I just want to make sure that I'm on the same page - you believe that Clinton did not invade Iraq because he believed that Iraq had WMDs or nuclear capabilities?No, I believe President Clinton didn't invade Iraq because that is consistent with his history of inaction (no matter what he believed).

kudos to the troops taht made that sign. Hilarious.

However its no secret that the military preys on poor kids and those who feel that can't do college.

its true, and the sad thing is you make it out to be something bad, like sitting around collecting welfare or scraping by on odd jobs is somehow better. What is wrong with kids who are less fortunate joining the military and making a life for themself? I grew up very poor, I lived in a house with no hot water and no heat. My dad couldnt send me to college. I joined the military for 3 years, saw the world, became a man and when I got out I got paid to go to college. Now I have a god job and a nice place to live. I understand that people die in the military, everyone knows that, so please dont bring it up or bring up the phoney reasons for the war. As soon as you join the militray you give up the right to decide if you agree with the reasons you are going to war or not.

Trav, it dosent and shouldnt make you give up the right to think.

No, I believe President Clinton didn't invade Iraq because that is consistent with his history of inaction (no matter what he believed).
Its a pity the Bush Family didnt learn from his example, they could have had alQaeda sorted by now.

its true, and the sad thing is you make it out to be something bad, like sitting around collecting welfare or scraping by on odd jobs is somehow better. What is wrong with kids who are less fortunate joining the military and making a life for themself? I grew up very poor, I lived in a house with no hot water and no heat. My dad couldnt send me to college. I joined the military for 3 years, saw the world, became a man and when I got out I got paid to go to college.


Good points, but Kerry didn't say "you get stuck in the military" he said "you get stuck in Iraq". Most people, when given a choice, would rather not be fighting a war. Sorry, but I don't think young people in America aspire to end up in Iraq. So Kerry suggested they give themselves more options, because as you said some "kids who are less fortunate join the military", which currently could have you end up in Iraq. I don't see how that is calling them "stupid".

The fact that President Clinton took no action is no proof of what he believed to be true or proven....

...No, I believe President Clinton didn't invade Iraq because that is consistent with his history of inaction (no matter what he believed).


Your original statement was talking about some sort of proof from Clinton's inaction, yet your next statement is just saying that Clinton doesn't act on things. I don't see a proof here, and I don't even know what was proven by Clinton not going to war, you really didn't make that one clear.

its true, and the sad thing is you make it out to be something bad, like sitting around collecting welfare or scraping by on odd jobs is somehow better. What is wrong with kids who are less fortunate joining the military and making a life for themself? I grew up very poor, I lived in a house with no hot water and no heat. My dad couldnt send me to college. I joined the military for 3 years, saw the world, became a man and when I got out I got paid to go to college. Now I have a god job and a nice place to live. I understand that people die in the military, everyone knows that, so please dont bring it up or bring up the phoney reasons for the war. As soon as you join the militray you give up the right to decide if you agree with the reasons you are going to war or not.


Good points, except for that last one. You can still be in the military and disagree with what you are doing or with the war. There is no problem with that, as long as you still do your job.

He said a statement to make a point against Bush, and obviously he did not intend to mean that if your in Iraq that you're stupid.
Do you honestly believe that?

So what...now Kerry's profundity is limited to taking pot shots against the president to a bunch of fucking high schoolers??? You must be joking....

I understand that people die in the military, everyone knows that, so please dont bring it up or bring up the phoney reasons for the war. As soon as you join the militray you give up the right to decide if you agree with the reasons you are going to war or not. I have a problem with the fact that military recruiters can lie through their teeth. That negates the notion of a "volunteer" military. Now if recruiters could be jailed for lying and people could get out for being lied to then yeah its volunteer and fair. As it stands its nothing of the sort.

Also why is it that Kerrys jackass is front page for botching a bad joke but Bush is able to joke about sending troops to their death? "NO WMDs HERE..."

Its a pity the Bush Family didnt learn from his example, they could have had alQaeda sorted by now.Or perhaps alQaeda wouldn't have been a problem by the time President Bush came into office,but for the prior inaction.

I was giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt on this one. I thought that the reason he looked so bad in this was because even if he didn't mean it that way, his past negative mutterings about the troops affected his credibility on this one.

BUT...

If you go to his website he has posted an editorial from the Seattle Post Intelligencer titled "Kerry's Remark: Right Either Way".
Here's a quote: "Was Kerry making fun of the president, or warning students against the pitfalls awaiting the undereducated in general?
It doesn't matter. Kerry was right either way."

Of all the editorials he has to choose from nationwide, he chooses to post one that says he was right in what he said about the soldiers.
HE chose this one.

He is defending that stand so I can only conclude that he meant it.

Or perhaps alQaeda wouldn't have been a problem by the time President Bush came into office,but for the prior inaction.
Yes thats probably true Brooks,it all started going down hill after the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait.
I will remind you who was President during that time shall I.

If you go to his website he has posted an editorial from the Seattle Post Intelligencer titled "Kerry's Remark: Right Either Way".
Here's a quote: "Was Kerry making fun of the president, or warning students against the pitfalls awaiting the undereducated in general?
It doesn't matter. Kerry was right either way."

Of all the editorials he has to choose from nationwide, he chooses to post one that says he was right in what he said about the soldiers.
HE chose this one.

He is defending that stand so I can only conclude that he meant it.

There are four editorials posted on the website, not just the one you say he chose "of all the editorials he has to choose from nationwide", and it has a lot more to say than just the snippet you posted.


Kerry's Remark: Right either way

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Editorial Board

Republicans evidenced their election desperation by braying about an offhand comment that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., made at a California college rally.

"Education" Kerry said "-- if you make the most of it and you study hard and 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."

Was Kerry making fun of the president, or warning students against the pitfalls awaiting the undereducated in general?

It doesn't matter. Kerry was right either way.

Kerry wasn't saying -- regardless of the Republican spin -- that our troops are stupid.

Kerry's intended point was obvious. President Bush didn't do his homework before he ordered the invasion. He didn't study the intricacies of Mideast religion, culture, politics and tribalism. He wasn't smart about it and we are stuck in Iraq.

Although there are plenty of well-educated people in our armed forces -- Kerry was one of them -- military service has long been an opportunity employer for those with less education and fewer skills than they need to work in the private sector. Indeed, the military sells itself as a place to garner skills and to help pay for higher education.

And wars, including this one, are often fought by those less privileged -- albeit no less smart -- than the sons and daughters of those who lead us into them.

Apologies? Sure, from the cut-and-run Democratic candidates who've cancelled appearances with Kerry. Emphasis mine.

How is it that you took this editorial as confirmation he intended to insult the troops when it states plainly he did not?

Because Vile, it also says this:
"Was Kerry making fun of the president, or warning students against the pitfalls awaiting the undereducated in general?

It doesn't matter. Kerry was right either way."

If Kerry was sincere when he said he didn't mean what he said about the troops, he would be angry about this editorial.

This editorial vindicates that which John Kerry claims he never would have said. And then he links it!
WHY would he link it??????

Because Vile, it also says this:
"Was Kerry making fun of the president, or warning students against the pitfalls awaiting the undereducated in general?

It doesn't matter. Kerry was right either way."

If Kerry was sincere when he said he didn't mean what he said about the troops, he would be angry about this editorial.

That's not what he said. He said his words were misinterpreted. Big difference.


This editorial vindicates that which John Kerry claims he never would have said. And then he links it!
WHY would he link it??????

Because it also says he never intended to insult the troops. That's why I highlighted that portion in my post.

Because it also says he never intended to insult the troops. There were plenty of other editorials and pundits saying the same thing.
It's just strange that he'd choose one of the very few (maybe even unique) that agree with what he actually said.
By choosing this editorial, he's defending the supposed misinterpretation.

If his intent is to put the ugliness of the misinterpretation behind him, this is an editorial he'd avoid.
If his intent is to defend the supposed misinterpretation, then this is the one to link.
And that's what he did.

There were plenty of other editorials and pundits saying the same thing.
It's just strange that he'd choose one of the very few (maybe even unique) that agree with what he actually said.
By choosing this editorial, he's defending the supposed misinterpretation.

If his intent is to put the ugliness of the misinterpretation behind him, this is an editorial he'd avoid.
If his intent is to defend the supposed misinterpretation, then this is the one to link.
And that's what he did.

I'm sorry Brooks, I can't agree with your interpretation of his remarks, or your interpretation of his motives, and it seems like you want to find fault where there is none.

I didn't want to find fault.

If you look back I had been saying that I didn't think he meant it that way, but was hurt by a bad history of deriding the troops.

It wasn't until he chose to post this editorial that I started to believe he might have meant it.

I didn't want to find fault.

If you look back I had been saying that I didn't think he meant it that way, but was hurt by a bad history of deriding the troops.

It wasn't until he chose to post this editorial that I started to believe he might have meant it.

I don't see that the sentence you picked out of the editorial is the reason he would have picked it. I think he picked the editorial because it states clearly that they don't believe he intended to insult the troops, and that's what he's been saying since this started. To be honest, if he had even half a brain he'd just shut up and let it pass.

Try looking at it this way, Brooks: his efforts at damage control have been far more idiotic than the original botch was. Failing to anticipate that someone like yourself would see his choosing this editorial as evidence of his intent to insult the troops falls neatly into a consistent pattern of total cluelessness.

"No WMDs here either"

Hahahaaahaaaaaaa...

Try looking at it this way, Brooks: his efforts at damage control have been far more idiotic than the original botch was. Failing to anticipate that someone like yourself would see his choosing this editorial as evidence of his intent to insult the troops falls neatly into a consistent pattern of total cluelessness.
Wow!

I totally agree. Well put, Sedan.

That's a good point Sedan.

Speaking of executions, or lack thereof...
these birdbrained politicos should really stop trying to be intentionally funny. Why give the GOP a cookie they can jack out of the park?
That said, the real insult to the troops was when people like these Republican jackasses cheesed their way out of military service and couldn't be bothered to fight for their beloved country when the opportunity presnted itself.
Why, war is for the little poeple! W, Deferrment Dick, Rush, Rove, Delay et al are just super-patriotic when others are in the trenches. I don't see Bush's nephew or his bigger waste-of-space cousin Billy going off to fight this fiasco.
Ever watch This Week with George Shrinks? Every week, they run a list of soldiers who were killed. Funny, I never see anyone listed from Beverly Hills or Bel-Air. Don't those who won the lineage lottery think the nation is worth protecting, even to this day? (Though with Borat, Saw III & Jackass #1 at the box office, sometimes I wonder.)
Plus, Kerry said that we're STUCK in Iraq, and I didn't hear any of these manly GOP stalwarts arguing that we aren't stuck there!
The alleged joke was a shot at the bonehead who got us stuck in that nightmare and has no clue about how to extricate us from the mess! How stupid do they think we are?
The joke would have been unfunny even if the irrelevant Kerry hadn't blown the line. But to paraphrase, if you are planning on voting and you don't study hard and do your homework, then you get the moron leadership you deserve and deserve to get it good and hard!
(I'll vote for any candidate who can get Kevin Federline shipped to Iraq.)

Do you honestly believe that?
Yes I do. Why wouldn't I?

So what...now Kerry's profundity is limited to taking pot shots against the president to a bunch of fucking high schoolers??? You must be joking....
....what?

Try looking at it this way, Brooks: his efforts at damage control have been far more idiotic than the original botch was. Failing to anticipate that someone like yourself would see his choosing this editorial as evidence of his intent to insult the troops falls neatly into a consistent pattern of total cluelessness.
I'll give you some points there, but it was intentionally taken out of context to be used as fodder against him. Politicians should be used to that and be extra careful of what they say (which Kerry wasn't in this case), but compared to most of the crap that I see coming out of politicians in higher places I think this is a small slip-up.

....what?
C'mon, man - are you seriously gonna make me recap the conversation? Read what you said prior to me making that comment.