That makes sense, right? College students are liberal. John Kerry is liberal. Therefore, John Kerry invoked the Unspoken Liberal Truth that Must Not Be Named (”we hate the military”)–just to make himself look cool for the college kids.

y7, I think you are allowing your politics to cloud your reason.

Even if John Kerry believed what you claim (which I reject because I hold no preconceived stereotypical notion about liberals hating the military), I can’t believe that Kerry, or any other politician, or any of us for that matter, would somehow have not considered the political fallout of making such remarks.

Put another way, who do you honestly believe Kerry would rather bash on the stump: the troops or the president?

Are you are so deeply rooted in the caricature that liberals hate the military that you willfully deny this obvious political reality? I would hope not.

He was pandering to a liberal college audience. Look at the remark in terms of WHO he was talking to. He said, “They are in Iraq because they are stupid. You are here because you are not.” It is a comparative statement.

Defending him, you are saying he picked out one person to compare Bush to, “if you, yes! you right there, are smart, you won’t get us stuck in Iraq!”

No. He pandered to and compared his audience to the troops in Iraq. The “you” was plural and does not compare to a singular. I wish you would see that. “If you are a college student, you are smart. If you are in Iraq, you are not.”

Thats the big, misunderstood joke.

The trouble with John Kerry is not that he deliberately insulted the troops — a claim I consider dubious in light of the entire video. Rather, his trouble is that he and his party have no alternative to Bush’s policies.

Wrong. When he’s talking about Rumsfeld policy of less troops, he talks about the missed chance to control situation. But now, three years later, more troops simply won’t help.

BTW, “Katrina foreign policy” formula is quite precise. There were too many “heck-of-a-job” people and decisions in Iraq.

Just a small example. When this summer Al-Maliki came to Washington and made it quite clear that he’s on the Hezbollah side of the Lebanon conflict, Democrats boycotted him, while Hastert &co gave him a warm welcome and blamed Dems for opportunism. And now it’s becoming increasingly clear that Iraqi government loves USA as long as it gets money and weapons from them, but is in fact loyal to Iran. A big chance of bin Laden’s “freedom fighter turned enemy #1″ story sequel. Maybe Democrats have bad ideas, but these ideas should at least be discussed. The problem with Bush and Cheney is that they just live in the dreamworld disconnected from reality, where equipping and funding your future enemies is a good way to fight the Terror.

1. Thanks for admitting the obvious. I have found no small amount of amusement over the fact that George Bush’s misstatements have filled 365 day calendars over the last several years, yet John Kerry’s obvious misstatement is supposed to be taken absolutely verbatim. In short, we give the dumb guy a pass (or should I say “uneducated?”), but for the serious stuffy guy it should be assumed that everything he says is absolutely as he intended it to be.

2. Regarding “no alternative,” it is true that the Democrats have not adopted nor are unified behind one particular plan on Iraq. However, the Republicans clearly have no solution either, other than “stay the course.” Worse, they offer no opposition or scrutiny to whatever Bush/Rumsfeld propose that should mean in the meantime.

But clearly, the first step to fixing the problem is to elect a Congress who will not simply rubber-stamp everything the Bush administration wants.

I guess it matters what the joke was about because, well, I believe him when he says it was intended as a slam against the President and not against the troops. I don’t like Kerry but I think a person is entitled to be taken at his word unless there’s strong evidence to the contrary. I don’t see it. For all his bluster, he was right in his point, if not in the way he said it, when he said that a person would have to be crazy to think that he was criticizing the troops and not the President in a speech such as that. You don’t have to be crazy to think that, since he’s no stranger to criticizing troops, but you do have to ignore some pretty strong evidence to the contrary. The evidence being

(a) he’s used the line numerous times before in a different version that is unequivocally about Bush and not about the troops,

(b) the line was delivered in the context of other slams against Bush and not about the troops and

(c) he’s seriously considering another run for Commander in Chief and it beggars belief that he would publicly and intentionally denigrate the troops in this way.

To me, the issue is what did he intend to say, not whether I can divine how he inwardly feels about the troops. I can’t do that. All I can do is examine the evidence and draw my conclusion.

I’ve no doubt that he hates Bush but it’s not like Kerry makes nearly the number of verbal gaffs that Bush does. On the other hand, anyone who makes his living speaking in public and on the record eventually says some pretty silly things. This happens to be one of those which he then compounded by attacking rather than apologizing, calling crazy those who simply read his words as he spoke them and interpreted them according to the most natural meaning of the words and thus adding insult to insult as it were. He’s usually a very disciplined speaker.

As for which generals he’s speaking of and what, specifically they are saying about troop levels at this time, I simply can’t say since I’m not privy to the specifics. On that part, he could be making it up but I doubt it. I mean, if it isn’t true that generals are saying this, it’s too easy for Republicans to come back and say, “Which generals?”

I mean, I understand that there have been some generals who have advised larger troop strengths but I don’t think that that is by any means the universal consensus. It may be that there are also generals who are saying the opposite. I know that that’s what Rumsfeld has said all along. Surely some generals agree with Donald on that point.

If he feels about the troops the way he did 30+ years ago what difference does it make who the joke was about? The issue isn’t whether he can make a run for hosting “The Tonight Show”, but whether he thinks the military is filled with people who “can’t do anything better with their lives”.

As far as your original post on what he might have meant, I think it shows he is so possessed by hate for the president that even if he has a logical point he muffs it.

But, when he says, “Our own generals are telling us that it’s the numbers of troops that are the problem”, I always thought that meant that President Bush doesn’t send in enough troops like the generals are telling him to do.

I’ve no doubt that what Kerry actually said he actually believes. I don’t think he has any more respect for the fighting forces today than he displayed 30+ years ago. However, I’ve seen the line as he usually delivers it and in that version, it is perfectly clear that the line is intended to be and is a slam at Bush’s supposed low IQ and Bush’s responsibility for our troops being, in his opinion, stuck, as in ‘buried to the axles in mud’ stuck, in the war in Iraq. It’s quite possible that this was a Freudian slip but it is one that he would never, at this juncture of his life and career have made publicly.

What surprises me is the number of Liberals whose only problem with Kerry’s statement is with the fact that Kerry backed off of it. They think the comment is 100% correct. It leaves me flabbergasted.

As for his apology,I agree with you. It should have come early and been unequivocal. Had it been, this would have barely been a blip on the radar screen. As it is, it was just a stupid, self-inflicted wound.