyone is 'debating' about was also clearly directed at Bush.

After all, the military, by its very nature, is only following orders. Therefore, the one responsible for the military being stuck in Iraq is the person(s) who sent them there without reason or a means of withdrawal. The only person(s) who should, or could, take offense from that statement is Bush and his henchman.

Just as Abu Ghraib was entirely the fault of Bush and Rumsfeld. Of course, it does not appear that either of them will ever be taken to task for their crimes against humanity. But, alas, I digress.

Patti, I understand that you don't want to think that Kerry said something so stupid, but the fact is that he did. Your posts here make me think of you as an apologist for Kerry and I think you are better then that. Please, no matter how many times you say it the statement just doesnt apply to Bush but to the military. I don't think he was intentionally insultign them but insult them he did..

We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

I am certainly not a Kerry apologist. I was never particularly impressed with the man.

That was EXACTLY what it was, a zinger aimed at Bush.

I'd really like to know how everyone READING this article is entirely missing the 4th paragraph:

He said he had been criticizing Bush, not the "heroes serving in Iraq," and said the president and his administration are the ones who owe U.S. troops an apology because they "misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it."

When I first heard it, I thought he was insulting the military. i've read several articles and now I think he is insulting the military. Bush is not stuck in Iraq. There are service members you may believe are stuck in Iraq, but Bush is not. This is the typical liberal opinion of the volunteer military being too stupid to do anything else. But now he finds himself with a little heat and tries to deflect it to Bush rather than say: "Oh, that's not how I meant it. Sorry if I offended anyone. What I meant was..."

That would have squashed the whole thing. But Kerry refuses to apologize, so here we are.

I state that you appear to be based soley on the fact that in this article it seems to be all you have done. I mean seriously, you repeated the same argument over and over. The worst part is the fact that the argument is already expressed in the article.

I am sure that if you think stop and think you will agree that regardless of how he meant it once he had said it and got called on it, there is no real surprise that he has tried to redirect his criticism toward Bush. It just doesnt jive with what he was saying. I think he would have been better off saying the truth, that he was playing to the audience. Just my opinion tho.

Damn, now I am repeating myself over and over...

daweb, you've done an admirable job of making your case without calling people idiots or crazy or otherwise insulting them, as others have done here.

There are clearly many people that are angry about Kerry's words effectively insulting the troops. The irony is that if that anger results in their insulting others who don't agree with their interpretation, they end up looking a lot like Kerry.

It sounded to me like he was making a zinger at Bush, not insulting the intelligence of those serving in the armed forces. It's not "if you're dumb you have to join the military and go to Iraq" but "Bush is dumb and even though his daddy bought him a ticket to Yale and Harvard, he was still so dumb that he got our country and our armed forces mired in a fiasco in Iraq." Is that how anybody else sees it?

Jace --hurray, hurray, hurray!

vas -- man, you are tireless

you're wrong about that. I'm really tired right now.

Vas, Thank you. We can disagree without screaming at each other. I know it, I sometimes remember it and I do wish others realized it more often. :-)

Noted.

Wha...? What did I miss?

Oh well, back to razing liberals. XD

Sorry, but did you actually read the article? Kerry clearly stated he DID NOT aim the comment at the military, but solely at BUSH. Also, when the comment is taken in context, it is also abundantly clear that the comment was indeed aimed at Bush.

Lantzer, give me a break. Democrat arrogance, elitism? Kerry and Murtha among other Democrats have spent more time in the military serving their time than the Bush look at me I am wearing a flight suit wannabees. You should hate what Bush has done with his service record. The armed forces are nothing more than toy soldiers on a map of the world to Bush, Cheney, et all. They could care less about their lives.

I agree, it definitetly shows this democrat's(Kerry) elitist attitude and arrogance.

John Kerry has lost his mind! He owes every single soldier in the Armed Forces a sincere apology!!! This kind of behavior from a U.S. Senator is completely unacceptable. This is a shining example of Democrat arrogance, elitism and condescension.

I think you owe people who actually read articles an apology. You completely missed the whole point.

The hell he does.. he's a veteran and so am I. He has every right to criticize the military, the civilian leadership of the military, and the war. Becoming a US Senator doesn't mean you have to tow the line and shut up when you see things that are being done badly. If anything it's a shining example of someone having the courage to speak rather than cower.

Yea, Kerry should shut up and go away.

Lantzer, daweb, Sam Relytnire, and all other Nutballs

I don't buy it.

I reject the notion that there are members of this forum that honestly believe a war hero veteran like John Kerry thinks our troops stuck in Iraq are stupid losers unfit for college.

To think that of John Kerry is absolutely absurd.

It's absurd to believe that anyone in the White House honestly believe the same. The same goes for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

So... Who believes the absurd? Who would believe John Kerry thinks the troops in Iraq are stupid? Answer: STUPID PEOPLE

The GOP, the White House and Hate Radio are playing to the conservative base -- STUPID PEOPLE. Let's face it... this has always been their winning strategy. Lie about something to the point of absurdity and stuff it into the heads of zombie STUPID PEOPLE.

I might have given Sean Hannity too much credit... I can't think of anyone more stupid. So, here at Newsvine... why are you clowns trying to sell absurdity? Is this a Freeper thing?

JRO, you would us liberals a favor by arguing on behalf of conservatives.

Lantzer, daweb, Sam Relytnire, and all other Nutballs, would you mind taking him/her under your wing?

;)

vas,
I'm sorry vas. What did I write that did not meet with your approval? Let me know and I'll be more careful next time. I thought I my analysis of the issue was dead on. Where did I go wrong vas?

I hope you're not still dwelling over that BOLD thing...

You've just been very rude and insulting. We bemoan the state of politics in this country, but fail to realize that our political leaders are a reflection of ourselves.

Who would believe John Kerry thinks the troops in Iraq are stupid? Answer: STUPID PEOPLE

Do you actually know what Kerry was thinking? I don't. It's no more outlandish a thought than the idea that "Bush doesn't care about our troops". I personally don't like Kerry or Bush. Both are motivated by political gain. I believe there is some truth to the statement about Bush -- in the sense that I think Bush gives relatively low priority to troop well-being compared to other goals of his, not in the sense that Bush couldn't care less. I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry had an elitist attitude and, though I know he was making a jab at Bush, the jab he chose to make may have revealed something else about his thinking.

Not only did I read the article, but I listened to the audio of every despicable word that rolled off John Kerry's elitist lips. He insulted the troops and every military service member, whether he intended to or not. Perception is reality, especially in politics and the drive-by-media. Just because John Kerry served in Vietnam does not give him the right to speak for every veteran and military person. The Democrats are in damage control mode and have yanked the despicable Senator off the campaign trail and sent him to the "woodshed." At this point, Americans should call for John Kerry to resign!!!

Lantzer,

He insulted the troops and every military service member, whether he intended to or not.

Sure, Kerry had a 'Bush moment" and said something that didn't make sense. His spoken words were so blundered and confusing we all can interpreted them many different ways. The villain is trying to interpretation nonsense.

Lantzer... do you really think John Kerry meant to insult American troops? You, Lantzer, are selling the idea that Kerry intentionally insulted the troops. Do you believe that?

JRO, actually what he said made sense. they may or may not have been what he meant to say, but they did make sense. My concern is that this is not the first time he has mad a stupid commenting insulting the military and I suspect it shows and underlying feeling of his.

daweb, One thing I have to say about Kerry is that he is a train wreck waiting to happen. I honestly believe he means well, but in this day and age of the sound bite, he is his own victim.

daweb, One thing I have to say about Kerry is that he is a train wreck waiting to happen. I honestly believe he means well, but in this day and age of the sound bite, he is his own victim.

Like I said, I don't think he meant it to insult the troops, but I think it does perhaps show how he thinks. and yes, he is his own worst enemy. LOL

vas,

You've just been very rude and insulting. We bemoan the state of politics in this country, but fail to realize that our political leaders are a reflection of ourselves.

vas... I'm sorry you are so sensitive.

People that can be duped into thinking John Kerry intentionally insulted the troops are given to unintelligent decision. That is clear.

Do you actually know what Kerry was thinking? I don't.

Nor do I. That is my point... What Kerry said made absolutely no sense and to twist and spin his nonsense into a statement insulting the troops is absurd. Feeding that false idea into the heads of people given to unintelligent decision is evil.

The GOP, the President, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity should all apologize to the GOP base, whom are given to unintelligent decision, for inflicting this evil upon them.

Incidentally, all the liberal talking heads on the radio down here in south florida are calling Kerry stupid to make such statements because it does demean our people in uniform.

It doesn't demean anyone. We all know the military is not the best and brightest of our nation. The vast majority of our best and brighest avoid the military at all costs- just look the sons of politicians.

Lets all stop being a bunch whiners whenever any criticizm is given to the military and remember our duty as Americans. We criticize to make it better. I would prefer a Military that had standards as high as some of the best universities- they don't. They target people who don't have a lot of choices. That doesn't mean that is all that they get, but that is who they target (recruiters, ads, commercials).

We need politicians who can give straight speak, but people like the people in this thread beat it out of them by being overly sensitive to absolutely everything. And then you know what you get? You get wishy washy, say nothing douchebags like John Kerry was in the last election.

You people are part of the problem.

t doesn't demean anyone. We all know the military is not the best and brightest of our nation. The vast majority of our best and brighest avoid the military at all costs- just look the sons of politicians.

Are you serious? Have you spoken to any military personnel about their feelings on this? I work shoulder to shoulder with these guys, active and retired and believe me there are many people who feel Kerry's statements were demeaning. Also, the retired, active duty, and reservists I work with who code applications, administer large Oracle databases, and provide support to dozens of bases globally are pretty close to the "best and brightest" I have worked with.

Kerry had a "D" average in collage, why don't you refer to him as stupid! His SAT scores were lower than Bush's and you all call Bush stupid!

So your point is that all of those who fought in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam (including Kerry), the first war in Iraq and this war in Iraq are not making any effort to be smart & are lazy?

That's pathetic and you know it!

a draft-dodging playboy president who used his father's position and influence to secure himself a spot several thousand miles this side of enemy lines.

Get over it, did you vote for Clinton? if there was ever a case to call someone a draft dodger it was him! Bush served in the National Guard and you call that Draft dodging, are there not National Guard troops serving in Iraq as we speak?

And if you are saying that Military service should be a pre-requisite for serving as Commander in Chief, let's do it! That means that the pool of Republicans would be much larger than that of Dems since 70% of those who serve voted for Bush in this last election and I certainly do not see that changing anytime soon given your LOW opinion of them!

My... you've got a bit of a problem with the english language, there, don't you son? Let's see... where to start? First: Kerry had a "D" average in collage, why don't you refer to him as stupid! Did you mean "college", or did you mean "tearing up little pieces of paper and gluing them to a surface to make a picture"? I'm not sure that a "D" in the latter would indicate "stupidity." Also, maybe a bit of support for your contention (for either meaning) might bolster your argument. Never mind, allow me. I note that Kerry was actually a "C" average student, just like Bush. I also note that his grades got better throughout his courses, and "he went on to be a top student at Naval Candidate School, command a patrol boat in Vietnam, graduate from law school, and become a prosecutor, lieutenant governor, US senator..."

His SAT scores were lower than Bush's and you all call Bush stupid! I couldn't find any sites that corroborated this except through unsupported assertion, but I note with interest that the purported difference is less than twenty points. Also, the "estimates" of the two gentlemen's IQ, which are purportedly based on their military test scores, are virtually identical as well.

So, strictly speaking, neither of them is brilliant and neither of them is stupid (from the perspective of an IQ test). Here's the difference-- Kerry worked hard and was successful, Bush didn't work hard, but road on his father's coattails. Kerry served in Vietnam, Bush (using his father's influence) served in Texas. Kerry has realized for quite some time that the lack of benchmarks for a withdrawal from Iraq has hurt our ability to succeed there, Bush is only now coming to realize it, and still can't quite nail down the concept in terms of actual necessary milestones.

So I stick by what I said: Bush hasn't worked hard, hasn't made an "effort to be smart" and HAS gotten "stuck in Iraq." Note that this isn't quite the same as "calling Bush stupid." More along the lines of misguidedly thinking that the perqs of privilege that allowed him to get as far as he did before the Presidency would carry him through the trials of one of the toughest jobs on the face of the earth. Sadly for us, they haven't.

So your point is that all of those who fought in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam (including Kerry), the first war in Iraq and this war in Iraq are not making any effort to be smart & are lazy? I think my point was eminently clear, but if you need spoonfed, I'll try to boil it down for you: I believe that Kerry was taking a shot at Bush for not avoiding an unnecessary war in Iraq. I also happen to believe that anyone who fails to see that is either incredibly thin-skinned, or desperately looking for a reason to try to tar a prominent Democrat as "not supporting the troops!"-- ironically, since the Democrat in question knows more about being one of the troops than nearly anyone on this forum. Which type of person are you?

And did I make that clear enough for you, or should I try to use words with fewer syllables?

That's pathetic and you know it! If you're speaking of your straw-man argument, then yes, I concur. It's pathetic.

Get over it, did you vote for Clinton? Actually, I voted for Harry Browne. But Bush has certainly convinced me of the wisdom of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Bush served in the National Guard and you call that Draft dodging, are there not National Guard troops serving in Iraq as we speak? I see. I've mentioned it once, but will repost it in the form of a question: Exactly how much time did Bush serve in Vietnam? For that matter, how many of his guard unit went there? Any? None?

And if you are saying that Military service should be a pre-requisite for serving as Commander in Chief, let's do it! Did I say that? Mind pointing out where? I think what I've said in the past is that Bush is awfully free and easy about committing american troops to die in combat for someone who never risked more than a hangnail in the military. When the CiC fixes the evidence around the policy to arrive at a pretext for an ill-considered war, it's not only profoundly unethical, but likely unconstitutional, stupid, and... dare I say it? Treasonous.

Face it, Brian-- if there were a Democrat in the Whitehouse who got us involved in Iraq, you'd be beating your breast and talking about the perfidy of liberals who caused american soldiers to die for no reason. I don't give a @!$%# about one party or the other-- I do care about the fact that our government's actions have isolated us among the world, decreased our safety abroad, bloated our deficit, and done likely irreparable damage to our Constitution. Kerry jabs Bush with getting stuck in Iraq, when there is so much more to despise the man for; but you're too busy with your virtual boot-licking to pay any attention to it.

I certainly do not see that changing anytime soon given your LOW opinion of them! I posit that you don't have the slightest idea what my opinion is of "the troops"-- you can't even get straight what my opinion is of Kerry's comments.

wow!

well written, will watch you from now on.

the slightest idea what my opinion is of "the troops"-- you can't even get straight what my opinion is of Kerry's comments.

Alright, let's assume Kerry meant to say that Bush didn't work hard, try to get smart and got us stuck in Iraq! Would that not include Kerry as well after all, he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq? If he was so smart and Bush is so stupid, where was this intelligence of Kerry's before the war?

First of all, you note above that Kerry and Bush were the same in college (notice that I spelled that correctly this time, you got me the first time around!), sow how does it make sense to say that Kerry worked hard and tried to get smart but Bush did not, after all, Bush got a Bachelors and Masters degree from 2 different Ivy League colleges.

Second of all, What do you think is worse:

Someone who sent us in there for what he believes is the right reasons like Bush or someone like Kerry who claims to have done his homework, tried to be smart and as a result knew this was all going to be such a bad and terrible thing but still went on to authorize the use of force in Iraq?

I do not know about you but if that were my view before the war I certainly would not have voted to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam!

Could you explain one more thing to me, you keep saying were stuck in Iraq, were not stuck in Iraq, we can leave whenever the .... we want to, we are still there because we want to help their new Democratically elected Government succeed (after all, that was PART of why we went in there in the first place, notice that I said PART!). If Bush was as evil as the left implies, a man who does not really want a successfully democratic and free Iraq to succeed, why would he not just destroy the entire country and be done with it? after all, you know that we could easily accomplish that in a matter of 2 or 3 days!

Here's a recent example of just how smart Kerry is, below in an interview with Imus 2 days ago, he criticizes Rumsfeld for not sending enough troops in then turns right around and criticizes McCain for wanting to send more troops in!

Talk about confused.

Kerry: These guys have failed America. The people who owe an apology are people like Donald Rumsfeld, who didn't send enough troops, who didn't listen to the generals, who has made every mistake in the book. . . .

Imus: . . . Senator John McCain, he seems to think--he seems to agree with the Bush administration about your comments. And you know him, obviously, better than I do, but I know him pretty well. And he probably knows what you meant, too.

Kerry: I'm sorry that John McCain has said what he said. John McCain's been a friend for a long time. But I have to tell you, I think John McCain is wrong about this.

John McCain has been a cheerleader for a policy that is incorrect. John McCain says we ought to send another 100,000 troops over there. First of all, we don't have another 100,000 troops. Secondly, if you send them over there, it's going to do exactly what's already happened, which is attract more terrorists and more jihadists. Our own generals are telling us that it's the numbers of troops that are the problem.

So the administration didn't send enough troops and it sent too many troops? If only we had such a decisive, principled leader as president!

Alright, let's assume Kerry meant to say that Bush didn't work hard, try to get smart and got us stuck in Iraq! Would that not include Kerry as well after all, he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq? Congress made its decision based on the intelligence that Bush provided. We now know that Bush "cooked the books" to misrepresent the danger posed. I believe that if Congress had had all the information, it might have made a quite different decision. Furthermore, I believe that the Bush administration was quite well aware of this, which is WHY they cooked the books.

how does it make sense to say that Kerry worked hard and tried to get smart but Bush did not Kerry certainly had a better estimate of what the war was going to cost than what was presented by Bush during their debates. He also listened to the generals and the folks on the ground who said they needed way more manpower. Sadly, this could only have come AFTER Bush involved us in the war, and it became apparent how poorly planned the occupation and rebuilding was. Notably, however, bush did and continues to refuse to set firm milestones or provide a clear picture of what exactlyt the mission in Iraq is (such that about 40% of the soldiers over their report being confused as to what they're actually supposed to be accomplishing.)

were not stuck in Iraq, we can leave whenever the .... we want to, we are still there because we want to help their new Democratically elected Government succeed About 80% of the Iraqis want us to leave. If we're so interested in the will of the Iraqi people, why would we stay? This is nation-building of the sort that Bush promised in 2000 that he would not do, yet here we are, trying to instill a democratic form of government in a country whose culture has little prepared the people for it, whose infrastructure does not support it, and whose people are only interested in using it to divide the country into ethnic regions that will largely be countries in their own right. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I'd like to see Bush present something convincing other than intentions for Iraq. Where's his plan? What are the steps? How long will they take? Will we be repaid for the hundreds of billions of dollars which we are spending to "give" the Iraqis democracy? You're so worried about whether being there is noble that you've forgotten to ask whether it's feasible or smart.

why would he not just destroy the entire country and be done with it? He didn't?

we could easily accomplish that in a matter of 2 or 3 days! At what cost in world opinion? How would the muslim world react if we simply nuked every insurgent stronghold, without regard to civilians?

It's certainly not the black-or-white picture you paint it to be.

And I don't think Bush is intentionally "Evil", there's a much more banal yet disturbing possibility than that.

he criticizes Rumsfeld for not sending enough troops in then turns right around and criticizes McCain for wanting to send more troops in! You want to reinstitute the draft in order to "give" the Iraqis democracy? As Kerry noted (although you must have missed it) "we don't have another 100,000 troops." And I agree with him, the window of opportunity where the additional 100,000 troops could have done much good is long past. They should have been there at the start, in order to help secure the stockpiles of arms that the insurgents took and are now using against us. Is that too nuanced for you? Try baking a cake some time, and see how much it helps to add the eggs to the batter only after the cake has been in the oven for a couple of hours. Get the analogy?

If only we had such a decisive, principled leader as president! Oh, but we do!!

Congress made its decision based on the intelligence that Bush provided. We now know that Bush "cooked the books" to misrepresent the danger posed. I believe that if Congress had had all the information, it might have made a quite different decision. Furthermore, I believe that the Bush administration was quite well aware of this, which is WHY they cooked the books.

All of what info.? Care to show us the info. that they did not get?

All or most of the intelligence that was used was collected before the Bush admin came into office and was widely used by Kerry and Clinton and a lot of other Dems and the UN when Bush was in Texas. Did they "cook the books" and "misrepresent the danger posed? Here's some for you:

Source

Lets start with Clinton:

America is threatened by an "unholy axis":

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton State of the Union address January 27, 1998

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html

http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 105th Congress, 2nd Session September 29, 1998 http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

The only difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush did it!

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University February 18, 1998 http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others October 9, 1998 http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq December 16, 1998 http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

Here's Hans Blix, who does not work for the Bush Admin:

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector Addressing the UN Security Council January 27, 2003 http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6 http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix

Senator Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia) Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002 http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

Notice that in Mr Rockefeller's comment he was referring to the President's claim that Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans as reason enough to vote to give Bush the authorization to use force!

I won/t bother going out there and trading quotes with you, although we both know that I can find numerous categorical statements about the Bush administration "knowing" all about Saddam's WMD, where they were, how many there were, and what they were intended for. And voila! One invasion later, it turns out there weren't any, and the whole "we know" act was bull@!$%#.

I'll just stick to the things YOU quoted, because it's quite evident that folks such as yourself don't bother to read these things. You just find something some conservative talking head printed or said, and then regurgitate that as though it were an original thought, hoping that no one will notice. But sadly, it only makes you look as though you're either an idiot or cherry-picking your data; something we've all become familiar with today, thanks to Bush, et al.

Let's start with Clinton! (and allow me to note a few things before I do: your cherry-picked quote come 2/3 into a 96 paragraph speech, and is from a section that is all of five paragraphs long. It amazes me that you missed what he said in addition to what you quoted)

I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (Applause.) And when I say to him: You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (Applause.) Last year, the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention to protect our soldiers and citizens from poison gas. Now we must act to prevent the use of disease as a weapon of war and terror, The Biological Weapons Convention has been in effect for 23 years now. The rules are good, but the enforcement is weak. We must strengthen it with a new international inspection system to detect and deter cheating. In the months ahead, I will pursue our security strategy with old allies in Asia and Europe, and new partners from Africa to India and Pakistan, from South America to China. And from Belfast, to Korea to the Middle East, America will continue to stand with those who stand for peace.

Note, he did not say "we must invade to overthrow Saddam." In fact, this is part of that global interdependence he talked about elsewhere in this same speech. His security strategy involved working with other nations to complete the inspections. Nowhere does he say that Saddam has WMD, and in fact his administration agreed with the UN that there were questions to be resolved, but not any positive proof that there wer stockpiles of WMD sitting around. So, sorry, this is scant support. And maybe you should check out the list of things that he felt was more important to address, first. Those are all good ideas made less possible by Bush.
...
What about the "Iraqi Liberation Act"? Surely it meant just what you said it meant?

. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DE-MOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.--The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance: (1) BROADCASTING--(A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broad-casting by such organizations to Iraq. (B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph. (2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE--(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense arti-cles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organiza-tions. (B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000. (b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE--The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime. (c) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE.-No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group witthin an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be pro-vided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime. (d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT -The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under such section 634A...

EC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION. (a) INITIAL DESIGNATION--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organi-zations that satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4. (b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL GROUPS.--At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to sub-section (a), the President may designate one or more addi-tional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that sat-isfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4. (c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION.--In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that- (1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individ-uals and groups opposed to the Saddam Hussein re-gime; and (2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial in-tegrity, and to fostering cooperation among demo-cratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime

"The answer is not just 'containment' or a U.S.-led invasion. There are Iraqis willing to fight and die for the freedom of their country. There are significant portions of Iraq today which are not under the control of Saddam Hussein. "Our goal should be to support Iraqi freedom fighters and expand the area under their control.

Wow. Check that out. The Republican controlled Congress thought Saddam was such a threat that they earmarked a total of $97 million to go to "democratic Iraqi organizations opposed to Saddam's rule." invade; but only assist those Iraqis willing to fight and die for their own freedom. Yes, as you say, a clear indication that Bush's "evidence" was available prior to his taking office, and that the Congress knew all about it and was determined to act on it.
...
What about that appearance by Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger? What else was said, there?

Now, others suggest that such Saddam is the problem, the only effective solution is a ground invasion that would remove him from power... The costs and risks of that course of action, in our judgment, are too high and not essential to achieving our strategic interests as a nation containing the threat Iraq now poses. It would require a major land campaign, and risk large losses of our soldiers. We do not support that option.

Holy @!$%#! You mean that this also wasn't the indication you claimed it was of widespread knowledge about an Iraqi arsenal of existing weapons that was about to be used against us and required a massive invasion to stop? Will wonders never cease.
...
Now I could go through all of these and refute them one byt one, but we've wasted enough space. The truth is that we now know that the Bush administration oversold its case. I entered office with the intent to invade Iraq, fixed the evidence around the policy, ignored dissenting voices, presented itself as having incontrovertible knowledge that Iraq had arsenals of WMD sitting around waiting to be handed off to terrorists, etc. Notably, Hans Blix did not agree with the Bush assessment that these things existed, and were sitting around waiting to be used. You elide most of Blix's report that runs counter to your claim, but that's nothing new. It's par for the course in neo-con land. For instance, if you had bothered to quote just one sentence further into Blix's statement, we could put his comment into context: "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for." i.e. chemical weapons "stockpiles" are an assumption. And of course, you could have chosen other areas of Blix's report to highlight-- "These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise."

In short, I've considered your "proof" that Bush jsut used the "evidence" at hand, at find the argument sorely lacking. Now, instead of playing "cut & paste" games, and selectively quoting folks, maybe you'd like to address the other issues I touched on

• What's the Bush plan for "winning" in Iraq?
• How many more American lives will be lost, and how much more money do we have to spend to "give" the Iraqis "democracy"?
• How long does he estimate the effort will take?
• Will we be repaid for the hundreds of billions of dollars which we are spending to "give" the Iraqis democracy?

Like I said, you're so concerned about whether it's noble for us to fight and die for Iraqi freedom that you never stop to consider whether it's either feasible or smart. All you're interested in is jingoism, and making sure "your side" in this argument doesn't appear stupid. Sorry, but on that latter part you're a bit late.

That should read above:

The Republican controlled Congress thought Saddam was such a threat that they earmarked a total of $97 million to go to "democratic Iraqi organizations opposed to Saddam's rule." Note it does not call for us to invade; but only assist those Iraqis willing to fight and die for their own freedom.

iarnuocon, nice summary of the events and intelligence preceding the Iraqi war. Like you, I believe the war was unjustified, and the issue of "nobility" is ridiculous.

Is it a noble endeavor to lay waste to a country, and establish a breeding ground for terrorists.

The NYT story this week was pretty amusing... you know, the one where they noted that according to Iraqi documents, in 2002 they were 1 year away from a nuclear bomb.

In my eye, that justifies the whole WMD fiasco.

You mean this one that says "in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war", and nowhere says anything remotely similar to your claim? Yeah, that was pretty amusing.

Let me see if I got this straight now: nowhere does the article claim of the Iraqis that "in 2002 they were 1 year away from a nuclear bomb" (something you appear to have invented in your pointy head), and the only reference material published was from pre-1991 "plans." Chuckle.

I also laughed out loud, after considering your post, when I read this passage:

Some intelligence officials feared that individual documents, translated and interpreted by amateurs, would be used out of context to second-guess the intelligence agencies' view that Mr. Hussein did not have unconventional weapons or substantive ties to Al Qaeda. Reviewing the documents for release would add an unnecessary burden on busy intelligence analysts, they argued...

..."The U.S. government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."

Look! They mentioned you!! But, hey, you keep on rationalizing, there. It seems to be what you're good at.

It certainly seems that way.

So you're essentially saying that 1) the invasion of Iraq was purely a war of imperialism, and 2) such was necessary because others might purchase the resources which "should" be going to us?

The pretext of retribution for Saddam's planned assassination of Bush, Sr. would be much more convincing if American hands weren't already red with the blood of foreign leaders assassinated in US led coups. Now I'm not saying that, inherently, I think assassinating a country's leader is in itself a bad thing. In the case of Iraq, I could certainly have gotten behind a program to target Saddam and sons as opposed to a bombing campaign which has killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, and killed thousands and wounded tens of thousands of American soldiers. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, it makes mathematical sense. And it's quite evident that the Founding Fathers made provision for such, with Letters of Marque and Reprisal. It's an argument that I'm sure many moderates and some liberals would at least be willing to consider, even if ideologically speaking we're opposed to the idea of government sanctioned murder. It would certainly require a detailed analysis of the likely consequences-- would it bypass much greater suffering, or lead to a new World War?

But claiming that an invasion of Iraq is justifed on the basis that others might purchase oil that we "should" get is problematic. What other avenues are open to us? Where would we be if 12 (or 20, or 30) years ago we had begun actively pursuing energy independence and alternative forms of fuel? Instead, we let the oil industry dictate our policy, and this has been a mistake. What would happen if we nationalized or earmarked for domestic use all domestic oil production? What would happen if instead of focusing on ethanol, which provides less total energy than gasoline, we focused on bio diesel? Certainly our agriculture could sustain a robust bio-diesel market, and the infrastructure and technology is already largely in place. Replace gas powered vehicles with hybrid electric/bio-diesel vehicles, and suddenly America's fuel use would drop to roughly a quarter of what it is today, with most of the fuel being domestically produced! But that's crazy talk, isn't it?

So, who benefits from us sending an army to "free up" Iraqi resources, and who foots the bill for it?

As always, we should have been looking much farther ahead, and considering much broader options before allowing a corporate war at public expense. Any president that starts doing either of those things, or (incredibly) both, would cease being just a politician in favor of becoming an actual leader

Well, we're wandering far from the subject of the article, at this point. Perhaps this is a subject that should be explored in its own article?

is it really imperialism if the U.S. does not take control over the "liberated" countries? Sure, why not? If we use our military to threaten or enforce a scenario wherein those countries are dominated by our economic rules, and have to make economic decisions to cater to our investors rather than the well-being of their own populaces, there's little difference in the effect of this sort of imperialism from old-school occupation other than the fact that we save ourselves the cost of permanent occupation.

Then there's China will consume more and more oil and pollute their country, and effectively the world, if left unchecked. Is the world community or the U.N. going to mandate that China stop consumption/pollution and improve their conditions?

followed by if we commit to alternative fuels the costly infrastructure, production and distribution costs would put us way behind China as they could produce at a much cheaper rate.

Doesn't the reduction in reliance on conventional fuel reduce the price of it by increasing the available supply? Don't we all reap a benefit if that is the case?

Problem is we do not have the infrastructure to economically transition right away and we would get crushed if China is able to purchase oil because we do not. It doesn't take a whole lot of infrastructure. Have you looked into bio-diesel production? I can make it in my garage for about $.60/gallon. No changes are needed for the consumption of bio-diesel in current diesel engines. No changes are needed in delivery or storage. Of currently considered alternative fuels, bio-diesel represents an incredibly low transition cost.

And I'm really curious as to how you think China will "crush" us if we don't out-consume them in the competition for Middle East oil. We don't currently get much of our oil from the Middle East, but they certainly have an impact on the world market by controlling their own output. To the extent that we remove ourselves from that market, we insulate ourselves from that manipulation. How does that preferentially improve China's situation, and not our own? The Middle East isn't likely to change their current policies simply because a different country will be buying their production.

I agree that developing a viable energy policy should be a priority but unfortunately action taken now may have been needed to preserve our way of life and keep the hope for world liberation alive as we move toward a better energy policy. I agree, it's just that I think the action needed now is focused effort toward producing viable alternatives to oil, while you think we need to engage in military adventurism that costs us hundreds of billions of dollars.

If we'd spent $380 billion over the last three years on developing the bio-diesel infrastructure, how far away do you think we'd be from completely eliminating our reliance on foreign oil?

This is exactly what he said:

* The troops are stupid * The troops are lazy * The troops are not making any effort to be smart

This exactly what you said:

"You don't talk about our troops like that! "They're heroes! They deserve to be in Iraq fighting a pointless war for oil barons! They, and Bush's administration, can do no wrong!

San Dimas High School Football Rules!!"

No, sorry, but what he said was "you'll get stuck in Iraq".

Why are the troops stuck in Iraq? Did they ship themselves to Iraq and decide to stay their indefinitely? No.

The reason the military was sent to Iraq and remains impossibly mired there is because BUSH for no conceivable reason decided that he wanted to attack Iraq. The military has no choice in where it goes or does.

Therefore, Kerry's statement could only have ONE target - Bush.

eesh.

Come on guy's! you can do better than that, this is what he said and you know it:

* The troops are stupid * The troops are lazy * The troops are not making any effort to be smart

Is Bush in Iraq? no, he is in the Whitehouse in Washington DC, get real! I am getting really tired of your spin, again, let's look at what he said:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

In effect, only those who are stupid and lazy join the military get sent to Iraq! That is exactly what he said!

If he wanted to aim this statement at Bush he could have very easily chosen a different set of words & inserted Bush's name in it, just as he does on a daily basis!

I'm not spinning. I was raised on military bases and several members of my family (including my father and brother) served. When you join the military you don't get to choose where you want to go. Even if you test out for a high-level position, you don't get to choose where you will go. Sometimes you will be given a short list of choices of training/service location, but you never have carte blanche.

When you go into the service, you join to serve the country. People might go in for different primary reasons, but ultimately it is to serve and protect our country.

The ONLY reason our military is currently stuck in Iraq is because of the whim of our current President who, for reasons unknown, decided that he wanted to attack Iraq. Our military should NOT even be over there. They are not protecting OR serving our country, but find themselves in Iraq based on the unknown 'reasoning' of our current Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, the only one 'stuck in Iraq' is Bush.

Again, stop it:

The ONLY reason our military is currently stuck in Iraq is because of the whim of our current President who, for reasons unknown, decided that he wanted to attack Iraq. Our military should NOT even be over there. They are not protecting OR serving our country, but find themselves in Iraq based on the unknown 'reasoning' of our current Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, the only one 'stuck in Iraq' is Bush.

This has nothing to do with the reasoning for the Iraq war! We already get that you do not agree with Bush's reasoning for this war, we get it that you do not support the effort!

Stop trying to turn this into a debate on whether or not the Iraq war was a bad idea, we know your position there, it is very clear!

Once again, I hate to have to repost his quote again, but it really is this simple:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

In effect, he is saying, only those who are stupid and lazy join the military and get sent to Iraq! That is exactly what he said!

Everything you bring up is a totally different subject and you know it! and frankly, it is getting quite boring!

You don't need to call people idiots, BrianR. You realize you're calling many of the Newsviners who've commented on this article, not to mention a significant portion of the American population, idiots. I'm flagging your comment as inflammatory. Please adhere to the CoH.

Okay, suppose I agree with you in that he inadvertly made a remark about the military...

How in the world does 'stuck in Iraq' equate to 'stupid and lazy'??

I'll agree to disagree that Kerry was, or was not, directing his comment toward the military, but I have to outright disagree that he was implying that anyone was 'stupid' or 'lazy' in his comment. He said 'stuck in Iraq', period.

You could just as easily define that as 'not in control of your destiny', or 'without options', or 'facing death'.

Your inference that 'stuck' equates to 'stupid and lazy' is, in my somewhat jaded opinion, a purely inflammatory remark geared towards invoking similarly inflammatory remarks towards the contrary; ie, a flame.

Patti, the 'stuck in Iraq' portion of the line is NOT what makes it sound like the military is Stupid or lazy. It is instead when he says that

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't,

you get stuck in Iraq

See, it is where he talks about those that are stuck in Iraq that didn't make the most of their education, study hard, do their homework, make an effort to be smart.

I find it hard to believe he was talking about Bush there as Bush has more degrees then Kerry and he has made the most of them. He is the President of the USA. that is quite a remarkable achievement. Then he got elected AGAIN. Kerry may run again, heck it is even possible (I don't believe it but...) that he will win. but until he does it is hard for him to claim that Bush hasn't made the most of what he has.

Isn't it posted elsewhere here that Bush also got better grades in school then Kerry did? Hmmmm

this is not only about getting stuck in Iraq, this is about a very simple comment that Kerry made, again read it below:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Those who are in Iraq are serving in the Military, correct?

How is what he said not refer to all of those who joined the military and are serving in Iraq?

Could you explain that to us?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Again, his statement...

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.

Again, how does 'study = do well; not study = stuck in Iraq' equate to lazy and stupid?

It is clearly an inference and/or a flame. You can say it was a negative comment directed at the troops WITHOUT inferring that Kerry was calling them lazy and stupid.

um, I think it is pretty clear that if you 'Don't Study' or 'Don't make an effort to be smart' or 'Don't do your homework' in our society you are usually labeled stupid, lazy, or both.

Alright, I will spell it out for you:

I would say that those who do not study hard are lazy!
I would say that those who do not try to be smart are stupid!

Don't you?

um, I think it is pretty clear that if you 'Don't Study' or 'Don't make an effort to be smart' or 'Don't do your homework' in our society you are usually labeled stupid, lazy, or both.

Exactly, I could not have said it any better!

Kerry was just being glib. We can't put in stone every word he (or anyone) utters. The only reason this is being torn apart is to slow the rats from jumping off the GOP garbage barge.

The one thing Kerry said that should be put in stone is "STUCK IN IRAQ".

Today's troops got stuck with Iraq... killing and getting killed in a war of plunder void of public merit. Yea... stuck is the right word. Our troops did not join to do the dirty work for the GOP and Corporate America. Our troops cannot claim "noble cause" fighting a war based on lies and hidden corporate agenda. Our troops got STUCK with Iraq.

Our troops did not join to do the dirty work for the GOP and Corporate America. Our troops cannot claim "noble cause" fighting a war based on lies and hidden corporate agenda. Our troops got STUCK with Iraq.

Have you asked them why they joined? I doubt that! simple reality, 64% who are serving voted for Bush (that is considered a land slide!) and they did so after in the last election which was held after the start of the war in Iraq!

Oh and it is funny how you say "hidden corporate agenda", if it were hidden, you would not know about it would you?

Guess that is why so many are volunteering for second and third rotations in-country...

I would have guess higher than 64%... but, you might check the stats on how many troops call the "South" home. Also figure in the daily institutionalized conservative rhetoric that our troops are subjected to. Then, top that off with, a stat regarding how interested our 18-24 year old troops are with politics in general. I'm surprised your stat is so low. The one stat that might match yours is the percentage of troops that still think Saddam flew planes into the Trade Center and Pentagon.

I play rugby with and know many military guys. I work on base with military officers. I never let a lower rank troop buy a beer when we are bellied to the same bar. I don't care how they vote. I just hate watching them get screwed by Bush and the Corporate GOP. These guys do what they are told to do. In return, they get a "life" with camaraderie and toys that blow the crap out of stuff.

Somehow, he was taking a jab at Bush, it would take an idiot to think that that statement is a jab at Bush and not the Heroes (as he later referred to them) serving in Iraq. Allow me to introduce you to some concepts:

• "metaphor";
• "irony";
• "sarchasm"...

as in: "witty language used to convey insults or scorn (Example: "Irony is wasted on the stupid")

or,

"The abyss between the creator of witticisms and the intended recipient who does not find the humor in it."

but it really is this simple Pardon us for being thoughtful. Generally we look to you neocons for knee-jerk assignment of black and white values to things which are subtle and have multiple meanings. Thank god you haven't let us down! You may proceed...

His chances were already squashed anyway. Most Democrats, I believe, know they were mistaken in picking him in '04 anyway. Still better than Bush in my opinion, but that's only because Kerry is more liberal, not because I like him.

I think its pretty obvious he was making a jab at Bush, but in doing so he inadvertently insulted the troops. His statement does basically say if you dont get an education, it is likely you will get stuck being in the military and wherever (this idiot/any republican president but mainly) Bush sends you. But that does basically portray the idea that those in the military lack education which is why they wound up there.

I think thats a fair, accurate, non-partisan assessment.

Glib: Showing little forethought or preparation

I believe that there is room to believe that Kerry did not mean to insult the troops.

I think the truth is clear... It is totally absurd to believe that Senator John Kerry thinks the troops are stupid.

The DNC plan of "Stay Silent" was meant to starve the GOP plan of "Distort, Spin and Lie". Senator John Kerry should not be telling jokes or damning the President. The President is already damned. There are good reasons not to beat a dead horse and this was one of them. Senator John Kerry screwed up.

The media is screwing up by not reporting the GOP's implementation of "Distort, Spin and Lie". That's the real story here and it spewing directly out of the White House.

Both sides look for any opportunity to jump on any comment and spin it into something to their benefit.

I see GOP spin, but, I don't see the DNC spin. Any examples?

Sam,

I believe there is a "vast right wing conspiracy"... void of secrecy. I don't think calling them on the carpet for that is spin. It's truth. I think Dan Rather is liberal but I never thought he worked hand in hand with the DNC like Hannity & Limbaugh do with the GOP everyday. I don't see the two parties as equal but opposite. I hope they are functionally and idealistically very different. I see the GOP as a simple corporate tool to enhance commerce for select power brokers. As far as the DNC... I'm not sure what their main agenda is. I see the GOP as evil... and the DNC as not the GOP. A beach head.

The only little value of John Kerry's nonsense was matching "stuck" with "Iraq". But, that horse is dead. At this point, who cares if people got duped into thinking that Kerry really hates the troops? Their sense of direction is forever lost.

The fact that 2,900 troops have been killed in the GOP's Corporate "War of Plunder" is a good blinder. Creating a war void of public merit is evil.

Sam,

I agree.

What you've stated is obvious to everyone... you'd think.

I can support a government that slaps the truth on the table and says "For us folks to get "there" we'll need to step on them". If we had a representative government it would not lie to us "folks" to achieve national goals.

Corporate America is using our American Government to jockey for plundered profits and global position for corporate long term stability and benefit.
The "Evil" of it this is -- they have ripped government control from Americans... us folks.
"What's good for GM is good for America" is an EVIL concept. Our constitution is clear... "What's good for Americans is good for GM".

Thanks for the suggested reading. I'll follow up on that.

Hopefully we can get a leader who can unite this country in 2008

I hate to sound pessimistic, but, I don't think the corporate strangle on our government is going to be broken in our lifetimes. American Corporate power is in its infancy and it will be decades before it reaches its peak. In the process America will be milked of all its worth while corporate power spreads globally.

Donald, not sure why the term "elite" is attributed to liberals. After all it is the corrupt carpet bagging right that is making all the moola and attempting to create their own "boys" club.

Right on. Let's all who agree please call it quits on this article. Kerry bashers, you're welcome to stay and play.

Hello, America...Kerry isn't running for office. Bush would love to rerun 2004, but it's 2006, and this is pure horse manure.

Hello, Neither is Bush, what's your point? If your not running for office you can insult our troops all you want?

And he IS campaigning for others that ARE running for office.

The one stat that might match yours is the percentage of troops that still think Saddam flew planes into the Trade Center and Pentagon.

Name 1 person in this country who has ever said Saddam flew planes into the world trade center? If that were the case he would be dead!!!

Or are you saying that we think he had people fly planes into the WTC, again, Name 1 person in this country who has ever said Saddam had people fly planes into the world trade center?

The one stat that might match yours is the percentage of troops that still think Saddam flew planes into the Trade Center and Pentagon.

Name 1 person in this country who has ever said Saddam flew planes into the world trade center?

Finding one person would be too easy. All you need to do is belly up to the bar near any military base and buy a G.I. a beer.

George Bush did not say those exact words, but, he said words that allowed our troops to believe that Saddam's Iraq was responsible for 911.

Name 1 person in this country who has ever said Saddam flew planes into the world trade center? I think the implication was that Saddam was part of the plot, not that he actually flew the plane. And if you're looking for numbers, try Zogby.

Almost 90% [of troops] think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11... 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq."

This, beside the fact that there is zero evidence (none, nada, zip, zilch, completement rien) to suggest that Saddam had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. There's also no convincing evidence that Saddam "protected" al Qaeda (or "al Qaeda in Iraq") in Iraq. But you know, what do facts have to do with anything? In respect to the "Saddam connection", the troops are in line with general Republican belief, but far more gullible than the entire public, according to this Zogby poll. And what I find tremendously interesting is that if you page down to where the question is asked about what civil liberties you'd be willing to give up, the results show that Republicans (by and large) are willing to cough up pretty much all their rights, while Democrats and Independents are far more resistant to the idea of random searches, roadblocks, wiretaps, etc.
...
So in answer to that question posed elsewhere in the thread about whether liberals are fighting conservatives to protect America, this poll offers some evidence that, in fact, this is the case. Conservatives have lost sight of the foundational concepts of America.

You mean like Kerry! Kerry, had a "D" average in collage and had lower SAT's than Bush!

So Kerry made the aural equivalent of a typo that in context had people of uniform clapping supportively but here in the echo chamber of indignant outrage. Bush supporters, who appear more and more to me to have all the pitiful qualities/symptoms of beaten spouses, finally get an opportunity to vent their considerable spleens.
Kerry made an ambiguous joke. Bush is an unambiguous failure and the worst joke to have ever been played on America. And all those quotes that were touted to prove he had some dignity or intelligence, you realise that stuff gets written for him don't you? Stockholm syndrome. Poor dears cannot imagine a world without the political programming you have grown accustomed to. Sad but with the right perspective it's funny if you allow yourself no pity.
Rant on dudes,

winsomecowboy: It reminds me of the time that Bush said that terrorists never stop looking for opportunities to attack American, and neither does he.

OMG!! Teh Prezident is a terrurist!

Wherz my aplologee?!!!!

But I digress.

I was reading your reply until you started speaking in leetspeak...which basically negates anything important you had to say, based on the stupidity of yourself for using such a childish languate to express your opinion.

Thank you for making it clear that the vine is becoming a playground for youngsters like yourself.

Graphix, that wooshing sound is irony, maybe it too far over your head to hear.

Well, thank you for the well-considered and terribly insightful commentary on my throwaway post. Might I point you to my other posts under this article, in hopes that perhaps your instantaneous condemnation of my deportment might be mollified? (Feel free to start with comment #15, and work your way down; or, alternatively, visit my column for other trenchant, Pulitzer-prize worthy posts.)

Although if you're so easily derailed from the train of thought by my sardonic resort to "leetspeak", it's dubious that you'll find any enlightenment from more perspicacious or solemn phrasing.

Thank you for making it clear that the vine is becoming a playground for humorless old farts like yourself. [grin]

graphix...stop...go back and type in "bushisms" into google.

Now read. (I'll give you a few minutes.)

Ok done? Great!

Now see how people can still support and defend someone after they say stupid things and mess up 1 liners? Now what's really amazing is that 37 -40 percent of people in America apparently support a President who has done more harm to our security and our constitutional rights than anyone else in decades.

Ok, 1 person being god awful at public speaking, and another taking digs at the military service personnel are two completely different things.

Whether or not Bush has done harm is besides the point....the point of my argument is that people are defending a person, who basically said "if you are stupid you are going to Iraq" What does that say about the dems opinion of our soldiers?...Considering that Clinton made such drastic cuts to military funding, and then pulled a surplus out of his ass, I think we know what they feel.

I'm pretty rich too if I don't pay bills, stop paying for a car, stop buying gas, stop putting money into clothes, etc etc.

But again, a person such as yourself is basically saying it is ok to defend and support a person who obviously has no respect for this country, because the current prez may or may not have harmed our national security.

Funny how the whole "state of the economy on Bushs watch" argument has been dropped as of late, because the market not only hit record highs on his watch, but also hit record highs during war time, which is typically unheard of. But I know, I know, Clinton got that ball rolling.

Anyway, I got way off topic. The bottom line is that Kerry took a cheap shot at our troops in hopes to gain support for the dems. To defend that is ridiculous in my opinion

First off...there is no "may or may not" about if Bush hurt our national security.

Second, war is usually great business for nation's economy...not particularly for national debt or spending but hey...all that tax money is given to big corporations which give more money to little corporations and so on. War is a global economic phenomenon. Sometimes killing people just isn't worth it though. Might be hard for some to understand. Ahem...

....let me repeat this again unless you missed it earlier. Kerry misspoke...taken out of context the statement sounds like he's making a very insulting comment about our troops. Now here's what you do since I'm sure you know how to use Google now...go to youtube, search John Kerry, use some keywords like Iraq, Troops...and so on. You're a smart guy you can figure this out. Now watch the whole thing. WATCH. THE. WHOLE. THING.

So you finished? Great. Did you see how for the few minutes before that statement he was making fun of Bush? Notice how you can tell he is talking about how Bush was dumb and got us stuck in Iraq? This isn't rocket science...And its not rocket science to take things out of context and make someone say something they never really said.

Hell... I can make Jesus into Satan with 3 verses of the Bible. Doesn't make it true.

You're wasting your time, talking monkey. It's not like graphix is interested in discourse. And even if he were, I'm not sure that you could overcome his reflexive support of the President. As they say, you can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think. A few illustrative points:

• 1 person being god awful at public speaking, and another taking digs at the military service personnel are two completely different things Doesn't bother to look at the full context of the sentences to which he objects. Disinterested in what those sentences actually meant, in favor of getting all frothy at the mouth about someone "insulting the troops." I.e., doesn't want to think about the issue.
• Whether or not Bush has done harm is besides the point....the point of my argument is that people are defending a person, who basically said "if you are stupid you are going to Iraq" Missed the point of the statement, but insists on mischaracterizing it anyway, in order to score political points. I.e., more interested in partisan spin than in "getting smarter."
• Considering that Clinton made such drastic cuts to military funding, and then pulled a surplus out of his ass, I think we know what they feel. Uses a previous administration's policy to paint an entire spectrum of political thought with a broad condemnatory brush. Completely insensible to the fact that perhaps cuts to bloated military spending could be a good thing, thinks the surplus came from Clinton's ass (rather than hard fiscal choices), and is oblivious to the irony. I.e., not willing to consider nuance.
• I'm pretty rich too if I don't pay bills, stop paying for a car, stop buying gas, stop putting money into clothes, etc etc. Yet advocates over-the-top deficit spending while simultaneously cutting the tax-base. I.e., doesn't have the foggiest notion how the government is run, financially, and doesn't care.
• But again, a person such as yourself is basically saying it is ok to defend and support a person who obviously has no respect for this country, because the current prez may or may not have harmed our national security Can't understand that rewriting the Constitution might actually harm our national security, and regurgitates sound-bites about how criticism of the administration means one has no respect for the country. I.e., unwilling to think for self.
• Funny how the whole "state of the economy on Bushs watch" argument has been dropped as of late, because the market ...hit record highs on his watch Firm proponent of the "trickle down" theory of the economy, even as evidence mounts that the benefits of the market are not "trickling down."
• also hit record highs during war time, which is typically unheard of. Doesn't bother reading history.

My advice? Don't bother putting graphix on your watch-list. Permanent brain-damage might result.

When in doubt, turn to personal attacks. Touché!

Just drawing inferences from your statements, same as you're doing with Kerry and everyone you disagree with in this thread. Although I imagine mine are a bit closer to the mark. And, really, in what way was it a "personal attack"? I haven't said anything about your character which didn't already seem apparent from your statements-- you've made reflexive remarks which show a commitment to "your side" regardless of context; remarks which mischaracterize the position of those who disagree with you, and of Kerry himself; remarks which show that you misunderstand the nature of economics and the nature of the Constitutional issues associated with this administration's rewriting of said document.

I could be wrong: maybe you read history, understand economics, appreciate the context in which Kerry's comments occurred, understand the nature of the arguments of those you disagree with, and recognize the "liberals" are not a monolithic group-mind marching in lock-step with former President Clinton. Although I would think if it were the case that you understood all this, you'd either have amended your statements or you'd be entirely disingenuous in having made them in the first place.

You're not being disingenuous, are you? If "yes," then I apologize for jumping to the previous conclusions.

If you think I've overstated my case in my previous post, feel free to refute the assertions. I won't take it personally. I promise. Although I will note that you're apparently whining about something you've already engaged in without provocation:

I was reading your reply until you started speaking in leetspeak...which basically negates anything important you had to say, based on the stupidity of yourself for using such a childish languate to express your opinion...

Most of you here are so hypocritical it makes me sick.

in your words, "Touché!"

Yes, touche' ;-)

I think I probably overreacted to the situation here. I just don't appreciate when some political mongers are held to higher standards than others. After all, aren't they all mongers?

As you can see, it is fairly simple to get caught up in all of it, and I think it is safe to say that the stare of the country right now is forcing each side to bicker endlessly about non important issues.

I previously made remarks regarding your "leetspeak" above...It has become evident to me that I had read it completely out of context, and you have made it clear to me that you are indeed an edumacated person, and not an internet geek. So I apologize.

Regardless of everything else...I think my point of anger is that politics is further reduced to mud slinging, taking cheap shots at the opposition and not having a care as to who gets hurt in the crossfire.

I was also disappointed at the coverage of this on the vine is all. As stated above, had Bush made a remark like this, there would be dozens of stories and opinion pieces discussing it. However, at first glance, there were maybe 2 seeds regarding this and it just set me off.

I don't want the vine to be overrun by one side or the other, I want it to be fair here....I want as much attention paid to the stupid things democrats say, as is paid to the stupid things the prez says.

We need a strong 3rd party to come out of the woodwork and stop all this garbage of "bush sold oil, clinton didn't go to vietnam, etc etc etc"......it's stupid, and the past won't change.

<----steps down from bar stool

Well said. Perhaps surprisingly (or not) we seem in agreement much more than we disagree. Mudslinging doesn't really help, partisanship put before common sense hasn't done any of us any good, and (yes) attention should be paid as much to stupid things said (and proposed) by Democrats as by Republicans. And, God willing and the creek don't rise, can we please build a third party that can overcome the obstacles put in place by bipartisan agreement, so that the moderate folks who disagree with both Democrats and Republicans can finally get some sort of representation in government?!

So: I appreciate your comments.

<----throws change on the bar to cover the next round of drinks.