Patterico's Pontifications

11/1/2006

Video of Kerry’s Remarks

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:34 pm



Hot Air has what appears to be the uncut video depicting the single most important issue facing America today: John Kerry’s remarks about President Bush or our troops.

Allah says it’s inconclusive. I think it looks like he’s making fun of Bush — not our troops.

The remark follows on the heels of a couple of lame jokes about Republicans and Bush. He’s arguably getting serious, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

P.S. Dafydd ab Hugh disagrees.

P.P.S. I should clarify: I think Allah is correct that it is not conclusive, exactly. But I think that the better interpretation is the innocent one. And it makes his reluctance to apologize understandable; if he didn’t mean to insult our troops, an apology makes him sound like he’s admitting that he did. Hence the “I’m sorry you misunderstood me” non-apology apology.

I do think it’s insulting for him to say that the White House “knew” he didn’t mean to insult the troops. His statement certainly was not crystal clear. The folks at the White House weren’t the ones who made an ambiguous and awkward statement. Kerry was.

P.P.P.S. The troops are not mollified — but they are funny.

P.P.P.P.S. Yes, I am indeed joking about this being the single most important issue facing America today.

54 Responses to “Video of Kerry’s Remarks”

  1. […] The trouble with John Kerry is not that he 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. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Kerry: We Sent Too Few Troops — and Also, We Sent Too Many Troops! (421107)

  2. Michelle Malkin and Dan Rhiel don’t either and the latter points out that Kerry lied on Imus’ show.

    Earlier, I pointed out that he “mispoke” his subconscious thoughts again on the show…

    From the Imus appearance this morning, approx. 6:40 in…

    … the quotable Kerry:

    “John McCain says we oughta send another hundred thousand troops over there. First of all, we don’t have another hundred thousand troops. Secondly, uh, if you send them over there, uh, it’s going to do exactly what’s already happenned, which is attract more terrorists, more jihadists.

    “Our own generals are telling us that it’s the numbers of troops that are the problem and the fact is that that’s what’s adding to the number of terrorists in the world.”

    I see, so it’s the U.S. military that is the problem. There are simply too many of them. And this creates terrorists and jihadists.

    Mark Steyn agrees as does Ace while Mark Levin says there may be quotes coming showing that Kerry meant exactly what he said.

    I mean, it’s not like he’s allied with American traitors like Ted Kennedy (wait, he is and referred to Ted Kennedy moments after making his Presidential-chasing-career-ending) speech, or that he’s accused American troops of being war criminals decades ago or terrorizing innocent civilians in Iraq, oh no.

    What could ever make a person think ht meant what he said?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  3. *he

    Christoph (9824e6)

  4. Gotta disagree with you on this one. Here’s why.

    If he had come out right away and apologized and said something like “I screwed up the punch line; I’d never make fun of the troops”, this would have blown over. He would have gotten that “benefit of the doubt.” Heck, even I would have given him that one. We all misspeak sometimes. But ole John couldn’t do that. He had to come out and say he had nothing to apologize for. No “benefit of the doubt” from that point forward. He made the bed; he can sleep in it. The man is too stupid to recognize the nuance to what he said.

    (And honestly, I doubt he meant anything other than what he actually said on that college campus. It was consistent with his track record. But he could have avoided the backlash. He didn’t. Now, what he “meant to say” no longer matters.)

    And before anybody starts in on the “chickenhawk” routine, I’m a 20 year vet. Don’t go there.

    Bill M (d9e4b2)

  5. Anyway, Patterico, he may have intended to insult Bush, although that’s a stretch considering he was talking about the consequences to their careers of studying versus not studying to a student audience PLUS… the actual words he said (and his past history) argue against your interpretation.

    But temporarily conceding the point for the sake of argument, his apology is weird.

    “I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform…”

    He refers to people misinterpreting him, not just his saying the wrong thing.

    I guess the military’s a bunch of idiots for misinterpreting Kerry. The last laugh’s on them.

    Michelle Malkin received an email from a retired sodier that summed up my point much better:

    “Kerry said that if anyone thought his remarks were intended for the military then they were crazy.

    “Yet he apologized today for remarks that he made if people took offense.

    “Well, if folks took offense that means that they thought his remarks were offensive to the military.

    “That means that he called those folks to whom he apologized CRAZY.

    “He owes another apology to us.

    Question… if we accept Kerry’s apology, can we then state that it’s our fault and the military’s fault (those bastards!) for misinterpreting John Kerry who, as everyone knows, has no record of attacking American servicemen?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  6. It is not just this statement which is the issue, it is his history of trashing the military.

    http://truthlaidbear.com/archives/2006/11/01/on_kerry.php

    and scroll down to “Update #5” on this

    http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/cd4f48ed-3334-4c8a-b27c-54ecb34cc962?comments=true#commentAnchor

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  7. single most important issue facing America today

    You’re joking right?

    His statement certainly was not crystal clear.

    But which interpretation is likely?

    actus (10527e)

  8. I totally understand refusing to apologize for saying something insulting in error.

    It’s like the time I ran over the neighbors dog. Obviously, I didn’t mean to do it, so I didn’t apologize. And I was very offended at them for blaming me for killing their dog.

    CAL (86c342)

  9. There were enough “gasps” in the audience that Jean Clod Kerry should have known right then and there what his comment sounded like.

    And his Nixonesque meltdown later just added to the correctness of the initial perception.

    This is a man who is the standard bearer for a party that really has little use for the US military. They don’t trust anyone who is “pro-gun” and if people are PAID to wield weapons..well then!!!

    Prager proposed a little thought test on this. Out of the conservatives and liberals/progessives one knows, which group would be happy to hear their son announce he was joining the military?

    Kerry was just expressing what his peers in the Dem party believe about the US military… it’s made up of “losers.”

    Yep. THAT’s the party I want in charge of National Security!! Wooeee.

    Darleen (03346c)

  10. When I first heard about Kerry’s remark, I was certain that he meant to insult the President. but that’s not what he said. What he said was if you weren’t smart and got an education, you would get stuck in Iraq.

    It would have been better (nee, more human) of Kerry to have said immediately after the first news spot that he misspoke and he didn’t intend to insult our fine military at all. Instead, he used the occasion to lash out at the President and look like a first class asshead. At that point, I no longer gave him the benefit of the doubt. If he wants to be an asshead, then he has to live with the consequences of it, including the possibility that Dems won’t be retaking anything. 🙂

    sharon (dfeb10)

  11. I agree with you fine ladies. Even if he meant to attack Bush, he didn’t say that, so it’s ridiculous and dishonest to attack people for believing he meant what he said.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  12. single most important issue facing America today

    You’re joking right?

    Right.

    His statement certainly was not crystal clear.

    But which interpretation is likely?

    I already answered this in the post. With the context, which I have now seen for the first time, Kerry’s interpretation is more likely.

    Patterico (de0616)

  13. This is a man who is the standard bearer

    Not really, no. Anymore he’s a senator. In the past, he was the winner of the primary system.

    What he said was if you weren’t smart and got an education, you would get stuck in Iraq.

    As a joke on the apparently un-smart bush who got us stuck in iraq. He said clearly what he meant, that the intent is the sarcastic meaning, rather than the literal meaning out of the context of a series of jokes on bush.

    Why did the cheerleaders for this scandal host only the audio to those two sentences? because out of context, their literal meaning can be what you say it is — its still unlikely, given how outrageous it is. But in context, their meaning is something else.

    actus (10527e)

  14. With the context, which I have now seen for the first time, Kerry’s interpretation is more likely.

    But without the context? which one is likely?

    actus (10527e)

  15. I agree that the context helps. Which is why I was a bit suspicious of it from the beginning — the context had clearly and deliberately been stripped away.

    Of course, Dems assumed the context would show what it did, and Repubs assumed it wouldn’t.

    Me? I wanted to wait and see.

    Patterico (de0616)

  16. But without the context? which one is likely?

    Tough to say.

    Why do you ask?

    Patterico (de0616)

  17. Probably the meaning most conservatives have ascribed.

    But not so much that you couldn’t guess at the Kerry meaning even before he made it clear.

    All of this tends to indicate that those hosting the thing deliberately stripped the context away.

    Patterico (de0616)

  18. Why do you ask?

    I’m curious about what you think. To me joke is much more likely. It seems quite unlikely that Kerry would call our troops stupid.

    All of this tends to indicate that those hosting the thing deliberately stripped the context away.

    Yup. They played a lot of people. Including many of our troops — see the pic on Malkin’s website, for example. And it looks like our leaders are going ahead and pushing this lie — maybe its all they got.

    actus (10527e)

  19. As a joke on the apparently un-smart bush who got us stuck in iraq. He said clearly what he meant, that the intent is the sarcastic meaning, rather than the literal meaning out of the context of a series of jokes on bush.

    But this isn’t what Kerry said. He didn’t say “got us stuck” he said that people who didn’t study hard would “get stuck in Iraq.” They are 2 different things. If nothing else, it shows how stupid Kerry is that he can’t even read his own speech. And worse, he couldn’t give a decent apology for 2 days.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  20. He didn’t say “got us stuck” he said that people who didn’t study hard would “get stuck in Iraq.”

    Right. He’s pining the problem of the Iraq war on Bush. Democrats have been doing that during the entire election season.

    actus (10527e)

  21. It’s not a lie, actus.

    It was a reasonable interpretation.

    But made more reasonable by the stripping of context. I’ll give you that.

    Patterico (de0616)

  22. It was a reasonable interpretation.

    “Reasonable” if one tosses aside your abiity to reason about context. It’s a joke. Furthermore, people have been told it’s a joke, and given the evidence they need to realize it’s a joke. It’s a lie to continue to pretend otherwise.

    actus (10527e)

  23. No, it’s not.

    Patterico (de0616)

  24. Because it’s not “pretending.”

    Patterico (de0616)

  25. Because it’s not “pretending.”

    It takes wanting to believe kerry was calling the troops stupid. Wanting it over the more likely explanation. Wanting over the context evidence. Thats pretending.

    I do agree, there are ways to read that text literally in ways that support it being an attack on the troops. But the point is thats not a likely reading, even without the words said before it. Even without the laughter afterwards.

    So now that its all been explained, now that the intent has been cleared up, that the context has been provided? It takes pretending.

    actus (10527e)

  26. Sen. Kerry was introduced as being articulate, a clear voice…. hmmm. It doesn’t matter what he meant. It mattered more that he had no one that he listens to, one who could tell him what he had said. One who could tell him just how offensive his spoken remarks were, intentional or not.

    Heather (b585fd)

  27. As I stated earlier, the Kerry website themselves had his denials on before they had (if they do now) the original event. That would suggest they were not eager to have the original up themsleves.

    As stated above by Darleen, the crowd laughed about Republicans wanting to turn the clock back to 1958 and about President Bush no longer living in the state of Texas but the state of denial. They didn’t laugh about President Bush living in the state “of deception”. When he made the comment in question, the crowd’s response was a mix of laughter, silence, and surprised forced laugh.

    Had he really meant a joke about the President and botched it, why all of the posturing about not apologizing, before changing his mind and “apologizing”?

    The president’s academic record is better than Kerry’s, so how does he get off on criticizing the president’s college performance?

    If it was meant as a joke on the President, he should have stopped at the state of denial which got the laughs.

    John McCain apparently took it as a slam on the troops as well, in spite of his rogue republican status.

    As my links above pointed out, if these remarks were made by someone who had a consistent expression of high regard for the US military it would be easier to give him the benefit of the doubt. But even today he stated that he has “Always told the truth”, including his testimony in 1971 that the US military routinely and by policy daily performed acts of savagery known by all in the chain of command. It was this testimony that fueled the spitting at soldiers and calling them “baby killers”, etc. For him to hold to the concept that the US military during Vietnam was composed of a bunch of slime balls and then to say that he “would never say anything disparaging about our troops” is a bit difficult to accept. He should have made an apology for his clumsy remark without posturing then kept quiet. As it is, he is digging the hole deeper.

    The ironic thing, if one watches from the beginning of the clip, is that he is introduced as “an articulate and clear voice”. If that isn’t pride going before a fall.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  28. Actus

    What was the sentence directly prior to his “joke?”

    Come on now. Not the whole lame schtick..not the later meltdown that deep-in-denial Dems are moulding and shaping as we speak.

    Give me the line RIGHT BEFORE. (I know it. Let’s see if you do)

    Darleen (03346c)

  29. Unless one believes the huge quantity of anger and disgust on the part of military personnel is disengenuous, then Kerry and his syphocants have to stop and realize that yes… HE DID INSULT THE TROOPS.

    Then again, the Left has little use for the “Ghengis Khan” troops of the US military…and Kerry dropped the veil thinking he was with his peers and could make such an inside little joke about the military being nothing more than vicious, racist, homophobic, gap-toothed morons.

    He makes a joke about the Repubs trying to turn back the clock to 1958, but he’s still living in 1971.

    Darleen (03346c)

  30. Actus, please read the links I posted at #7 and tell me if you think one still has to be pretending to think he was slamming the troops.

    Even if he was slamming Bush, as many militart have pointed out, he is still crticizing them for being dumb enough to volunteer to be in a military under a loser of a president. I know that is looking deeper into jokes than they are meant to be looked at, but that is not my perspective but one of some of the troops.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  31. Give me the line RIGHT BEFORE. (I know it. Let’s see if you do)

    Right before what? he says he’s glad to be htere, and then starts talking about education, the joke. And then says he wants to say something about iraq. Are you still going to ignore the context of jokes about bush and the republicans?

    actus (10527e)

  32. Even if he was slamming Bush, as many militart have pointed out, he is still crticizing them for being dumb enough to volunteer to be in a military under a loser of a president

    Uh. I don’t htink people volunteer based on who is the president. Do they?

    actus (10527e)

  33. actus

    the line is (with Kerry putting his hands out in a “let’s settle down” gesture)…. “We are here to talk about education.”

    His lines about “do good or end up in the military” were in direct reference to “education”

    Not Bush, not the Bush staff, not any other reality challenged grasp at straws.

    Kerry thought he was among progressive peers with their usual contempt of the military.

    Dems are a disaster for the US military… anyone that votes “D” on Tuesday puts a soldier’s life in danger.

    Darleen (03346c)

  34. Not Bush, not the Bush staff, not any other reality challenged grasp at straws.

    You know, I just watched colbert on my Tivo. Its a week before the election. An election season where the democrats have been pining the problems in Iraq on republicans in power. Do you think that that a week before the election kerry would continue that, picking on bush, or you think he would pick on our troops in Iraq?

    Kerry thought he was among progressive peers with their usual contempt of the military.

    It was a campaign rally. You’re just refusing to see whats in front of you: kerry, the not-funny man, made a not-funny joke about bush. At a campaign event. The week before the election.

    Parse all you want. Pick out one sentence that you think helps you. Ignore the ones that don’t. Ignore the election season, the meme of bush’s idiocy, ignore it all. And then you can have your meaning. But then you’re pretending.

    actus (10527e)

  35. People who are in Iraq now on active duty signed up knowing who the commander in chief was and his aim to fight terrorism, and since 2003 that has included Iraq.
    Troop morale certainly has been greatly affected at times by who the commander in chief is. I would imagine, as with any job, if people are enthused about what they are doing they make it attractive to others. If people don’t like “their boss” it shows as well.
    There has been record reenlistment for most of the in-combat units. People are not going to reenlist during war unless they have confidence in their leader and the cause. To be told you are being lead by an idiot for a commander in chief and are in combat because of lies and deception is not very encouraging. But then again, that is exactly what he said about Vietnam, “Dieing and killing for a lot of nothing” (paraphrase).
    Besides, it’s not what I think, it’s what the soldiers in Iraq think that matters, and this is how many are seeing it.
    We were not in any conflicts when I was prime military age, but who I would serve under would be a major concern. To serve under a President like Johnson, because of how he conducted the war and limited the professional military on the field in their decision making would be difficult compared to under Reagan or Bush I or II.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  36. I do agree, there are ways to read that text literally in ways that support it being an attack on the troops. But the point is thats not a likely reading, even without the words said before it. Even without the laughter afterwards.

    The laughter was pretty nervous.

    And without the context, I saw both interpretations. I couldn’t judge which was right until I saw the context. Despite lefties coming on here and claiming that I had judged, I hadn’t. And once I saw the context, I judged that Kerry’s explanation was more likely true.

    Patterico (de0616)

  37. actus

    Are the troops pretending?

    Maybe its time Theresa took away Johnny’s credit cards and grounded him for a while.

    Jean Clod and responsibility are not well acquainted.

    BTW… since Bush has better grades and sats then Kerry, what SENSE does his “joke” about “don’t do good in school and end up in Iraq” have a thing to do with the President??

    And Kerry, alleged supporter of the troops, pulled the perfidious CHICKENHAWK meme!

    How utterly asshattery lame.

    No wonder you’re shilling for him.

    Darleen (03346c)

  38. actus

    Maybe you’d like to tell Smash he has it all wrong.

    Kerry’s implication that military service is something “smart” people should avoid is downright elitist, and reminiscent of prevailing attitudes from the Vietnam era. We all know that Kerry served a four-month tour in Vietnam, but we also remember that he later threw away his medals, and defamed his fellow veterans — comparing them to “Genghis Khan” — when he testified before the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations in 1971. Indeed, it was Kerry and his cohorts in Vietnam Veterans Against the War that helped to perpetuate negative stereotypes against the military in the 1970s. […]

    Bottom line: Kerry’s actual remarks (as opposed to what he now wishes he had said), were highly insulting to everyone who has served in the military. His subsequent series of bizarre attacks against the president did nothing to alleviate the offense. His written non-apology of this afternoon is wholly inadequate, and only adds insult to injury: he regrets that his words were “misinterpreted.” How magnanimous of him!

    Please don’t insult us further, Senator. We know what you said. You may not have meant to say those precise words, but the meaning of what you did say was perfectly clear.

    Apology not accepted.

    Darleen (03346c)

  39. If we are going to take John Forbes Gigolo Kerry at his word, we have to address the unpleasant fact that (as actus has already declared) the man just is incapable of humor. It seems that all the politicians with good senses of humor (Lincoln, John Kennedy, Reagan, Bob Dole, Cynthia McKinney) have been very good a self-deprecating humor. Imagine if Kerry had gone for that angle, instead of trying a lame-brained attack on President Bush.

    What if Kerry had subtly poked fun at the fact that his own grades at Yale are now known to be slightly lower than Bush’s, and delivered the quote as something like this: “If you don’t study and work hard, you end up regretting your vote to send troops to Iraq.” Had he phrased the line as such, with himself being the butt of the joke, there would be no discussion today and Democrat candiates across the country would not be cancelling their appearances with him.

    Of course John Kerry is such a ridiculously pompous ass that he is pretty much incapable of self-deprecating humor.

    JVW (709273)

  40. And of course including Cynthia McKinney above is my own attempt at humor.

    JVW (709273)

  41. […] That’s bad enough. Look: I believe, on balance, that it probably was a botched joke. But John McCain disagrees. Tony Snow disagrees. A lot of our troops disagree. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s Remarks (421107)

  42. Actus, why do you keep saying the meaning was clearly a joke? Obviously the meaning was joke; the question is whether the joke was intended as as a condescending elitist dig at the people in the military or a snotty ad homenim jibe at the President of the United States.

    You know, we see these snotty ad homenim jibes at politial figures all the time from both parties, but how many former Republican presidential nominees are saying things like that? Has Bush called Kerry “Lurch” or referred to him as a kept man or laughed about he was so dumb that he got a bandaide purple hearts for fragging himself with a grenade, not once but twice? Has Bush referred to the nutroots?

    This is a new low in recent American politics: the way that Democrat political leaders are acting like late-night TV hosts in the way that they talk about the opposition. There used to be a standard of behavior.

    Doc Rampage (4a07eb)

  43. The Kerry Mess- Post Mortum…

    I think the issue is essentially dead.  We have heard all the apology we will get, I wager.
    I would be more satisfied were it not for two things.
    First, it has to do with his assertion this was a joke.  I can buy that as being plausible,…

    Leaning Straight Up (16154e)

  44. Every time I think Actus has gone as far as a moonbat can go, he goes that much farther. Your explanation of Kerry’s comments are lame at best and stupid at worst.

    Saying “it was a joke” doesn’t excuse the insult of Kerry’s remarks. He botched the joke. But he insulted the troops. And instead of just apologizing for insulting the troops, he gave his usual lameass non-apology “I’m sorry you were offended” bullshit. In short, once the words were out of his mouth, it was irrelevant what he had intended to say. He said what he said.

    I didn’t have much respect for Actus before but now I have absolutely none. How desperate he is.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  45. Saying “it was a joke” doesn’t excuse the insult of Kerry’s remarks. He botched the joke. But he insulted the troops.

    Wrong. It’s not him, but Bush, Snow and the rest of the happy company that insulted the troops by using them for their own political reasons. People who see the whole piece don’t see this as directed at the troops. If Snow & Bush saw only misleading 10 sec. clip, they might make a little fact-checking, you know, before starting this bashing campaign. This is probably too late to backfire (even though it took just a couple of days for “Webb is a toast” to turn into “Allen is certified moron”), but all this non-stop “fake but accurate” campaign really looks desperate.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  46. Oops! Looks like this Kerry bashing diversion is backfiring. The polls are getting worse for the GOP:

    http://realclearpolitics.com/polls/

    Ed (fcb51d)

  47. Sorry, don’t buy it.

    In your post about the NY Times lies, you hit why:

    If he’d ended his comment with his “prepared remark” of “Just ask President Bush”, then he’d have an easy case of “oops, forgot a word”.

    If he’d immediately apologized by saying “sorry, I left out the word ‘us’, and turned my anti-Bush joke into an anti-troops joke”, I’d have believed him.

    He did neither. Therefore he said what he meant to say. And the words he said cannot reasonably be turned into an attack on Bush.

    Greg D (4b81fa)

  48. If he’d immediately apologized by saying “sorry, I left out the word ‘us’, and turned my anti-Bush joke into an anti-troops joke”, I’d have believed him.

    Nobody in the audience saw it as an anti-troops joke. It’s just a 10-sec. clip that made it sound this way.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  49. Ed, I guess you really do believe that the only reason Republicans would come forward to defend the US military from slanderous attacks is for political gain. Why don’t you sit back and think about this for a minute? Now, don’t you think it’s possible that maybe, just maybe, there really are Republicans who are genuinely offended at the condescending attituded that so many Democrats take towards the people who defend our country? Don’t you think it’s really possible for anyone to genuinely honor and respect people who risk their lives in our defense? If you can’t grasp this point, I feel sorry for you.

    Doc Rampage (4a07eb)

  50. Change around the context. Imagine a reformed cracker col. Sanders type southern politician making a joke which maybe, if you look at it sideways and squinty-like – seemed like a racist dig at black people. When challenged on this – the ol’ cracker blames ……the blacks who were insulted and their political handlers. Would you be so quick to dismiss it? Would it be a “move-on” moment? I doubt it. And this is your advocate for “progressive” politics? What a terrible, terrible insult to the original Progressives – who, by the way, would be run out of the modern progressive movement as racist red-necks – based solely upon their being white and rural – before they even opened their mouths to speak.

    Californio (4871bb)

  51. Dear Jon Carry……

    Blogswarm: My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (2), Stop The ACLU, Blue Star Chronicles, The Anchoress (2), Patterico’s Pontifications, A Blog For All, The Political Pit Bull, 7.62mm Justice, Sticky Notes, Politechnical, Snapped Shot, RightWinged, Frenchma….

    The Right Nation (59ce3a)

  52. As much as you’re annoying at times, Patterico, you’re at least honest, and I appreciate that.

    Give it some time, and you might end up a good, solid John Cole.

    (Hey, I can’t poke back?)

    In all seriousness, you make a hell of a lot more sense to me than the Malkins and Powerlines of the world, and that’s why I read you, and not them (except when my Kos overlords tell me to). (OK, I stopped being serious somewhere in that last bit. Sue me.)

    fishbane (3389fc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1036 secs.