Should Kerry apologize for his comments about the troops?

[Matt]

...bastard.

 

[sinewave]

doubt it.

People risk their lives all the time to attain power, glory and wealth.

Why would Kerry be different?

Sorry, but "doubt it" isn't a very strong argument. Let's just chock this up to political bias and move on.

 

[Armand Z Trip]

Excerpt from Keith Olbermann special comment 11/1

The Senator, in essence, called Mr. Bush stupid. The context was unmistakable: Texas, the state of denial, stuck in Iraq. No interpretation required.

And Mr. Bush and his minions responded, by appearing to be too stupid to realize that they had been called stupid. They demanded Kerry apologize to the troops in Iraq.

That phrase “appearing to be too stupid” is used deliberately, Mr. Bush.
Because there are only three possibilities here.


One, sir, is that you are far more stupid than the worst of your critics have suggested; that you cannot follow the construction of a simple sentence; that you cannot recognize your own life story when it is deftly summarized; nor know it is the sad ledger of your presidency that is being recounted by a political opponent.

This, of course, compliments you, Mr. Bush, because even those who do not “make the most of it,” who do not “study hard,” who do not “do their homework,” and who do not “make an effort to be smart" might still be just stupid, but honest.

 

[sinewave]

Once again it's time for the "Lazur Happy Super Teriffic Funtime Hour!!!!"

There are a lot of people on this board who dub themselves a "moderate" in the hopes that othes will perceive them as objective. It's a crock. A true moderate sees the good (and bad) in EVERYONE, voting for the person with whom they *most* agree.

So, using your logic, what good things do you see in Kerry? Why do you automatically assume that his comments were intended to come out the way they did? Why don't you give him the benefit of the doubt when he claims he misspoke? Why are you still angry at him even after he apologized?

The problem I have with THIS particular group of people on THIS particular message forum is that if someone defends ANYthing Bush does, that person is labelled a "neo-con" or "Bush lover". Yet, the reverse isn't true, or isn't expected. Kerry does something that's absolutely IDIOTIC on national TV and those same people come to his defense along with a disclaimer of "well I don't like the guy, but...". There IS no but! The guy said something stupid on national TV. Let's not dance around the issue. Call a spade a spade for Christ sakes and quit "playing" politics.

Also by your logic, anyone who points out flaws or things they don't like about the Bush administration aren't necessarily "liberals", "libs", or "you libs", as you're so fond of saying. Fair enough?

And I get a kick out of all of the people in this thread saying crap like "I'm not saying I like Kerry, BUT ... " and then defending the man for his stupidity in front of a microphone.

Some of you are moderate and for that I commend you, but the rest of you are hypocrits. Why? Because some of you who are asking for objectivity in this particular situation with Kerry are the same ones who refuse to deal with objectivity when it concerns Bush, and anyone who DOES ask for objectivity, or who defends Bush against mindless attacks is dubbed "a blind supporter of Bush". Just pathetic. I guess that means that you should be referred to as "blind supporters of Kerry".

I've never called you a "blind supporter of Bush", but I honestly have never seen you come out against him on anything. As a matter of fact, as long as I can remember, anytime I post something negative about him or his Administration you come out in defense of him. It's just my perception, but until proven otherwise, I'll continue to think that. Just because someone defends the actions of someone else doesn't mean they necessarily support him. This is prime example of things being blown out of proportion in the heat of a political race. It's just like the forged Bush ANG documents or the Swiftboat veterans thing with Kerry back in '04. It's only purpose is to be exploited for political gain.

As for your claim to being a moderate, I've seen you post things about me in protest of me supposedly labeling all Republicans or conservatives as crooked or evil or whatever, but I don't ever recall you commenting when someone like Fred_Fury or Cass says somthing like "democrats hate the miliary". Is it because you agree with them? It doesn't seem like something a "moderate" would do. If you were a moderate you would acutally defend both parties, rather than just one.

Neo-con? Define neo-con for me and then explain how it applies to people who dislike Kerry, not only for what he just did, but for the idiot he is.

"Neo-cons" didn't get up on national TV and insult the military. Kerry did. Whatever spotlight has been shown on him is HIS fault - not "neo-cons". So why don't you try putting blame where it's due and quit blaming "the other guy" for the problems in YOUR party.

You're still accusing him of insulting the military, after he explained his mistake and apologized for it?

You were four years old when I voted for Clinton. What would you know about what I was thinking at the time? Are you always so presumptuous on subjects about which you know absolutely nothing?

So, the argument that someone doesn't know what someone else is thinking only applies when it's targeted at you. How do you know what Kerry was thinking when he said what he said?

This is fun!!!!!

 

[Daisy]

I realize what Kerry was trying to say in the first place and I think it's stupid that it was blown so out of proportion like this, but I think Kerry brought it on himself.

Instead of simply saying something along the lines of: "I'm sorry, that came out wrong. I was intending to refer to the current administration saying 'when you don't do your homework you get us stuck in Iraq'. I understand how my mistake could be misconstrued and I no way intended to insult the intelligence of our fighting men and women in Iraq. I apologize for offending them, their families and friends, however unintentionally it may have been."

It's called being gracious, and for someone who aspires to high political office, it's a good quality, IMO. It would be another way to show him to be better than Bush.

Instead, he had to be all prideful and insist that he wasn't going to apologize because everyone should have known what he really meant. That's what makes him seem like an arrogant ass, no better than or even worse than Bush.

And then he ends of apologizing anyway, which then seems completely insincere, like he simply caved to party pressure.

 

[Darthphere]

Any apology given, at any time would seem insincere.

 

[maxwell's demon]

he pretty much did say that. yes pridefully, but he didnt say "Everyone" should have gotten what he meant. he said that the White House knew what he meant, and went on to say the military we have now was the finest in the world. that pretty much covers it all from where i'm standing.

i don't think he should've apologized at all.

 

[Daisy]

Eventually... but first he was angry and combative. That's just stupid... it's simply good sense to apologize quickly and immediately to minimize the coverage. Instead, he escalates things and turns the attention onto himself (and off the war itself) with his defensiveness.

...and he wasn't speaking to a White House audience, he was speaking to college students in Pasedena... and news cameras.

 

[jaguarr]

I realize what Kerry was trying to say in the first place and I think it's stupid that it was blown so out of proportion like this, but I think Kerry brought it on himself.

Instead of simply saying something along the lines of: "I'm sorry, that came out wrong. I was intending to refer to the current administration saying 'when you don't do your homework you get us stuck in Iraq'. I understand how my mistake could be misconstrued and I no way intended to insult the intelligence of our fighting men and women in Iraq. I apologize for offending them, their families and friends, however unintentionally it may have been."

It's called being gracious, and for someone who aspires to high political office, it's a good quality, IMO. It would be another way to show him to be better than Bush.

Instead, he had to be all prideful and insist that he wasn't going to apologize because everyone should have known what he really meant. That's what makes him seem like an arrogant ass, no better than or even worse than Bush.

And then he ends of apologizing anyway, which then seems completely insincere, like he simply caved to party pressure.

Hi. I'm jaguarr, and I endorse this post.

(How sad is it when you make yourself look stupid while trying to call someone else stupid, though?)

jag

 

[maxwell's demon]

?

i heard his comments, Daisy, (containing everything i just stated) mere moments after the release of the original story. and YES he was angry and combative- but the facts i stated were contained within the combative responsive. And i say good for him for BEING combative. he didnt do a thing wrong in my view except- as i stated- not speaking with the Queens English.

And Daisy, c'mon. you know i know he wasn't speaking to a White House audience. Or if really you don't, please read my previous comments in this thread. I'm fully aware of what was going on.

 

[Daisy]

In all seriousness MD,

How am I supposed to believe you're fully aware of what's going on when you don't even manage to understand that I was joking/teasing when I not only separated a comment from the rest of my post but included a with it as well?

 

[jaguarr]

maxwell caught feelings.

jag

 

[maxwell's demon]

In all seriousness MD,

How am I supposed to believe you're fully aware of what's going on when you don't even manage to understand that I was joking/teasing when I not only separated a comment from the rest of my post but included a with it as well?

In all seriousness Daisy, the smiley is the least favorite of all smileys, and when i see it attached to posts i don't get "joke" anymore, i get "condescension". I blame Slaggy

 

[chaseter]

Do you honestly think Kerry called Troops dumb? The Vietnam Vet who won purple hearts and graduated from Yale? THAT John Kerry?

Wasn't Kerry denounced by his fellow swift boat veterans for being a coward??? I can't remember.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Wasn't Kerry denounced by his fellow swift boat veterans for being a coward??? I can't remember.

chaseter are you talking about The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? you actually believed them?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Wasn't Kerry denounced by his fellow swift boat veterans for being a coward??? I can't remember.

Swift Boat Veterans Anti-Kerry Ad: "He Betrayed Us" With 1971 Anti-War Testimony

Group quotes Kerry's descriptions of atrocities by US forces. In fact, atrocities did happen.


Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record

Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.

 

[chaseter]

chaseter are you talking about The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? you actually believed them?

I really didn't remember what they said. I didn't vote for Kerry for other reasons. I am sure they were paid off, who knows.

 

[Daisy]

Wasn't Kerry denounced by his fellow swift boat veterans for being a coward??? I can't remember.

I really don't think that's relevant.

Mostly because it's highly debatable.

 

[lazur]

Let's face it - there IS no man who will ever be good enough to be our President.














































Therefore, I nominate Daisy for 2008!

 

[chaseter]

^ I will vote for Daisy.

 

[maxwell's demon]

i'm not convinced she'll be old enough to run!



'cause ...she looks so young....and all.


:meow:

 

[War Lord]

Swift Boat Veterans Anti-Kerry Ad: "He Betrayed Us" With 1971 Anti-War Testimony

Group quotes Kerry's descriptions of atrocities by US forces. In fact, atrocities did happen.

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record
Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.

What do you know, you're using opinion articles to support your viewpoint.

 

[Ben Urich]

factcheck.org is not an opinion site.
The front page contains facts about lies from both Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

What do you know, you're using opinion articles to support your viewpoint.

LOL, FACTCHECK.org
is not an opinion site.

you just failed Jonty. it wasn't even a good try.

 

[lazur]

i'm not convinced she'll be old enough to run!



'cause ...she looks so young....and all.


:meow:

Hmm, really ... and where can I see a picture?