Kerry's ill thought out joke
 

"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."


Now this comment, According to Kerry, was a jab at the president, however the president is not the one stuck in Iraq. Our American soldiers are. Now we know who is to blame for this, but that is not what was said.

If you look at this statement backwards you will see that the result of being uneducated and not making an effort to be smart will result in you getting stuck in Iraq. It is, by no means a stretch to see how so many tropps might get offended. He may have not meant it but he still said it. Maybe he should fire his speech writer or simply stop TRYING to make jokes. The president is mentioned nowhere in his "joke". This was a very stupid comment and his attempts to make an apology were pathetic.
Yes, her served. So what I Have served with anti-military individuals and anti-government individuals. Because you served, does not mean you love the troops and would never want to hurt them or their families.

Come on Kerry admit this was stupid comment and apologize to our troops.
Lets see how this gets defended. what do you all think?

it was a stupid comment because it's very easy for the right to spin it so that the more moronic among us can get angry at the democrats again.

You have to really watch what you say when you're up against the republicans, because their spin machine is second to none.

Lets just hope he runs in 2008 :thumbsup:

Should we really care what he has to say? I can't see him running for anything anytime soon.

Would be care if Walter Mondale or Gary Hart or Ross Perot had anything to say right now? OK maybe Perot... but that's just good comedy.

No...you mis-interpreted the joke, I'm afraid. It is not a dis to the troops. More of a lament. All the joke means is that having to go to Iraq is not "doing well," and certainly isn't the desired result of hard study and decent education. Read it again.

The way to interpret this as an attack on the president (and I'm only explaining the plain English of it), is the same way we're used to: as a criticism of the fact that he declared war, and as a result, American soldiers now have to be there, sometimes dying, instead of at home making lives for themselves.

You know, I feel the same way about this that I did about that guy who resigned after using the word "niggardly". What he meant to say really is beside the point. He said something that was easy to misinterpret, and that's just not good politics. He should apologize for saying something that could be misconstrued as a hack on the troops, and use the opportunity to reiterate his support and empathy for the good and brave men and women who are stuck in Iraq as a result of this administration's yadda yadda yadda.

Kerry: don't get swiftboated again! RESPOND to this! Be a freaking statesman, for once!

I agree that was the meaning but it was lost in what he said. You can sit there and read it 1,000 times and know what he is saying, know that there is truth in what he is saying but the way it was said was truly tasteless and done without thought.

But he's human and .....well every single one of us says stupid things and makes mistakes that may have merit but were done or said in a way that made us look bad. I say stupid things on a daily basis (ask Lady Sage) the difference between me and Kerry is I don't have a microphone glued to my shoulder picking up and making public everything I say.....

I just don't want it taken for granted that florida0214 has distilled the actual meaning, when he has decided on a wild mis-interpretation. I agree it was in poor taste. If I was an American soldier in Iraq, I'd probably be upset if I heard that comment as a reminder of my situation. Kerry certainly has a way with words - makes you want to sleep or cry.

Kerry isn't responsible for the Iraqi War. George W. Bush is responsible for every soldier in Iraq. He is responsible for them being in danger. He is responsible for them being mangled, and losing limbs. He is responsible for them losing their lives. John Kerry makes a comment, that's true, mind you, and Buhs jumps on him? Oh, hell no.

A message to George W. Bush: how dare you even think of demanding someone else apologize to the troops, when you yourself deficate on them each and every day? You are responsible for their injuries and deaths. You, not the man you cheated out of an election. You are a deeply insensitive, foolish, and cocky asshole. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself, and I lok forward to the day that you stand trial for war crimes.

Kerry's an inbred, elitist prick who has nothing but sneering contempt the unwashed masses who serve in the armed forces. It is a very common refrain among libs: Only the poor and the stupid serve.

That being said, he needs to be on camera 24/7. Given enough exposure he could single-handedly win the election for the GOP.

Is Kerry planning to run for anything anytime soon? I'm not asking to be snitty, I'm just curious.

Yes, he's talked about running for PRez again in 2008. One can only hope :)

And by making statements like these you are above what you accuse Kerry of being, How?

The military targets young members of low income households and those who don't graduate from high school. John Kerry isn't responsible for recruiting.

I thought at this point though the military was struggling to recruit anyone, no matter what their economic status?

No, Niggardly could be easily understood by a dictionary. This was bad rhetoric which begged to be taken differently.

Thank you for proving you know next to absolutely nothing about the military. If you don't graduate High School you will not even be looked at. The military targets anyone who finished his/her HS education, and is in good shape. Absolutely no where is it stated or implied that they target low income, if that were true minorities in the services would be extremely high proportionately. They are not, people of all social classes are recruted.

If what you are implying is true, there would not be a higher level of college educated personell in the Armed Forces as the rest of the US. If they are purposefully recruiting people who can't even finish HS, how the hell do we have so many in the military with PHD's and Doctorates?

And Kerry IS just as responsible, look at his voting record. He may not have initiated it, but being on the security council he had access to every secret report the President had.

The military has recently lowered their recruitment standards to include lower aptitude standards (hs diploma still required), lower medical standards, persons with minor criminal records, known gang members...

About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.

Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7% were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cruiting_x.htm

I refer you to my link on voting records on the other Kerry thread.

Thank you for proving you know nothing about military recruiting. Absolutely everywhere in this country that is low income is flooded with military recruiters promising to pay for college. Maybe you can find some statistics to back up your claim that members of all income brackets are represented equally. My highschool was crawling with military recruiters. Did they just talk to seniors? Nope. They spoke to all age groups, usually minorities (Mexicans, in my school's case). That's standard. Rich kids don't usually join up. I wonder why.
This is what's wrong with TFP. People read what they want to read. I said: "The military targets young members of low income households and those who don't graduate from high school." Does that mean they ONLY target those people? Nope. That means that two groups of people they target are listed. How many of your PHDs and Docorates enter the military at the bottom, the people who will be on the ground, in Iaq, defending a caravan?
Bush initiated it. He directed investications to find fault in Iraq. He insisted on a war, and information was withheld from the Senate. Yea, it's all Kerry's fault.

Here is representation of Army recruits by income range (based on the average income of the zip code of the recruits).

http://nationalpriorities.org/index....179&Itemid=107
"Note that the peak of the bars falls in the range of $20,000 - $54,999. In other words, neighborhoods with low to middle median household incomes are represented or over-represented. Neighborhoods with high median household incomes are under-represented."

Not true at all, for recruiters are a fixture at universities. What you probably mean is that the military is an attractive option to those who are poor and have a limited educational background.

As a former member of the military I take great offense to people who attempt to demoralize and ridicule those who serve. Simple as that

I expected you to feel that way about the military will. I'd be surprised if a majority in combat were college educated because of their ages, I know a great many former grunts who are now college educated professionals. Trying to defend Kerry on this is laughable. Hell even JFK got his college degree though the Navy.

I would like to thank Kerry though for this help right before the midterm election. Things were looking good before the Foley October surprise but maybe this little miscalculation will give a extra push in a few key races.

YOU MEAN THE MILITARY RECRUITERS AT MY HIGH SCHOOL WERE FAKE!~ Oh God, I better call the police. I better tell them about ROTC, too.

NCB....I agree with you on this one, although I think recruiters at times have been shown to be overly aggressive bordering on resorting to dishonest persusasive techniques, particularly at high schools in low income areas.

:eek:

dream about the impact of this latest repub created issue.

Meaningless without combat troop statistics.

Edit:I'll also add its the army, which is the least desirable of the armed services to join. Normal progression is Airforce-Navy-Army, with marines being a thing of their own.

You said that they target HS dropouts (who theoretically wouldnt really be at the HS or in a ROTC program to begin with) and those from low income homes. I pointed out that is not the case. Knucklehead

Youre right to an extent and would only correct you in that ALL recruiters tend to be unsavory, used car salemen types. My recruiter was an all out slimball

If Kerry had said this, I wonder if the Repubs would have accused him of mocking or demeaning the army?

Most likely, but far less of a fuck up than what he did say.

As a rule the army gave less pay and less benifits.

<b>Do we even have to wonder why they "come for" Kerry now?</b> This is just another chickenhawk, bullshit psy-op to take the focus away from where it rightfully belongs....we're supposed to be "at war", since 9/11/2001....and here is the "record" of your "able" CIC:
....and this year....he works....prosecuting the GWOT, while some troops serve four tours in Iraq....when is he working? He's perprtually campaigning, never spends time at his desk, in Washington....and you believe Kerry is insulting the troops?
<b>and the next day, yesterday, Bush flew right back to.....Georgia !</b>
<b>When Mr. Bush wasn't away from Washington...clearing brush....for 365 days out of five years.....or away campaigning.....he was addressing the troops, as he did last veterans day.....but he wasn't even straightforward, with them:</b>
....Mr. Bush's military record:
<b>Compare the deceitful "mess", above, to Mr. Kerry's record, and tell me that this media blitz is not a carefully coordinated republican effort to shift the focus from Mr. Bush's failed leadership and illegal disaster of an invasion and occupation of Iraq, from Mr. Bush....to Mr. Kerry:</b>
John Kerry had no trouble verifying his own military service....from a credible fellow Naval officer who served alongside Kerry, in combat in Vietnam:
<b>Before you post a reply laced with republican talking points that demand a Kerry "apology to the troops".....consider that the folks who Kerry referred to are the "clay" molded by the Bush era neocons, into the enlistees who end up in the rank and file who serve, and die....in our military, in Iraq. Would many educated people "volunteer" to serve four tours as a combat E-4 in Iraq, if they weren't given a helping....or two....of tax funded psy-op?</b>

They think that we're stupid fucks....that we'll believe everything that they tell us....enough of us, anyway.....and....they've been right....They know their constituency, and, how to reach them, how to turn them.....

<b>Here is how they "do it":</b>

I don't really understand what is so interesting about this. It's all they are talking about on the news, and here it is on the forum. How is it relevant?

It doesn't mean anything. It's not a real issue. It's a 4-second audio clip that may or may not have been misconstrued. But, you know, so what? Why do you care so much? This is just goofy.

Do you even check your facts or think before you post. You are so full of it, you truly show you have no idea what you are talking about.

The pay scale between branches has pretty much always been the same. an E-1 or E-9 in the Army makes exactly the same as an E-1 through E-9 in the Air Force or Navy or Marines. Same with Officer grades and Warrant officers.

Benefits are exactly the same also.



LINK: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/fy200.../06basepay.htm

Because it sells man. and it adds fuel to the partisanship hatreds. The GOP have to get their swipes in, then the Dems have to get theirs in and before you know it everyone is fighting and spewing hatred and arguing over how something was said and not about what was said.

It takes the heat off the press as being "too liberal" :lol: and takes the heat off the real issues and maybe in some people's minds gets some of those "on the wall" indecisive types to vote GOP now.

Nyuck Nyuck....

Let's say that you're the poor son of a Mexican immigrint. Yoyu have to struggle for everything. You're poor as poor can be. You can't meet bills. You do well in school, but school time takes away from your time to work. A military officer chats you up at school and mentions that the military has benifits, big old payouts and such. You jump at the chance. You drop out. So, you're both a drop out, AND you were rectuited at school!! How is that even possible!>?

I think it is entirely apprpropriate for recruiters to go to highs schools and explain to 18 yr kids who are uncertain about their future that the military is a respectable and honorable option, either in the short term as a means to other opportunities or a long-term career.

But these recruiters should be honest and forthright, with no illusions and false expectations. It is not appropriate or honorable to act like "unsavory, used car salesmen types" trying to meet a quota.

Good God. Lots of very polarized individuals here. The best is when people like Host or Pan6467 post all that crap like they expect everyone to read it word for word.

Stop apologizing for Kerry. There was no botched joke. Just a cheap shot on troops, and it was cheap because he knew it would make the audience feel smug about themselves. If you ask me, a lot of people owe an apology to the troops, and the country. Kerry might as well start it off.

This is not coming from a Republican...

Yeah, i mean, gosh, who reads things on the internet?

CMH........Thanks for your non-polarizing contribution. The fact that you are not a Repub must mean you are a close Kerry advisor to know of his intent with such certainty and clarity.

I was heavily recruited in high school (I was in a special program for "bad kids") AND I dropped out. These things happen.......

I was also recruited at the community college many years later.

And then again at my college (but this time, they were looking for officers).

To be fair, the high school recruiter may have been looking for officers to ROTC etc, but skipped over my group (for obvious reasons).

I listened to how he defended his statment. He piled on the BS pretty thick.

Kerry statement shows his true colors. He is an elitist snob lost in 1960's time warp.

I think if people stopped picking apart words and actually focused on actions, the word "politics" would hardly have meaning. That is a good thing. Unfortunately, we have to make a big deal and piss our pants when someone says something dumb. As if we're fooling ourselves that an individuals words do in fact speak louder than his actions. I'm sorry people, but the fact that people have to debate this topic in the first place is really disheartening.

He fucked up. It was dumb. We can all agree. Who cares what it "means." Look for his voting record and his policies in office to determine if he's a schmuck or not.

http://www.drudgereport.com/irak.jpg

:thumbsup:

I agree with Halx... this should really a non-story.

How can you possibly interpret his comments as anti-military? Have you forgotten that he himself served? Do you think he's really stupid enough to basically come out and say: "I think the troops are dumb and uneducated!"? Bush took us to Iraq and Bush is now politically stuck there, and that's what Kerry meant.

His wording was poor. No one ever accused Kerry of being too charismatic. But.. so what? What does this really tell us about anything?

o for god's sake, this is just goofy.

the right has a problem with the present--in most ways, it is a disaster and they have no-one to blame but themselves for it--and they are worried about having to take the hit for this fiasco that is their policy record on the 7th.

enter john kerry.
what does he say....well in context it is pretty clear what he said. but hey, who cares about context? you can make anything mean anything if you strip out context, and from the op all the way down, you get repetitions of the conservative context-free misinterpretations of the remark.

"harumph harumph he is dissing our troops blah blah blah" as if THAT was the problem in iraq.
it is fucking ludicrous.

you gotta hand it to rove, though: this is an well played little pseudo-controversy. it is doing what it was set up to do.
it was convenient for him that the speaker was john kerry, wasnt it?
who could have been better?

have fun rerunning 2004 folks--the right is still heading at a high speed toward a very large wall on tuesday, and if you folks can find a little hiding place for a few days in this worthless pile of horseshit, well have fun there. we'll chat next wednesday about how big a deal this turns out to be. in the meantime, all i see in it is a curious reflection of the collective psychological state shared by conservatives who face a very bad outlook in the short-run indeed.

denial can be such fun, can't it?

It's hard to defend Kerry. He has a muddled voting record throughout the Iraq War. And noone ever accused him of being a good public speaker.

But it's asinine to get on him for this. Derision should be reserved for the administration that fought so tenaciously to put thousands of americans in a poorly prepared and feebly outfitted war.

Bush, of anyone, shouldn't be saying someone else needs to apologize to our troops.

You are very wrong. The Air Force for example will not accpet you if you do not have a high school diploma. Period. No waiver no excuses. You don't have a high school diploma from an attendance based high school that is also accredited, you cannot join.

Also the military cannot target any specific minority. The Military has specific targets for minorities and they aim to keep the same percentage of specific minorities in the military taht exist in the rest of the united states. They are actually graded on how well they can recruit minorities to maintain a balance in the Military.

People now a days are less patriotic and have very little respect for our country. No matter who is in office from this point on Americans will take it for granted that somebody else will go off and fight for the country. This is what it has come down to.

It never ceases to amaze me how little people know the military. In case you've been misinformed (obviously you have), high school drop outs can serve in the air force. All you need is 15 units at a JC that works on a semester system, or 23 credits at a JC that works on a quarter system. I have a good friend who's in the air force now, and going to be shipped out to Iraq in a few months, who never graduated or got an alternative (GED, etc.).

Why is it an anti-war peacenik like myself knows that, and yet conservatives that think they're supporting the troops don't?

Why would I want to respect someone who allows themselves to be a pawn with a gun? I don't understand where this "support our troops" thing came from...it must be left over from WWII. I support those who are willing to fight and die for freedom and liberty and peace and justice. That's not the military, at least any more. I feel badly that so many are in harms way, injured or killed, but either they are aware that what they are doing is wrong and are resoponsible for themselves, or they are unaware that what they are doing is wrong and are killing without thinking. Both of those options are pretty bad, and I refuse to "support" them in their actions. There are notable exceptions, of course:

-conscientous objectors
-deserters
-former military officers who work for peace

i still say

classic case of hearing whatever you want to hear from this

It is totally meaningless and another way for republicans to take the issue off how much they are totally screwing up

I think it's probably from Vietnam. The way soldiers were treated when they came home from 'Nam was nothing short of disgraceful. The whole "support our troops" thing arose as a reaction to that.

The real tragedy, of course, is that as a nation, we learned the wrong lesson from Vietnam. And then that lesson got exploited for the pro-war agenda. Turns out that any criticism of the war now equals "dishonoring the troops". Which is ridiculous, of course, and an attempt to justify crushing free speech.

What was the right lesson from Vietnam?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/kerrymuseum1.jpg

From the Museum of American War Crimes in Ho Chi Minh City

That makes sense. If that's the case, then the current incarnation of "support our troopps" is overcompensation. It's wrong to treat the troops like garbage for no reason, but they are not above the law or above question. I like my free speech.

You know what would be interesting? To see the Kerry defenders here blast Trent Lott for his Strom Thurman joke.

Oh and to throw more kindling onto the political bonfire.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...y/cda06-09.cfm

Full report with graphs and all that crap :)

I think Kerry needs to read this and choke on it.

I'm not a Kerry defender. I can't really stand the guy. He's weak. He bend when he should stand strong. He never should have supported anything Bush did, and while I admire his flip flop, it came too late. I am defending the idea that the military isn't all candy and rainbows. It isn't all heros doing the right thing every minute of every day. That's absurd. The military is a cross section of the US, and the US has a lot of idiots. It just so happens that the idiots in the military are trained killers and are sent on a whim to protect our oil interests or to frighten someone who won't accept our economic dominance.

.............................

:mad:

First of all I know exactly what I am talking about. not only am I in the Air Force, but I am Air Force recruiter. So to insult my intelligance is a stupid, stupid move. here are a few FACTS i found about the air force. Enjoy tearing these apart too. The fact of the matter is that everynody knows somebody who did something, but you never really have the whole story. I knwo somebody who once said they had gay sex with Kerry. They must be right.

· Nearly 80 percent of all Air Force enlistees scored in the top 50th percentile of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test in fiscal year 2006, a number that has remained above 75 percent since FY 2000.



· Every single Air Force member enters the service with a high-school education or equivalent (GED or homeschooling).



· In fiscal year 2006, more than 15 percent of all enlistees entered the Air Force with more than a year of college credits – nearly a 30-percent increase from fiscal year 2001. Additionally, nearly 5 percent of all enlisted members possess a bachelor’s degree or above and another 16 percent have an associate’s degree. All officers have earned a minimum of a bachelor’s degree and nearly 50 percent possess a master’s degree or above.



· The #1 reason trainees cited for enlisting in the Air Force last year was to “continue college education on active duty.” For the past six years, education benefits have remained one of the top three reasons named for enlisting in the Air Force.



· The Air Force has exceptionally high-quality technical schools and training programs for its 142 career specialties. Upon enlistment, Airmen are automatically enrolled in the Community College of the Air Force – the largest accredited community college in the world – and they start to earn college credits toward an associate’s degree from the basic military training and technical school instruction they receive.http://www.drudgereport.com/irak.jpg

I've never made a stupid move in my life, and I never will.

I called 4 different local recruiters, 2 in San Jose, and 2 in San Francisco, and asked them each if high school drop outs can get into the Air Force. Their answer was the same: yes, as long as you go to a JC for a little bit. Either you're wrong, or they are all wrong. If you want to argue, call (408)251-0399 to reach an Air Force Recruiter for the Santa Clara County. I'm sure that infighting within the Air Force recruiters about your own rules will renew my confidence in you guys. Welcome to the catch-22. Either you're right, and 4 seperate military recruiters here lied to me, or you're wrong and I've won the day and get the girl.

The other things you posted are really meaningless as I didn't ask about test scores or technical schools or continuing education.

forget it...this non-issue is not worth the commentary.
it is not worth anything at all.

Unfortunately many people, and I include some who posted here, find It easier to believe the negative ads and the misleading characterizations by the talking heads, then to take the time to look at voting records.

The humor comes when they see the voting record, without the biased commentary, and STILL dont believe it and come back with another rationalization for not believing the facts.

I know you want to make sure people know this particular topic couldn't be less important, and I'm with you there, but you had this great post. I read it like 5 times.

Sorry Wil, as someone who was just recently in the Navy I know the pre-reqs. You MUST have a highschool diploma or GED.

Just go to the Army's website, it's on there.

Sorry Wil, as someone who was just recently in the Navy I know the pre-reqs. You MUST have a highschool diploma or GED.

Just go to the Army's website, it's on there.

So then the Air Force recruiters lied to me? How charming. That makes me feel muuch better about the military. I'll go ahead and call some Army, Navy, and Marines recruiters, then.

Sorry but recruiters are well known to pull crap out of their ass. They are not held liable for anything which is not written down. Look for what is written down and you'll see the requirements.

Just go to the recruitment websites and look at requirements, while they sometimes allow prior mistemeaners slip past, they don't allow the GED/Diploma slip.

They don't want stupid people fighting, regardless of how you feel.

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/jim-nabors-c.jpg
:thumbsup:
It's interesting that I consistantly get the exact same answer from everyone but you and florida. I just called 2 Marines recruiters and 2 Army recruiters, and they are even less stringent than the Air Force. If you are a high school drop out, you are required to get 15 units of credit from a JC, then you may join the Marines or the Army. Why is it that I've called 8 different offices, and they all have the same answers? Do they get a list of lies? Or is it possible that the websites are putting garbage up about graduation in order to cover up the fact that they will recruit dropouts? Either way, it's pretty shameful.

As much as I hate to say it, I'm more likely to belive actual recruiters that I've spoken to on the phone lie to me with consequences instead of people on TFP who would gain by lying to me without consequences.

I am not defending what Kerry said but here is what his speech was written to say:

So according to his staff he miss-spoke. Now he should have apologized immediately instead of being stubborn. Also the quote he was supposed to say isn't very tactful. I read it as "everyone who voted for bush is uneducated and lazy" where I think he might be trying to say "Bush is uneducated and lazy".

Is it any wonder that the Bush crowd would rather focus on an innocuous fucked up joke about Bush then to focus on the fucked up fact that there were more US casualties in Oct then in any month in the last two years, and according to the US Central Command, Iraq is "edging toward chaos"?

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images...litary_190.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss

Come on now, are the silly pics and jokes about Kerry more important than this?

Of course its easier for Rumsfeld and Cheney to go on conservative talk radio and talk about "good progress in Iraq" and blame the media rather than their owned failed policies and strategies for the near chaos.

http://www.defenselink.mil/News/News...e.aspx?id=1993

Agreed. This is a GOP distraction tactic. You can smell the desperation.

There is something to be said for the facts in the matter. Here's a report for the DOD on military demographics in 2002. Compared to the national average of 46.7% of civilians with a college degree, only 10.6% of Army, 6.4% of Navy, 1.9% of Marines, and 12.7% of Air Force have college degrees.

Having a college degree is obviously not a measure of raw intellect. Soldiers obviously have plenty of other things to do than sit in class and party on weekends. But the fact remains that the military population isn't as educated on the whole as the civilian population.

Ummmm try reading that report I linked 'buddy'.

The age you enter the armed forces is such that most do not have a degree. Every grunt I know got their degree after they left the armed forces, go figure eh?

Nice that you can find fault with the troops and the Republicans in the same post though.

Hunh, so because I brought forth facts published by the DOD, I hate our troops?

This is what I meant earlier in this thread when I meant that the wrong lesson from Vietnam has been hijacked to suppress dissent against conservative policy. This is a PERFECT demonstration of that.

Did you miss the part of my post where I SAID that the military population is busy with something other than classes? Where I SAID that having a degree isn't a reflection on their intelligence? What I SAID (and what you QUOTED) is that the military population is less educated than the civilian population. I never implied that the post-military population stays less educated. I never said any of the straw men you put in my mouth. So keep your self-righteous flag-waving free-speech-stifling to yourself, please.

I just want to confirm that Kerry isn't up for election this cycle, is he? I just checked his website and he doesn't seem to be. Obviously a stupid remark, I sincerely doubt that he would have a pre-prepared statement / speech where he said such a thing. Therefore, I find the "he snarfed up a bad joke" explanation more plausible. This was part of an actual speech, wasn't it? I mean, he wasn't answering questions or something where he might go off-script and say something stupid.

/so want to list a bunch of Bush-isms or put up the transcript with the "Where's the WMD? Ha Ha" thing. Won't do it. Must resist. Too much like the "but Clinton," and I don't even like John Kerry to boot. Just hate the self-righteous indignation. Must fight temptation.

Try reading how those numbers are established.

I guaran-fucking-tee you that 46.7% of people in America are NOT college educated.

You know there is one real winner in all this.

Guess who?

Nostrodamus?

Yes, it was a bad quote. There are plenty of people in the military that could have gone to college or went to college. And even if you didn't go to college, it doesn't make you stupid or any less than anyone else. You probably learn more about the world and how it works by serving in the military.

I don't really think it would effect how I vote for any other democrats, because I vote for each individual (R, D, Libertarian & Green). But I won't be voting for Kerry in the future.

Again: debating the intelligence of the military is irrelevant here. That's not what Kerry actually said or meant.

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet or not, but what about Bush joking about his whole reason for the war in Iraq, those pesky WMD? We all remember that one where he was showing pictures of himself looking around the oval office and saying 'nope no WMD there'. In case you don't here's the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yJF13BS-hE

The president joking about not finding something he started a war over and troops are dying because of. Surely the people who are up in arms about Kerry joke were just as outraged when Bush was making these jokes. For some reason though, I doubt they were.

It's disappointing that others posted the picture from "Irak" before I could. The troops seem to resent Kerrr's statement, even if it's another Republican "plot" according to earlier posts.

It wasn't hard to see that Kerry was attempting a joke, but he's such an asshole that it's impossible to like him. The proper response would have been for him to say, "It was a joke that fell flat, and I apologize to the service members I inadvertently offended."

Instead, in the most pompous manner imaginable, he announced that "I apologize to NO ONE!"

Which is why Howard Dean and everyone else are distancing themselves from him.

You have verification for that statement, of course.

It'd be worthwhile if someone could tally up the number of stories about what jon kerry said versus the number of stories about something like... the Mark Foley's chasing congressional pages around.

on one hand...some guy can't tell a joke, and on the other... chasing young boys around... damn...which one deserves more media attention... so hard to say...

*note*- the same comparison could be made with any other issue as well.

The fact that this is getting so much press simply proves that the party in control is trying to divert public attention and awareness away from other more important issues.

Yes, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN are bastions of conservatism.

Pardon me, but I distinctly remember your saying that your high school was full of wealthy kids. They would be the ones who can afford college, and enter the service as officers if they so desire.

Ahh, here it is:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=60

Sounds like the recruiters were crawling all over a high-income school. How could this be?

Documentation on what was withheld from the Senate?

The hatred of Bush that you evidence here, and elsewhere, appears irrational when you gloss over the fact that Democrats, including Kerry and Hillary Clinton, voted for the Iraq war. It appears more so when you try to convince us that information was withheld from those two.

Perhaps they didn't read what they were voting for. That would get them off the hook according to what filtherton said in another thread.

L. Brent Bozell III....is that you, with your "liberal media bias" bullshit ???
magictoy, how is it that "Air America" was bankrupted because it broadcast a "liberal message", no one wanted to pay to listen to.... yet you persist in believing the Brent Bozell/ mrc.org newsbusters.com bullshit that the "media is liberal".

Doesn't it ever dawn on you that "the media" is ratings...eyeballs...driven, and not "liberal agenda" driven? ABC is owned by Disney, NBC by GE, CNN by Time Warner....why would any of those companies approve a "liberal bias"?

Couldn't it be possible that you've been "influenced" by Brent Bozell, to shun all media reports that he and "outlets" like foxnews, haven't "filtered" for you, first? How far "down stream", from news feed, like AP and other original reporting from professional major media, news gathering outlets, is the stuff that influences you...when you first encounter it?

Do you ever cite anything from whitehouse.gov or from defenselink.mil , or does everything come through a "ditto heaf" leaning "filter", before you expose yourself to, it?

<b>What do you make of this...aren't "the generals", soldiers in the field?</b>
<b>So....wasn't Blitzer surprised that house majority leader John Boehner persisted in defending Rumsfeld at the expense of generals who gave advice, but were ignored, belittled, or sent into early retirement?</b>

Wouldn't Boehner's stupid comments be trumpeted by the "fairy tale" "liberal media", if it, indeed, existed?

How many members of US "liberal media", and members of al Qaeda "sleeper cells", located in the US, would fit on the head of a pin?

Another botched joke I'm sure.

Tell me, after a certain number of "botched jokes" and fott in mouth comments does one man need to make before he is considereda dumbfuck? A concerned, junior senator from MA wants to know

Okay, Kerry has apologized. Can this thing go lay in the corner and die now?

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmor...itary&id=95716

Only question is: if it's good enough for the White House, is it good enough for TFP conservatives? Or are they still desperate enough to keep flogging this dead horse?

I'm calling you out on this one, Will.
When I went into active duty 25 years ago, they accepted dropouts, with the understanding that they would be required (ie forced) to receive their GED within a year. While I was active duty, the Air Force did away with that program. They would only accept you if you already had your diploma, or your GED. Then...they went on to make it so that you had to have a high school diploma. GEDs were no longer acceptable.

But...that was a long time ago.

So...I actually did call up an Air Force recruiter...not 5 minutes ago. I was informed by one SSgt. Annebock that one does indeed now have to have either a high school diploma or equivalent (read GED) to enlist in the United States Air Force.

Now...I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I'm going to assume that, instead of outright lying, you were confussed by something with that whole "Community College" bit. (SSgt Annebock informed me that no community college credit is required to enlist) Could it be that in order to enroll in community college, one has to have a GED?

I find your condescention...most disturbing.
/channel of James Earl Jones

A friend told me about this quote yesterday, and after reading it again, I still tend to think it takes a dig at the troops. To me, it makes a pretty direct implication that those that go to school and study "succeed," whereas those that don't end up in the armed forces, and ultimately Iraq. Ultimately, I figure the dig is more directed at the organization through which troops are recruited, but since the troops are the ones physically engaged in combat, I tend to apply the comment to them, and it seems inappropriate to me.

That's just my take on it though, and I have no desire to argue over the interpretation of a quote.

I'd also just like to give props to willravel for actually seeking out information, calling around, and actually talking to sources, before making a strong claim. It's something that isn't done enough - especially online - primarily because it takes work, and also provides the reality that seeking out valid facts might prematurely shoot down an argument.

And again, I am not really caught up in the recruiter targeting issue either way, it was just neat to read of someone making calls to recruiters in an act of putting up, or shutting up.

In general, I don't really like the politics forum, but this thread caught my eye, and it seemed like the popular place to be of late.

EDIT: After reading more of this thread, it seems others have called around as well. Good stuff.

Re: military recruiters and will and bill - neither of these seems conclusive to me. i honestly wouldn't be surprised if the military would "work with you" a little bit if you lacked some of the requirement, but seemed earnest about wanting to get in, help out, and better yourself later on. its also pretty easy to lead someone where you want to go when you're asking questions of them - even if you don't mean to do it - but i mean, that's what david blaine does for a living.

i'm not sure i even see the j.c. issue as a discreditation. it sounds to me like they are saying you have to have some sort of pre-entrance education credits, and i wouldn't be surprised if there were some limitations on which credits those have to be. ie. amounting to the same information you'd need for a ged.

since we're throwing in anecdotal evidence, i'd just like to thank the marine recruiter, sean studley, who recruited me when i was in high school. did i join? hell no, not my bag. but, the second time he called my house, my friend jon was over. as i'm talking to studley, trying to get him off the phone without being rude, jon starts an impromptu acoustic version of "I love lesbians, you know they are my friends..." in the background. Studlely played it cool.

A few months later I go out to soccer practice, first day...and Studley is the assistant coach. I thought I was dead.

Nope - he was one of the coolest guys I've ever met. Completely destroyed all of my know-it-all high school illusions of what military types are like.

He never lied to me on the phone, answered my questions honestly (even the smartassed ones) and turned out to be a pretty cool dude. Even shaved my head when we won region. He used to initate jokes about us dwarf-tossing him (he was about 5 ft tall, max) at practice.

What does all this matter? Not a damn bit. The military is hurting for recruits, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't want to help kids get in that want in for whatever reasons. But they're not all smarmy assholes, either.

Now that we are beyond the Kerry apology, time for a little house-keeping to clear up another misconception that magic questioned and the Repubs often repeat. (just like the Bullshit that Dems dont vote to support the troops and vets).

Congress NEVER had access to the same pre-war intelligence as the White House before they voted on the Iraq resolution, despite Bush's claim for three years to the contrary.

From the non-partisan Congressional Research Service:

* The President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence community, and has the authority to restrict the flow of intelligence to Congress.

* Administration officials routinely have access to more, and to more sensitive, intelligence than do Members of Congress. And through their daily routines and staff, Administration officials are inherently more capable of assessing finished intelligence products.

* The President has a statutory responsibility to keep Congress “fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities.”

* There are four types of intelligence not routinely shared with Congress.
- Tailored intelligence products such as the President’s Daily Brief (PDB);
- Identities of intelligence sources;
- Intelligence collection and analysis “methods”; and
- “Raw” or “lightly evaluated” intelligence.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releas...-intel-rpt.htm

I dont question the right of the President to have access to more intelligence information than every member of Congress....I do question when he lies to the American people about Congressional access to intelligence being equal.

And how do you feel about it when he mocks his political opponent as a "flip-flopper" because that opponent changed his mind based on receipt of more complete information? I "question" that myself.

This WHOLE thing is because the Rove administration is so masterful at manipulating the sound bite. I'm guessing there are staffers in a basement office in the White House watching every single speech that anyone gives for bits to take out of context and smear people with. "I voted for the war before I voted against it" actually MEANT "Once I got a look at all the intelligence, I saw that I had been conned into voting for this war on the first go-round, so I voted against it the second time." In the context of what he was saying, it was impossible to not understand that. But you pull it out of context, and put it on heavy rotation on Fox News, and you've got "flip-flopper".

If you actually look at Kerry's speech, this "stuck in Iraq" thing was one sentence in a long list of (somewhat) humorous jabs at Bush's competence. In context, it's impossible to misinterpret as an attack on the troops. You can just imagine the glee some little GOP staffer felt when he saw that excising that one statement made Kerry look anti-troop. And a week before Midterms, no less! I hope he got a nice little bonus for that.

Ouch, swing and a miss. I went to three different high schools. The first was a large high school in a very small town. That was low income, that was crawling with recruiters. As a matter of fact, almost a majority of the kids from my freshman gym class are now in the military. My Chem partner from Sophmore year is now a Staff Seargent (he's good people). When I was attending that HS, I also took Jazz Band at the other high school in town, sine the first schoool didn't have one. Halfway through my junior year, I moved to San Jose. The school I went to in San Jose was full of rich kids. That was when I took my first retail job and was frustrated (maybe a bit jelous, though now I realize it built character and taught me how to work) that the other kids had brand new cars and didn't work at all.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't start building a profile on me, though, as I am purpously vague about certian details of my life so that no one is able to actually figure out who I am. If I wanted people to know who I am, I'd be more specific. I don't, becuase I am pretty opinionated and I'd like to keep TFP and my life seperate.
Thanks to DC_Dux for handling this one.
Again, from Post #55:
I'm not lying and I'm not confused or exaggerating. I'm repeating exactly what I was told. If you don't believe me, then call the number I provided and argue with the recruiter. I don't know why you're trying to callBS on me when I provided a phone number of the source of my information. Isn't that the same as providing a link to an article or citing from a book? Isn't that good enough?
No, one does not need a GED to attend a JC.

I Agree he apologized and I for am not a conservative who holds a grudge. IMO it was insulting to the troops and now that he has apologized it's done.

BTW You need a GED to get into most JC's and the Air Force is particular which Credits will count tword the 15 Creidt minumum to enlist and it has to come from a regionaly accredited institution. If you really want to get definitive answers you can look up the Air Force regulation. just google:
AFRS INSTRUCTION 36-2001.
It is the final say when it comes to recruiting anybody into the Air Force.

Was that the same thread where you said that michael j. fox. should be held to higher standards than congress and the president when it comes to making law? I suppose that means that you'd be pretending to be much more offended than your pretending to be now if michael j. fox had said something like this.

Wow you went all the way back to 1972, I'm not positive but isn't that around the time dubya was shoving blow up his nose? You wonder how many foot in mouth comments it takes before someone is considered a dumb fuck, well I wonder how many stupid decisions a president has to make before he's considered a dumb fuck. A concerned Canadian wants to know.

He shoots. He scores. Nice work.

And as far as Kerry's apology goes, he is apologizing for the way his statement came out. He never intended it to be aimed at the troops. The statement was supposed to be a direct jab at GWB's intellect. Of course, this has probably been asserted on this thread at least a dozen times without rising above the maelstrom of delightful outrage, but I thought I'd lend my voice, too...just in case...you know, like that one little Who in Who-ville.

i find this slippage between a joke aimed at cowboy george and one aimed at "our boys" to be curious.

it only really makes sense within the bizzaro world of conservativeland, with its emphasis on question of Will, which kind of explains why the rovemachine felt it important that cowboy george go about staying the course rhetorically--it was as if the Will of the Leader directly animated the "troops" who, following the same logic, would be reduced to the status of meat puppets that would twitch about and do things coherently only to the extent that the Will of the Leader remained undivided.

The Will of the Leader is of course negatively affected by the presence of any dissent in the land, whence the recurrent equation of dissent with treason--which we got yet another little taste of earlier in this thread. If the People were as One facing the Leader, like the congregation would face Charlemagne, who faced the altar for them, then it would follow that the Will of the Leader would be One, and so the meat puppets that are "our troops" would be coherent and, of course, the war in iraq would make sense at some level.

but the People are not One on this--for obvious reasons, but no matter--and so the Will of the Leader is divided and so the meat puppets in iraq cannot act coherently.

so it follows--kind of--that in the bizzaro little world of conservativeland, opponents of the war in iraq are to blame for how fucked up everything is there. just look at ustwo and squirt's little rants about kerry1972 for a demonstration.

the curious thing is that this little story--which seems to me a pretty accurate image of such logic as there is in the ideology of conservativeland on the subject of, say, the war in vietnam (which is repeated in that of the war in iraq)---is far more patronizing to "the troops" than anything anyone else could or would say could possibly be. they really are imagined as meat puppets linked by some crazy spiritualist circuit to the collective Will of the People.

one way in which this does make sense, however, is as a function of the identity-based character of conservative ideology---the centrality of faith to it---which is of a piece with the non-falsifiability of conservative ideological propositions insofar as the inhabitants of conservativeland are concerned. that political committments are a matter of faith sure does help the drawing of lines that separate "us" from "them" tho, doesn't it?

and this in turn sets up the peculiar nature of this short-lived pseudo-controversy. it was a one or two day vacation for the beleagured inhabitants of conservativeland, one that let them retreat into the articles of the faith and avoid that unpleasantness that we generally refer to as reality (you know, the actually existing war in iraq, the debacle that it is, the self-evident bollocks that has been the administration's non strategy, etc etc etc)...and in the process it allows for an affirmation of one's faith-based community...which in turn draws a little line between conservativeland and other territories...which in turn provides a little reminder of why the inhabitants of conservativeland should vote republican regardless of the magnitude of the fuck up that is the reality they have set into motion---you want to vote for "us" because otherwise you'd have to vote for "them" and that is out of the question, not for any real reason, but because...well...think of how screwy the situation would be for the meat puppets if the administration was actually called to account for its actions?
there would be nothing but static on the lines.

but now that little vacation seems over.
what to do?

....

i know.

let's put on a musical.

Old Man Rumsfeld

by the Capitol Steps

Oh LORD, I was going to post a reply to all this, but this snippet pretty much sums up my feelings about the controversy.

Yes, because only you can tell the difference between a typo and bad grammar.

p.s. Your first comma is the wrong puncuation in that sentence. Unless, of course, you were actually speaking to the Lord. Who can tell?

BOR or florida, did you call the number I posted and spoken to the recruiter? I'm sure you have a lot to talk about no matter who is wrong.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-.../bush_rove.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-.../devilspaz.gif

I don't think Kerry meant to insult our troops, I do think he meant what he said though.

Freudian slip? It's very possible. He' slowly but surely made his way over to the anti-war area since his flip floppery.

As is obvious with so many jumping on the 'the troops are stupid' bandwaggon here.

He knew his supporters, he just didn't think outside it.