Not being overly fond of all the partisan tit-for-tat that seems to stir so many earnest hearts in the Blogosphere, I’ll first admit that I have not sought out much information about John Kerry’s gaffe.
Of course, you absorb a certain amount without trying. I know what he said, I know what he said he meant to say (which was every bit as revealing of character as what he said), I heard that he said he wouldn’t apologize, and then he did apologize — sort of.
Nothing new in any of that. It just reminded me, in case I had forgotten, why we couldn’t bring ourselves to endorse the senator for president in 2004, even though we disagreed with about 90 percent of what President Bush was doing. (Of all the Democratic candidates who had come in to speak with our editorial board, Sen. Kerry was the least engaging and the most off-putting. Take your pick — Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, Carol Moseley Braun, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and any others I can’t think of at the moment — all were more favorably impressive than he.)
But in what little I have absorbed on the subject, one thing has been missing. If someone else has said it, please point me to it.
The thing that struck me immediately at the very first report — before I knew how the GOP was hyping it or anything else; I’m talking about the moment I first heard the words he spoke to those students — I thought he was having a Vietnam flashback. Not to his days in combat, but to the much longer period when he was denigrating his own service and that of others.
Young John Kerry’s peers — to the extent that he would have acknowledged having any — thought of soldiers drafted to go to Vietnam pretty much the way Mr. Kerry spoke of today’s soldiers last week.
Yes, he took a commission in the Navy and went over as an officer and a gentleman and did his part, and God bless him for that. But based upon his actions afterward, I don’t think the preppie mindset toward the average grunt ever went away.
Anyway, that’s what flashed through my mind.
Related Posts
Actually, now that I look a little deeper, it turns out that maybe the attitudes of John Kerry and Sy Hersh are more or less the same.
Here’s a story about what Mr. Kerry said back at the time the above black-and-white photo was taken. During that unsuccessful run for Congress in 1972, he said he opposed switching to a volunteer army because, among other things, it would be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes." He said that although he opposed the draft (meaning, I suppose, he thought we should have no army at all), a volunteer force would be "a greater anathema," partly because he thought the poor and disadvantaged would be even more likely to bear a disproportionate burden than they did with the Vietnam-era draft.
But more than that, he feared "having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply ‘doing its job.’"
I guess it never occurred to him that we could just try having a fair draft, one that took everybody and assigned each man according to his abilities.
Anyway, all of this lends less credence to his claim that it was an incredibly bumbled joke. By suggesting that our troops today were the uneducated, he was expressing a thought that he has long harbored, and expressed.
The best commentary on this whole sad affair was on John Stewart’s The Daily Show. If you missed it, some of the segments can be found on You Tube.
As Brad noted, Kerry is innately arrogant, and that’s why he has a forty-year history of offending people.
Brad,if you have already commented on what I’m about to bring up and I missed it then I’ll withdraw this post and you can feel free to remove it. If not you have some serious explaining to do.
Whatever the intent of Kerry’s sorry attempt at humor it was definitely not an intentional slap at the soldiers. I’m 100% certain of that. But what is far more disturbing is the president’s scripted skit before the DC press club making fun of his inability to find the weapons of mass destruction. This occurred a year or two ago and was one of the most disgusting, callous and disrespectful attempt at humor by any elected official ever. Until you condemn that monstrous insult to the American people you have no right to say ANYTHING about ANY other politician who makes a joke. If you found that sorry piece of **** attempt at humor in any way, shape or form funny then you are truly the partisan hack that you so roundly condemn others of being.
Wasn’t that at the Gridiron Club?
Of course it was callous, but beyond that you should probably ask someone who hasn’t been working in and around newsrooms for more than three decades.
I am constantly shocking my wife and other decent people with the kinds of gallows humor that is common in newspaper settings (in other words, among the people who put on Gridiron) but grossly inappropriate when talking to normal people.
Sounds to me like Bush was trying way too hard to be one of the guys, something for which he seems to have an unpleasant penchant.
All of that said, you question is that of a partisan. If someone says something about Bush, I probably nod agreement; I don’t say, “Well, what about Kerry?” And when Kerry fouls up again, I don’t think, “When did Bush do something similar, so I can mention that, too?”
I just don’t think in those dichotomous, partisan, yin-yang terms.
Kerry never has left his Vietnam War, anti-American mentality behind. Only when his ilk are dead or out of politics will the Democratic Party have any hope of becoming American again.
Serious thinkers have long sinced stopped talking about John Kerry. His comment should have not received any press, as no one should care what he thinks.
The only fitting justice to S-Kerry would be if Teresa would throw his sorry back-end into the street so he could go make his own living somehow, somewhere. The fact that any party would run this arrogant gigolo for president is beyond belief. And he gets worse with age. Now, where can I git me a huntin license? As he said in 04.
What’s the difference between John Kerry and Brad Warthen?
John Kerry went to Vietnam.
It is amazing that someone like Brad Warthen can dream that he is morally entitled to criticize John Kerry for anything.
Warthen was kept out of Vietnam by cowardice. He was afraid to serve in Vietnam, but he was brave enough to sit around advocating policies that led to the deaths of thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of Vietnamese.
Similarly, he is too cowardly and lazy to contribute anything to “finishing the job in Iraq,” but his is brave and industrious enough to sit and attack people whose every prediction about the war has been proven right, just as his every prediction was proven wrong. Warthen is a worthless, cowardly, lazy, freeloading failure as a journalist and as a human being.
John Kerry has never criticizes our soldiers. He has criticized the policies that our soldiers have been asked to carry out and the orders they have been given. Warthen accuses Kerry of attacking our soldiers because Warthen is a coward. Warthen doesn’t care about our soldiers. Warthen doesn’t care how many of our soldiers die. Warthen doesn’t care how many of our soldiers come back with their arms and legs blown off. Warthen only cares about using our soldiers as shields to deflect criticism of the policies he advodates.
That’s the same thing the Bush administration did when they attacked Kerry for his so-called “gaffe”. Kerry was not saying anything about our soldiers, and he didn’t appear to be saying anything about our soldiers. He was riffing on Bush’s failures. He said that Bush used to live in the state of Texas, and now lives in the state of denial, and continued with is remark that if you don’t use your education you wind up getting stuck in Iraq. The context and the words are clear, whether you use the phrase “getting stuck in Iraq” or “getting us stuck in Iraq”. When you talk about someone getting “stuck” in a theater of operations, the person you’re talking about is the commander. Bush is stuck in Iraq. Kerry’s only “mistake” was that he didn’t use words calculated to ward off deliberate misintrepretation of what he said.
Here is what Keith Olbermann, a successful journalist and a successful human being, has to say:
“Sen. Kerry, as you well know, spoke at a college in Southern California. With bitter humor he told the students that he had been in Texas the day before, that President Bush used to live in that state, but that now he lives in the state of denial. He said the trip had reminded him about the value of education — that ‘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.’
The senator, in essence, called Mr. Bush stupid.
The context was unmistakable: Texas; the state of denial; stuck in Iraq. No interpretation required.”
[Ellipsis]
“The second option is that you and those who work for you deliberately twisted what Sen. Kerry said to fit your political template; that you decided to take advantage of it, to once again pretend that the attacks, solely about your own incompetence, were in fact attacks on the troops or even on the nation itself.”
END OF QUOTE
That’s what Bush did, and that’s what Warthen is doing now. Both Bush and Wwarthen constantly hide behind our soldiers. Kerry and Warthen both had the opportunity to serve in Vietnam. Kerry’s courage sent him to Vietnam; Warthen’s cowardice kept him out. Kerry’s courage led him to talk about what he saw as the wrongness of the war; Warthen’s cowardice caused him then, and causes him now, to deliberately misinterpret criticism of the war as a criticism of the soldiers who were sent to fight it.
******************************************
“thought of soldiers drafted to go to Vietnam pretty much the way Mr. Kerry spoke of today’s soldiers last week.”
*******************************************
Once again. Kerry. Was. Not. Speaking. Of. Today’s. Soldiers. Last. Week.
Kerry is not responsible for the deliberate misinterpretation of his words by cowards like the Bush Administration officials and Brad Warthen. Kerry is responsible for his own (accurate) words, which said that Bush, by failing to use his education and to try to be intelligent, got stuck in Iraq.
One indication of the stupidity and laziness of the failed journalists acting as stenographers for the attacks on Kerry was that they failed to understand the meaning of the name Pasadena CITY College.” Think about it for a second. Pasadena CITY College”. A two-year community college. Fees are $26 per unit.
We are supposed to believe that John Kerry was making an elitist attack on soldiers to an elitist audience of COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS, who paid $26 per unit for their tuition!!! Now I know that subscribers to the State newspaper, alhtough they could afford the $26 per unit fees for the school ($20 starting this winter), couldn’t meet the academic requirements and therefore might think of the school as elitist. But I have to tell you, those of us who live in places where education is be valued, rather than shunned and feared, don’t think of places like Pasadena CITY College as a breeding ground for snobs and elitists.
Once again. Kerry was not saying anything at all about our soldiers. He was not denigrating the intelligence of our soldiers to a bunch of elitist community college snobs paying $390 per semester tuition out of their trust funds.
Kerry was criticizing the commander whose failings led to the calamity in Iraq.
And cowards like Warthen, whose claim to American citizenship is a shame to America, deflect Kerry’s criticism of the policies Warthen advocates (at no cost or hardship to himself) by pretending that this criticism of policies is a criticism of our soldiers.
Warthen can gain some redemption for his insult to our troops by volunteering at the VA hospital.
But he won’t.
Brad, you’re coming across more and more partisan, at least in national politics. As chris noted Kerry’s comments were irrelevant. Since he’s not running for anything why has the press, including Brad Warthen, made such a big deal out of it? The only explaination is much of the press is pushing a partisan, war-mongering agenda.
The reason I brought the Bush incident up is not to counter balance your Kerry post but rather to determine if you are truly non-partisan or, just a pro-war hack. If, AT THE TIME of Bush’s disgraceful “gallows humor” skit you condemned it for the disgusting spectacle that it was then I’m ok with a brief mention of the Kerry flap. If you’re a pro-war party hack like Dave and Lee that’s fine too. Just admit it. But don’t rant about your un-party and how awful partisan politics is then hypocritically attack someone with another point of view. That is just not becoming of a journalist.
John Kerry was a draft-dodger, who tried to join a branch of service that he thought would keep him out of Vietnam.
When he was sent there, he had a few dubvious and brief encounters with the enemy, and cooked up some phony medals for himself, so he could pad his resume as a politician.
Then Kerry came back and ran an anti-military group which was financed by the KGB. He is what the Soviets called a “useful idiot”.
Lee, have you heard that amphetamine use may exacerbate the symptoms of schizophrenia?
But wait, Kerry is supposed to be so intellectually astute and articulate, yet he cannot even get the words straight on a single joke? Anyway, while our brave soldiers are shedding blood in Iraq, that is pretty poor to pick that subject to joke about. But Kerry has been condemning our soldiers since 1971. So whats new here?
Chris, exactly so. John Kerry is a despicable and worthless piece of human debris who should be roundly ignored. Of course he meant to demean the soldiers, sailors and airmen who are fighting valiantly and heroically. He said exactly what he meant, and to him they are nothing but fools and pawns. Hint: That is how he sees you and me too. Bad men can become good. Wrong men can become right. But John Kerry is an irrevocably little man trying to become big. Ed
Mary, that was cocaine that Bill Clinton was abusing, but it does have similar effects to amphetamine. This thread is about the dementia of John Kerry.
Here are some great reasons to vote Republican tommorow (Thanks to the Democratic Underground):
Vote Republican If You Think It’s A Good Idea To Put Detailed Atom Bomb Plans On The Internet For Anyone To See.
Where was Brad and The State when this bombshell came out.
Vote Republican If You Want To Stay The Course In Iraq
Never mind that Stay the Course is a losing proposition. October was the fourth deadliest month for the U.S. Our allies are bailing out. Mutilated bodies are showing up everywhere. That’s the result of “Stay the Course”.
Vote Republican If You Hate The Military
In a Wednesday appearance on CNN, Boehner was asked for his view on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the U.S. policy in Iraq.
“There are a lot of people who want to blame what’s happening in Iraq on Donald Rumsfeld, but when you look at the transformation that our military has been through, it’s nothing short of remarkable,” Boehner said. “The fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge.”
So the problem in Iraq is the fault of the troops, and of course John Kerry.
Vote Republican If You Think That Laws Are For Other People
When it comes to law and order, you know you can trust Republicans. Take Ann Coulter for example. I noted back in Idiots 233 that she was under investigation for knowingly voting in the wrong precinct during a local election. Coulter also allegedly falsified the address on her voter registration. Unfortunately for our Ann, that’s a felony in Florida.
Yes siree. The Republicans continue to be the party of law and order. Just so long as they don’t have to comply.
The national Republican party has deteriorated into a corrupt, incompetent band of theives that wins by using scare tactics and unethical campaign tactics such as push polling. It’s time for them to go.
Lee, I would say that the thread was about Warthen’s cowardice and hypocrisy, but you raised questions about the exacerbation of schizophrenia by amphetamines when you made the, let us say unusual, claim, that Kerry joined the military and served in combat as a way of dodging the draft. Schizophenics, as I understand it, make claims that exhibit an equal logical inconsistency.
And you raised new questions when you discuss Bill Clinton’s supposed cocaine use, something no one other than yourself seems to know about, although it would seem that if it had happened, it would be widely known. Schizophrenics also, as I understand it, see things that no one else sees.
Ed, there’s a little man trying to become big here, but it’s not Kerry, it’s you. To you, what’s important isn’t serving in war, it’s suppoorting war. To you, it doesn’t matter whether someone serves or not, all that matters is lip support.
Kerry served his country honorably, but he exercised his right as a citizen to oppose the country’s policies when he came to believe that they were mistaken and wrong. So you discount his service.
You don’t value America or the ideals on which America was founded, so you denigrate Kerry’s patriotism. To you, the fact that Kerry failed to reflexively support a war is what’s important.
Kerry was, clearly, riffing on Bush. You despise Kerry because, unlike you, he is a patriotic American who pays attention to what the country is doing and makes and voices judgments about whether the country is right or wrong. Therefore, you deliberately misinterpret Kerry’s words in order to twist them into an attack on our soldiers. But you don’t care about our soliders, and you don’t care about America. All you care about is preventing your views from being challenged, because you are too lazy, cowardly, hypocritical, and generally worthless, to defend them honestly. Therefore, you dishonestly conflate criticism of the policies that our soldiers are asked to carry out with the soldiers themselves, and claim that criticism of policies is criticism of our soldiers.
The rightness or wrongness of a policy is independent of whether our soldiers are asked to carry it out. And deciding whether or not to continue to keep our soldiers in combat depends on gaining the best outcome for America.
The fact that you need for America to “show strength and resolve” by “finishing the job in Iraq” because you need a war to support in order to make you feel like a man doesn’t mean that continuing the war is the right thing to do.
Kerry ran a KGB-funded group which lied about our soldiers in Vietnam. If he was “patriotic”, the country wasn’t the USA.
Gosh, the 100,000 pages of engineering details of Saddam’s nuclear weapons program were on the internet for a few days.
Some more WMD the Democrats claim never existed.
Not that they care. They let the Red Chinese steal CD-ROMs full of atomic bomb details, sold the ChiComs supercomputers to design their current generation of weapons, and let Loral solve their ICBM guidance problems, for a mere $30,000,000 in illegal campaign donations / bribes.
Mary, I’ve learned to ignore you. As soon as I see a screed that attacks me and that is about a million words long, I look to the bottom and see if you wrote it. If yes, I move on quckly to something written by a rational human. Nice try though. Bud, your first bullet point was that it was bad for Republicans to put atomic bomb how-to in fo on the net. A) I don’t believe they did it, and B) your mock outrage about this seems pretty silly given the New York Times recent disclosure of secret tactics being used effectively against terrorists, and the shameless employment of homosexuality by democrats recently to attempt to dampen conservative turnout. Looks to me like the only disclosures of secret material you have a problem with are either the ones that help republicans, or the ones you didn’t think of. Ed
Ed, the fact that you see the revelation that a congressman was molesting teenagers as a “revelation of secret material” tells us everything about you that we need to know.
When I see a Democrat who thinks Clinton should have been impeached for his rapes an sexual assaults, and Ted Kennedy for his killing of Mary Jo Kopechne, I will take seriously their expressions of outrage at Congressman Foley’s e-mails to an 18-year-old page.
Otherwise, they are just faking their outrage du jour.
Since November 2000 the U.S. has been stuck in a sort of dark, underworld void controlled by radical, hapless power mad demons. These madmen have somehow convinced much of the American public that they and they alone can protect us from the evil terrorists. Never mind the biggest terrorist event ever occurred on their watch. Never mind the perpetrator of that abominable act was never apprehended. Never mind the search for that monster was abondoned in favor of a misguided war of vengence. The big lie continues and despite overwhelming evidence many voters continue to buy into this fraud.
Most recently the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine times has demanded the removal of the chief architect of the Iraq disaster. Yet the hapless decider in his deluded state of denial openly supports him. The NIE offers an opinion that continued occupation will result in more terrorist activities. But alas we continue, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that we are failing.
One phoney reason given for this continued quagmire is to assert that fighting them over there so they won’t come over here. But why should they bother? There are plenty of readily available American targets within easy reach of the diabolical terrorist demons. Over 24,000 Americans have now been killed or wounded in a war that cannot be explained let alone justified. Yet polls show many voters continue to support those leaders responsible for this atrocity.
The infamous, “main stream” media is partly to blame. An incredibly trivial comment by a man not even running for election dominates the news cycle for 3 days. Meanwhile dozens of soldiers are needlessly killed and maimed. Hundreds of innocent civilians are tragically killed, many of them children. But a sloppy joke dominates the news. How sick is that?
But perhaps the American people have finally woken up to this tragedy. Perhaps enough people have figured out what should be so obvious by now. We cannot achieve a good outcome in Iraq with the leaders and “stay the course” flawed strategy we’ve used for 3-1/2 years. Any hope of a decent outcome hinges on a change of direction. That change can begin tommorow with a new congress. The good guys are still the underdogs, especially in the senate, but there is hope. The survival of this great and wonderful nation hangs in the balance. We can choose to continue on the path of fear, constitution bashing, war based on lies and declining moral values. Or, we can choose the path of righteousness, hope and the caring spirit of democracy and freedom espoused by the founding fathers. As for me, the choice is clear. I choose hope over fear, democracy over totalitarian rule, values over phoney platitudes.
Ed, Dave, Lee, etc…here’s the bottom line on this.
I don’t dispute that Kerry is from a snobby elite Eastern background and is maybe deep inside contemptuous of the “grunts.”
But George W. Bush, who fakes being a “regular guy,” is every bit as contemptuous of the everyday soldier as Kerry is. Difference is, Bush’s contempt for the intelligence of the American voter and military gets people killed, especially young American soldiers.
Brad, you’ll say this is partisan a la Bud’s earlier comment, but the difference in the cost (in human lives) between the kind of snobbery Kerry displayed and the kind of contempt Bush displays, must be pointed out.
The Tom Friedman column in today’s State says it all.
Phillip, I completely agree that George W is an elite…certainly no Joe Sixpack he. Also, I obviously am a rock-rib conservative, and some of the things W has done in office just infuriate me. However, I have never, EVER believed that he held any contempt or disdain for soldiers, sailors and airmen. I absolutely believe he truly respects and admires them, and that he has sent them into harms’ way to fight and die only after fully considering the gravity and import such a decision holds. He’s genuinely moved at the funerals of fallen soldiers, and counts dearly the human cost of this war. In short, while not exactly what I wanted as a President in many areas, still so much more honorable and competent than John F’n Kerry. Ed
We could debate until doomsday who cares about the troops more, Kerry or Bush. There’s no way to prove it, so let’s move on. Why in the world did Brad even bring this up?
This election is about competence. Bush has displayed a stubborn incompetence with his inexplicable continued support for Donald Rumsfeld and the failure of his policies for the last 3+ years. Even staunch war supporters should be appalled at Bush’s continued support of Rummy. The bottom line is Bush cannot be trusted with our military and a Democratic congress could help bring about some much needed change.
WOW! The race for the U.S. is unbelievably close on this election eve. According Rasmussen it’s 48 dem – 48 GOP and 4 toss ups (MO, MT, VA and TN). My gut is the M states will break for the dems and the other 2 for the GOP allowing them to eke out a victory. But the first 3 are really dead-heats. TN appears headed for the GOP but it’s still close. This will really depend on who turns out the vote. I think the DEMS have closed the gap on that critical election element since 2004. But the question is: is it enough? This is a political junkies dream.
Since Kerry still continues with the lies of his KGB shill days, he obviously never did care for our military, and still doesn’t.
If you believe that Kerry did not misspeak, and meant to demean the troops you are an idiot. Chris Matthews said it best yesterday on his show when he said that Kerry was an idiot for screwing up a stupid joke, but those that continue to say that he hates the troops, a la Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, are nothing more than liars. No one with an IQ over 20 should be making that claim.
Preston, it isn’t just stupidity. It’s the choosing of the facts one credits or doesn’t credit based on what one WANTS TO BELIEVE. Look at Ed’s remark above. He simply denies that the Bush Administration put nuclear documents up on the web, even though it’s all over the papers, and the Bush Administration confesses that they did it, and blames their actions on Congressional Republicans who were agitating to have it done because they wanted to prove that Saddam Hussein had prohibited WMD’s.
Ed doesn’t want to believe that, so he simply ignores all the evidence and denies it. Now, it’s true that Ed is stupid, but mere stupidity isn’t enough to explain why he thinks the way he thinks.
Lee is the same way. He is stupid and worthless, but again, mere stupidity isn’t sufficient to explain the long, long litany of beliefs he holds with no evidence. He basically believes everything he wants to believe and automatically discounts everything he doesn’t want to believe. That isn’t due simply to stupidity, although, of course, stupidity plays a major role.
With Warthen, it’s a little more complicated. Warthen is, to be sure, perhaps the stupidest journalist in the world today – perhaps of all time. But Warthen’s belief that Kerry was disparaging our troops isn’t due merely to stupidity. Certainly Kerry explained what he said, and Keith Olbermann explained what Kerry said. But Warthen discounts the explanations, and the plain meanings of the words Kerry used, and instead attacks Kerry for mocking our soldiers. That’s because Warthen has a desperate emotional need to denigrate everyone who has been more successful than he has, or contributed more to the world than he has. In Warthen’s view, if he can disparage the contributions of others, can pretend they aren’t meaningful or important, he can pretend that his own utter, lifelong failure to make a postive contribution to the world is excusable.
Warthen didn’t serve in Vietnam because cowardice and laziness kept him out. Kerry served honorably. That makes him better than Warthen. Warthen can’t admit that to himself, so he has to find some way to disparage Kerry, and he finds it by pretending that Kerry disparaged our troops, even though he did not such thing.
So yeah, stupidity accounts for a big part of it, and for some people, stupidity is all of it, but in many cases there are additional factors at work.
The American Conservative
GOP Must Go
“It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen—in America and the world at large—as a decisive “No” vote on the Bush presidency is the best outcome. We need not dwell on George W. Bush’s failed effort to jam a poorly disguised amnesty for illegal aliens through Congress or the assaults on the Constitution carried out under the pretext of fighting terrorism or his administration’s endorsement of torture. Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why—thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.
As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush’s decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration’s calculation—as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides—the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran’s hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israel’s northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.”
1. We are winning the war in Iraq
2. We will win, unless the cowards and traitors get control and pull out our troops in order to validate their lies.
Lee, of course we’re not winning the war in Iraq. That’s crystal clear. We may win if we change tactics or strategy but currently we are losing. 100% of the evidence indicates we are losing. There is nothing to suggest otherwise, nothing.
But the real question is why you would believe we’re winning. Is it wishful thinking? Is it a preconceived knee jerk reaction that you can’t let go of? Are you insane? Are you on drugs? Are you in another dimension where the facts are different? Have you been hypnotized? Is someone holding a gun to your head? Do you actually know we’re losing but just like to pull liberals’ chain? Whatever the reason it is not based on any readily available facts. The U.S. is currently losing the war in Iraq. That’s a sad, but true, fact.
Just because you want the terrorists to defeat Bush, doesn’t make it so.
We are winning the war, but are in a brief stalemate. After the elections, I hope to see us take off the gloves, ratchet up the pressure and eradicate 20,000 more hard core terrorists.
The leftist, Bush-hating news media only reports our losses in last month’s offensive to separate the Suunis and Shiites in the north. They don’t report that we were in an offensive operation, much less how many major terrorist leaders the US and Brits killed.
Mary knows so little about Vietnam that she doesn’t realize that Brad Warthen is too young to have gone if he had tried. The draft was ended in 1972, and junior officers were RIFfed out of active duty and into the reserves. Troops were withdrawn heavily throughout 1973 and 1974.
Mary do us a favor and move to Canada. Take Kerry with you.
Mary do us a favor and move to Canada. Take Kerry with you.
Mike, why don’t you do us a favor and go to your local military recruiting office and sign up to go to Iraq?
Or you can continue to “fight” the war by sitting on their sofa telling others that they aren’t entitled to live in America. That’ll show the insurgents!
Mary, did you fight in Clinton’s wars in Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia, Macedonia, etc? Some of them are still dragging on. You can enlist now. Pick one.
Why did I bring up the subject? Why did Pavlov ring the bell?
It struck me that while I continue to get a gratifyingly steady stream of comments on the blog, we hadn’t had a long, out-of-control thread — a 200-comment one, for instance — in a while.
Beyond that, I had noticed a very encouraging trend. A few months ago, posts that I considered to be substantial on issues that actually must be decided right here in South Carolina weren’t getting much response, while anything that touched upon the latest TV/blogosphere partisan buzz — such as this Kerry nonsense — would take off like a rocket.
I think the blog is maturing, and the fact that there have only been 39 comments (before this one) on this post is a sign of that. Recent posts on the governor or superintendent race outstripped this easily.
Now, lest you accuse me of making up the post just to test you, let me assure you that I really, honestly had the thoughts I recorded above. They just weren’t all that important to me. The purpose in posting them was to see how important they were to my readership. The answer seems to be, “not so much.”
And as Martha Stewart might say, That’s a good thing.
Communist and socialist support for Kerry says it all.
Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero, leader of the Spanish Socialist Party and victor in the recent national elections, has given his endorsement to John Kerry’s campaign.
http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/cat_kerry.html