New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s Remarks
The New York Times’s Kate Zernike runs interference for John Kerry on the topic of his controversial “stuck in Iraq” remarks — to the point of flatly misrepresenting to readers the content of the remarks.
The headline of the Times piece is Flubbed Joke Makes Kerry a Political Punching Bag, Again.
Before making the misrepresentation, Zernike engages in plenty of distortion. As the headline of her piece indicates, she swallows hook, line, and sinker Kerry’s proffered interpretation of the remarks as a “joke” — as if there were no doubt or controversy about that issue at all.
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.
There is a controversy. But Zernike chooses sides, as if it’s completely obvious that Kerry meant what he now claims.
But that’s not what makes this piece so outrageous.
It also completely buries any description of the actual remarks themselves. It is the eighteenth paragraph (!) before Zernike even alludes to the actual content of the remarks. There is plenty of discussion about the fallout from the remarks — but what did Kerry say? It takes eighteen paragraphs to even get to the issue. Amazingly, Zernike quotes praise for Kerry from a small-time lefty blogger before she gets around to telling us what the hell Kerry had said that was so controversial.
But that’s not what makes this piece so outrageous either.
What makes this piece so outrageous is that it flat-out lies about what Kerry said.
That’s right. I’ll repeat it, because it’s so jaw-dropping: in the piece linked above, the New York Times tells a straight lie about the actual content of Kerry’s remarks.
Once Zernike finally gets around to discussing what Kerry actually said, she claims:
Mr. Kerry’s prepared remarks to California students on Monday called for him to say, “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.” In his delivery, he dropped the word “us.”
Really? He said “Just ask President Bush”?
Zernike is claiming that Kerry said:
Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.
Only that’s not even remotely what he said. If it were, then we wouldn’t be having this debate. The inclusion of “Just ask President Bush” — if Kerry had actually spoken that line — would have made it a no-brainer that Kerry meant this as an anti-Bush joke. An absolute no-brainer.
But that’s not what Kerry said. Here is what he did say:
You know, education — if you make the most of it, 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.
Period. Full stop.
There is no mention of President Bush whatsoever in that quote.
Are there still people on this planet who trust this newspaper?!?!
UPDATE: Tom Maguire reminds us that Ms. Zernike has botched facts in Kerry’s favor before.
UPDATE x2: Thanks to Instapundit and Real Clear Politics for the links.
UPDATE x3: It turns out that Kerry said in 1972: “I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown.” In other words, there’s a history that informs the public’s perception of these latest comments.
I still think he was taking a jab at Bush in his recent comments (as I explain in this post, which has a link to the video) — but Kerry has only himself to blame for people’s perceptions to the contrary.
UPDATE x4: Thanks to Power Line and Mickey for the links.
And in other news, it just keeps getting worse and worse for Kerry.
UPDATE x5: And worse.
Heh, this not only makes the NY Times look silly, it also make Kerry look foolish (when they see the actual quotes in other papers). Just what problem do these idiots think that they will solve with this nonsense! Love it…
Comment by deagle — 11/2/2006 @ 12:57 am
By completely ignoring YouTube, the NYTimes is becoming increasingly irrelevant on a day by day basis. The only way to save themselves is to come out with a multimedia print edition — going to be tough in a YouTube world.
Kerry said what he said, he meant what he said and anyone with a computer can plainly see that. The drive by media by trying to hide that is good for accelerating their complete demise.
This press conference is jaw dropping for the stupidity display of the drive by media. YouTube will rule the day … I pronounce the day where the drive by media can control the news and limit what the public knows as offically over.
Thank you Tony Snow.
Comment by bill — 11/2/2006 @ 1:12 am
Pat,
She’s referring to one of Kerry’s 4 versions of what he meant to say…which also means that she still hasn’t gotten around to what he did say. But she’s repeating a lie, not telling one of her own.
Comment by Pablo — 11/2/2006 @ 1:51 am
[...] If anyone gives me “pro-left” news-stories, propaganda, studies etc sourced from the NY Times, they will receive a rude comment (exact nature to be confirmed) and a direction to read this post. [...]
Pingback by NY Times Lies about Kerry « Something should go here, maybe later. — 11/2/2006 @ 2:21 am
Pablo, Kerry lied or was misinterpred again about his multiple versions (like on Imus he said the only difference was he left out one word, “us”, and he was very adamant about this), but Patterico is saying she the New York Time’s Kate Zernike lied too because she wrote:
It’s a lie of omission.
Comment by christoph — 11/2/2006 @ 2:25 am
Exactly Time…
I. Exactly. For John Kerry to have been calling Bush uneducated would mean he was calling himself uneducated as well. Or, in fact, even dumber. (FWIW, I met John Kerry once and had a thirty second conversation with him. He……
Trackback by JunkYardBlog — 11/2/2006 @ 3:41 am
Oh, she’s spinning it for him. But what she said is true in a leftist sort of way. But she never actually quotes him, which is as bad as a lie, and bottom-of-the-barrel bad reportage. Saying what he meant to say, and tossing in one way in which what he said differs doesn’t say that’s the only way what he said was different. It implies it, but it doesn’t say it, which is what I think Patterico is saying.
The real omission is the failure to provide what he did indeed say. She doesn’t even attempt to do that, perhaps hoping you won’t notice the difference. It’s a typical NYT pro-Dem, facts be damned piece, but not a flat out lie. That said, we are only talking about how stinky the pile of crap is, not whether it is crap. It definitely is.
Comment by Pablo — 11/2/2006 @ 5:44 am
The biggest problem with what Kerry said isn’t whether it was a botched joke or not. It was that he said something which was offensive to our soldiers then wouldn’t even own up to the fact that he did, indeed, offend them. This is no different than going to someone’s house, crapping on the floor and saying, “I meant that to go in the toilet. I’m sorry that you were offended it didn’t go in the toilet.”
This reporter is despicable and doesn’t even deserve the title “reporter” if she can’t be bothered to accurately quote what Kerry said instead of what she wishes he’d said.
Comment by sharon — 11/2/2006 @ 6:18 am
The NY TImes are wondering why their readership is down. DUH!… They know what their problem is, that are not stupid people, yet they cannot get their act together. Caeser fiddled while Rome burned comes to mind more for the Editors of this paper. Soon it will either change or disappear.
Comment by rich o — 11/2/2006 @ 6:29 am
Patterico,
Thank you for alerting us to this. As also referred to above, what I heard on the radio yesterday as the “intended joke” was different from simply leaving out “us”.
I respect your opinions and how you come about them. The circumstantial evidence suggests that everybody from John Kerry himself, to his website, to the NYT, are happy to argue it was a joke about Bush but are not eager themselves to put forth the (real) comments in their (real) context for the public to decide.
If he was really making a joke about the presidency and the need to study hard in school, what would have made the most logical sense would have been something like the following:
“You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.
If you don't, and just get mediocre grades, you end up loosing a presidential election and we allIf you don’t, youget stuck in Iraq.or
“You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t,
and just get mediocre grades, though better than mine, even if you end up as president you can get us allstuck in Iraq.”Comment by MD in Philly — 11/2/2006 @ 6:30 am
What you point out, Patterico, is what I call “journalistic malpractice”. If only there was a legal “remedy” for it. At least with the rise of (those amateurish, despicable, uneducated, written by pajama wearers) blogs we can see it exposed.
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/2/2006 @ 6:35 am
Kerry did leave out the word “us” too. So it isn’t a lie.
Is this the best you guys got? Picking on Kerry’s mis-statement? You can do better. Talking about Iraq is hurting republicans.
Comment by Psyberian — 11/2/2006 @ 7:11 am
Nice try, Psy. This issue hurts Democrats way more than Republicans and that’s why the moonbats are crazy about it and trying to refocus on the war itself.
3 weeks ago, you guys were happy to talk about Mark Foley instead of the war.
2 weeks ago, you were happy to talk about Kuo’s book in which he states that the Bush White House is contemptuous of the religious right.
Last week, it was beat-up-on-Rush-Limbaugh week for saying Michael J. Fox looked like he hadn’t taken his meds.
Now you want to talk about the war? Ha!
Comment by sharon — 11/2/2006 @ 7:15 am
Kerry did leave out the word “us” too. So it isn’t a lie.
Sure it is. It’s a clear implication that he said something he didn’t say.
Comment by Patterico — 11/2/2006 @ 7:19 am
One more time: it doesn’t matter if the “joke” was on Bush or on the troops. Either way, it was a dishonorable insult directed at our Commander-in-Chief while we have troops fighting and dying overseas, and it denigrated their efforts and sacrifices by saying they/we/whomever are “stuck” in Iraq. Yes, it’s the lame “quagmire” gambit all over again, and is doubly offensive coming from one that voted to authorize the action in the first place.
Even if the line had been delivered perfectly (which you would naturally expect it to have been, what with Mr. Kerry being so smart and well-spoken and all), it was an insult to our President, everyone that voted for him, and our troops that are over there supporting our mission. I’m sick and tired of being gratuitously insulted by that pompous ass, and I think it’s about time he got his due. He’s gotten away with this crap for too many decades now.
Comment by Daveg — 11/2/2006 @ 7:25 am
Here is what John Kerry should have said.
I appoligize to all service personel that were offended by my comment. I reviewed the transcript and understand why those words were offensive and I sincerely apologize that I uttered them. Those words do not reflect what I was trying to say. I was attempting to state that if you are an under achiever educationally like President Bush you will get us stuck in Iraq. In the interest of making this apology sincere, I must also admit that President Bush’s grades at Yale were slightly higher than mine so that even my intended meaning probably would have been offensive to many. I apologize for that also.
Comment by Bob — 11/2/2006 @ 7:34 am
When was the last time Kerry said anything that was 100-percent the truth? Ever? I doubt it.
Let’s face it, he lives in a different world than the one occupied by mere mortals. Maybe having rice exploded in his ass is responsible for that.
Comment by HSD — 11/2/2006 @ 7:42 am
[...] NYT caught lying again! [...]
Pingback by Cold Fury » In other news: dog bites man! — 11/2/2006 @ 7:44 am
It’s important to note that Kerry never said the words “intellectually lazy”. You needs those words to turn the jibe away from the troops and toward the President. This is how you know Kerry’s lying about the whole thing and some staffer just slipped those words in that script they ginned up after the gaffe.
You have to be nearly as dishonest as the Times to pretend Kerry didn’t say exactly what he meant to say. Watch the Youtube; Does he look like he’s joking?
Comment by spongeworthy — 11/2/2006 @ 7:52 am
Psy
I know why you buy Jean Clod Kerry’s “joke”. I even know why, inspite of the audience “gasps” Kerry didn’t realize he “botched” it until even Don Imus was telling him to go home and shut up.
The Left really is contemptuous of the US military. It’s the Michael Moore view of the US volunteer Army as a bunch of hi skool dropouts and malcontents who are racist, homophobic
and they are PAID to shoot GUNS! (and Leftists HATE guns in hands of everyone but criminals, who we are supposed to “understand” as victims of running dog capitalism)
Dems are furious at Kerry…not because he insulted the troops, but because he let the veil drop yet again on their true feelings.
Comment by Darleen — 11/2/2006 @ 7:52 am
Pat, you’ve left out the full quote. After Kerry took a shot at Bush he stopped and when on “But we’re here to talk about education.” He then made the statement being criticized. He may have intended the comment to be a joke but watching him set it up you do not get that impression.
Comment by Menlo Bob — 11/2/2006 @ 8:01 am
NPR did something similar yesterday. The story was about “Republicans’ version’ of the incident. They used the audio clip, but spun it really hard, reading the supposed ‘original text’ supplied by his handlers. “It sounds like the Republicans needed a good issue and they found one” they concluded. No Republicans, of course, were allowed anywhere near the segment.
Comment by Mr. Snitch — 11/2/2006 @ 8:04 am
Darleen has it. This may well have been a slip, not even Kerry is that dim, but it was a Freudian slip. He accidentally let us see his true feelings. Psy up above is another believer. The people calling talk radio and defending him are not saying why they do so. They agree with what he said.
Comment by Mike K — 11/2/2006 @ 8:04 am
False outrage and exploitation. Haven’t we had enough. Let’s focus on the issues.
Comment by Mike — 11/2/2006 @ 8:08 am
Disclaimer: The following statement may not be classified as “gloating” because he who utters it will not be gratified by the event he predicts.
Talk this shit up all you want, guys. The Dems are takin’ the House.
“Leftists HATE guns in hands of everyone but criminals…”
-Darleen
I’m pretty far “left” (although I’m usually right, ha) and I LOVE GUNS. When I’m old enough, I’ll probably buy several, and shoot them off in the pristine New Mexico desert. .44 Magnum, Thompson style.
Comment by Leviticus — 11/2/2006 @ 8:10 am
I’d take issue with your points 1 & 2 - folks are waking up this morning and admitting that it was fun while it lasted, but yep, Kerry probably just mangled a joke (and his ambitions, thank goodness). If he had delivered the joke properly it still would have been dumb.
The photo of the troops with the mispelled sign provided some much-needed catharsis amidst all this uptightness, and now if Hinderaker and Captain Ed say the book is pretty much closed on this flap, it probably is. The Dems could have done themselves a favor by getting their licks in on the Foley, and then showing some decency by letting it go, as the right is seemingly doing with Kerry’s gaffe.
But yeah…they screwed up the verbatim quote of the most reported paragraph of the last 48 hours.
It casts doubt on facts that aren’t immediately verifiable, when the common-knowledge facts are treated so carelessly.
Comment by biwah — 11/2/2006 @ 8:11 am
Wow. You really nailed them. Geez, what a bunch of horseshit.
Comment by Scott — 11/2/2006 @ 8:13 am
“Last week, it was beat-up-on-Rush-Limbaugh week for saying Michael J. Fox looked like he hadn’t taken his meds.
Now you want to talk about the war? Ha! ”
-sharon
Actually, sharon, I’d love a chance to continue beating on Limbaugh. You game?
After all, it’s a lot less depressing than talking about our doom…
Comment by Leviticus — 11/2/2006 @ 8:14 am
The interesting thing to me about this kerfuffle has pretty well gone unsaid: I am old enough to remember when the NYTimes was proudly called “the newspaper of record.” It’s a nice idea: a journal that can be used by generations to come as an accurate historical resource. To use a much over-used word, that’s an awesome responsibility, one that transcends partisan politics and selective reporting. It is clear Pinch has decided to steer the NYTimes in a different direction and turn his back on a very long history of integrity. There will probably be a correction in a couple of days, buried on page 38, and NYTimes loyalists will point to that as setting the record straight. It will only be a fig leaf emphasizing how naked the Grey Lady is under present leadership. The world, especially of historians, is a worse place for this short-sighted partisan decision. F
Comment by Fred LaSor — 11/2/2006 @ 8:16 am
Why Hinderaker and Ed Morrisey? - typically these guys, with whom I usually disagree, aren’t about the kabuki and false outrage for show (cf. McCain, Malkin). Right or wrong, I think their outrage is usually grounded in a real belief and not how they think the outrage will be perceived.
As for the “Freudian slip” theory (a la Darleen and others) - it’s silly, biased, and completely self-serving, but theorize away.
Comment by biwah — 11/2/2006 @ 8:17 am
[...] Patterico found this, and it’s a beaut. This is one that actually demands many polite-but-indignant phone calls to the paper. The “public editor” can be reached at (212) 556-7652. [...]
Pingback by The Anchoress » NY Times just out-and-out lies! — 11/2/2006 @ 8:20 am
Kerry was the best the Democrats had two years ago, Psyberian, and with the interference being run by the MSM(highlighted by this NYTimes article), the left blogosphere, and many Dem officials, Kerry may be the best you have two years from now.
It’s amazing that this is a battle that Dems want to fight.
Comment by bains — 11/2/2006 @ 8:26 am
The Kerry Flap Keeps Flapping…
First I want to point out that the Washington Post front-paged this story today:
Scandals Alone Could Cost Republicans Their House Majority
But, according to Howard Kurtz, they didn’t front-page the Kerry flap yesterday. Meanwhile, the NYT is……
Trackback by Mary Katharine Ham — 11/2/2006 @ 8:35 am
This article was handed to a NYT reporter by a Dimocrat operative. They will do anything to protect themselves, and the big media outlets happily comply.
Comment by Neo — 11/2/2006 @ 8:35 am
“Kerry may be the best you have two years from now.”
-bains
In that case you’d better start making up more lowbrow bullshit to hit’m with, eh, bains?
How’s this: “News surfaced today that John Kerry was AWOL from his Air National Guard unit for a period of three months, snorted gobs and gobs of cocaine, impregnated a woman out of wedlock, and danced naked on tabletops. Also, it was discovered that every business endeavor John Kerry ever invested his time in failed miserably. Baseball players around the world spit on his image. Finally, it was discovered that, while drunk, Theresa Heinz Kerry killed a friend in a college car accident (this is extremely, extremely pertinent: shut up).
And that’s the news… Good night.”
Man, that shit would really rock the proverbial boat, wouldn’t it?
Comment by Leviticus — 11/2/2006 @ 8:36 am
Of course the WaPo buried it on A-8 yesterday and made it an attack piece on Bush and their frontpager now tries to *not* catch up on the story and get the actual story out.
But then, the Washington Post is truly incapable as a newspaper. I mean they can’t even figure out the Federal spending cycle which happens to be something of interest to them.
So it isn’t just the outright refusal of the NYT to carry actual quotations as they were said, something having to do with ‘journalistic ethics’, but then spinning *that* and asking ‘what is the big deal?’ Well, if you lie about the quote and lie about what was said about it and then actually don’t print the real, actual quote, you probably are at sea on things… like life, at that point.
Ethics and integrity are apparently beneath MSM journalism today. Setting out to counter ‘yellow journalism’, the NYT now is its own shade of yellow.
Comment by ajacksonian — 11/2/2006 @ 8:36 am
NY Times-[Democrat]: It’s President’s fault Kerry insulted troops…
This editorial from the NY Times-[Democrat] reads just like a blog post at some Angry Left hate site like The Daily Kos or Think Progress.
The Great Divider
As President Bush throws himself into the final days of a particularly nasty campaign season, …
Trackback by The Unalienable Right — 11/2/2006 @ 8:38 am
Bains:
It’s amazing that this is a battle that Dems want to fight.
As a Dem supporter I am continually astounded and dismayed by their choice of battles. Though he may have some baggage of his own, Howard Dean has showed good sense in his choice of issues that he would like to fight on. It has only earned him the resentment of the DLC. Kerry is a prime example of the over-inflated Dem politician plowing around on his own, expecting the Dem establishgment to follow him down the rabbit hole of his choosing.
Kerry is not without his strengths, but they are constantly shrinking in comparison to his massive foibles. The Mass voters should be fed up with being tarred with his out-of-touch, “brahmin” image and replace him with a younger, cannier, more in-touch, and genuinely progressive candidate IMO. That would speak volumes (for the better) about the Dem Party.
And then we can chuckle over his more innocuous quotes:
Who among us does not love NASCAR?
It’s interesting that both he and Bush are so verbally challenged, in such opposite ways.
Comment by biwah — 11/2/2006 @ 8:51 am
Man, that shit would really rock the proverbial boat, wouldn’t it?
Yes, just as “Capt. Bush took time away from flying one of the most dangerous aircraft ever to be part of the US Air Force fleet to travel to Paris to treasonously meet with a North Vietnamese contingent during a time of war. He also managed to find time to slander the entire US military in testimony to Congress in self-serving support of his political aspirations.”
Plenty of vitriol and bile to throw at both sides, you see, but only one side in this current situation admitted openly to participating in war crimes, and more recently attempted to fling an insult at the Commander-in-Chief. I’m sure that distinction is lost on you, though. Probably not nuanced enough.
Comment by Daveg — 11/2/2006 @ 8:52 am
[...] Vietnam is their touchstone; it is impossible for them to let it go. Every conflict since then that involved “boots on the ground” is always warned to be “another Vietnam”; every Republican President is considered “worse than Nixon” by Kerry and his anti-soldier cohorts. It’s a pathetic, mutant gene lodged in their brains that has failed to evolve as we progressed into the 21st Century. [...]
Pingback by LeatherPenguin » Kerry, the “Nuanced Internationalist”:Captain Obvious Reports from the UK — 11/2/2006 @ 9:00 am
New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s Remarks…
New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s RemarksPatterico The New York Times’s Kate Zernike runs interference for John Kerry on the topic of his controversial “stuck in Iraq” remarks — to the point of flatly…
Trackback by Bill's Bites — 11/2/2006 @ 9:01 am
And this is still a story today how?
Comment by Ed — 11/2/2006 @ 9:15 am
You wingnuts are about to get slaughtered in a midterm, and this is what you’re talking about? Maybe you should return to discussing the crescent-shaped 9/11 memorial or your Ted Kennedy treason theories. You’re toast - see you November 7th!
Comment by blogenfreude — 11/2/2006 @ 9:17 am
If anybody cares to remember, the only reason that Kerry won the nomination last time is because he looked like a moderate who could win. That “Winner” aura is long gone. I just don’t see how he does that again. Not to mention, despite what the angry left claims happened in Ohio, losing by 4 million popular votes.
This is Hillary’s nomination for the taking, and I am not sure what Republican out there I would vote for over her. Though I would vote for Bush for a third term in a heartbeat.
Comment by moptop — 11/2/2006 @ 9:24 am
[...] Patterico notes that the NYT misquoted Kerry’s comments in its new story in order to defend him. That’s novel. We didn’t see that one coming. [...]
Pingback by Dinocrat » Blog Archive » One reason the NYT is number three in its home market — 11/2/2006 @ 9:25 am
Agreeing with Darleen and disagreeing with Biwah, in a way, I think Kerry was telling a joke, and his actual words were the actual joke. But the joke was in bad taste and, in the age of the internets and 24/7 news, was heard by many more than a few hundred campaigners and students in Pasadena.
The joke is one I and my friends would laugh at since the days of MASH and Gomer Pyle, thru Stripes and Private Benjamin, now served with added sadism in films such as Jarhead. It’s a joke founded on having to maintain a high GPA to avoid the draft back in the Vietnam era and the old paradigm of mass-production/mass casualty warfare. It is: you’re either stupid to be patriotic and go get shot at, or you’re too stupid to get any other job but be shot at. Yes, we also joked about senile cowboy warmonger Reagan and the pinhead generals. Many of my old friends from back in those days still have those attitudes, a snide dismissal of the military conveyed in Bill Clinton’s famous letter to his draft board. How many posters on so many boards these past few days who say, “Is that all you rethugs got?” will admit they share that attitude so very common among those of us who are or were on the left?
It seems a joke for the college crowd of yesteryear, judging from the gasps from some in the crowd. Maybe the gaspers know someone in the military, maybe even in Iraq, and Kerry’s remarks seemed to blame the victim for being in danger. Maybe they’re better informed about the requirements to get in the military. Maybe they have better manners as well.
Comment by Geo W — 11/2/2006 @ 9:25 am
Geo W, well I agree with you that Kerry’s frame of reference is based on a different era. He is still looking at the military as the unfortunate sons of middle and lower-class america who couldn’t pull the right strings to get deferrals. Irrelevant in the era of the volunteer military, and irrelevant in terms of U.S. foreign policy. His remark was patronizing even under his view. George W Bush’s grades are only relevant to the war to someone who thinks the war is no more than a political pissing match, as Kerry clearly does.
Comment by biwah — 11/2/2006 @ 9:33 am
[...] for this reason. By: Sister Toldjah in: War on Terror, Military, Congress | EMail This Post | Print This Post | Trackback URI for this post:http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/11/02/kerrys-comments-about-troops-this-week-are-a-reminder-of-similar-comments-hes-made-before/trackback/ » Comments [...]
Pingback by Sister Toldjah » Kerry’s comments about troops this week are a reminder of similar comments he’s made before (UPDATED) — 11/2/2006 @ 9:40 am
Maybe in the future the NY Times will do all politicians the favor of reporting what they “meant” to say, rather than what was actually said. Wouldn’t that be helpful?
Comment by ss — 11/2/2006 @ 9:43 am
John Kerry has done that, too.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 11/2/2006 @ 9:43 am
And while we’re on the New York Times…
Please explain to me why they’re telling bald-faced lies to cover for John Kerry? OK, perhaps they’re not lying. Perhaps the reporter is just incompetent. Just as John Kerry is just an incompetent politician. Just as Dan Rather was just…
Trackback by Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy — 11/2/2006 @ 9:46 am
For all the times Bush has flubbed what he meant to say you now go after Kerry for doing the same thing realy shows where your minds are at.
How about this one or does it not fit with your ideology? NRT Jennifer Steinhauer reported on monday that Nancy Pelosi “favors alternative sentencing over prison construction, schools without prayer and death with taxes”. That is an absurd and biased representation of Pelosi’s views not to mention simply not true. It is a lie. Since it does not fit into your “NYT liberal traitors” meme it has been ignored here.
The NYT is a very flawed newspaper but the flaws do not all cut one way. Remember the Judy Miller stories parroting whatever the Bush administrations line about WMD’s was at the time. Remember they held off on the warrantless wiretapping story for a year till after Bush won the election. To a large degree the NYT helped get us into the war in Iraq so many here were clamoring for and this is how you pay them back. For shame.
Comment by Paul — 11/2/2006 @ 9:47 am
It’s not the NYT’s fault; they’re under a lot of pressure from falling circulation, you know.
Comment by ras — 11/2/2006 @ 9:52 am
The story is over when the military bloggers say its over. People that have never served don’t get to call this off when Kerry forwards the old slur that folks in the military are there because they couldn’t make it in the private sector. Frankly, I’m sick of it and I believe this is the perfect time to root it out be ADDRESSING it.
For me, Kerry needs to go the Gibson route. Go to a base where soldiers are departing for Iraq or coming home and highlight what they have done with their lives. Have his staff do some research on the actual academic achievments of the military and go into a lefty fever swamp, aka MSM outlet, and report his findings.
Comment by Sweetie — 11/2/2006 @ 9:57 am
The New York Times And An Outright Lie…
This is, as Patterico says, an absolute jaw-dropper. This is not a distortion. This is not using slanted or loaded language. This is not selective reporting of only the facts you want out there. This is not even creative editing of a quote to…
Trackback by Blue Crab Boulevard — 11/2/2006 @ 9:59 am
Leviticus:
Not only missing the point entirely, but reinforcing my contention that you are choosing your battles unwisely…
Comment by bains — 11/2/2006 @ 10:04 am
Someone needs to get an online copy of that so called joke transcript. I remember when the Rathergate thing was going on, some Blogger was able to decifer the embedded coding in the the fake documents and determine when they were created and when they were modified. I don’t believe Kerry’s story and to paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan, I think we should “distrust,so verify”.
Comment by mike eustace — 11/2/2006 @ 10:13 am
[...] Again, neither this nor Kerry’s long, long history of denigrating soldiers proves that he meant to smear the troops at the Angelides rally. And yeah, that’s important to keep in mind; otherwise, as Lileks said this morning, you’re flirting with “fake but accurate.” What it does prove is that Kerry’s an ignoramus, and one whom the New York Times will lie shamelessly to its readers to protect. [...]
Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Waffles ‘72: Volunteer army would exploit poor, minorities — 11/2/2006 @ 10:19 am
It is a constant source of amusement to me how lefty commenters have to use obscenity to sound tough. You guys are hanging an awful lot of your psyche on the election next week. What if you’re wrong ? One of the best comments on the 2000 election, long before things got so serious, was that Bush had other things to do if he lost the election. If Gore lost, his life was over. Looks like that was pretty close. Seen Gore lately ? Maybe you should get a life, too.
Comment by Mike K — 11/2/2006 @ 10:20 am
[...] Why nobody in America should believe the NY Times. [...]
Pingback by Reverse Spin » NY Times makes it up — 11/2/2006 @ 10:21 am
How can anything the NYT (and the rest of the lamestream media) do surprise us any more? They are predictably predictable in their not-so-hidden agenda to bash Bush.
Bottom line: Our U.S. troops deserve better than what Kerry and the lamestream media dish up. How is it that the NY Post was the only major newspaper to publish that wonderful “Halp us Jon Carry” photo?
Comment by Ann — 11/2/2006 @ 10:22 am
Kerry even misquoted himself on Imus to try to change the spin.
On Imus he said,
“I left out the word “us.” “They got us stuck.” Instead of that, I said, “They got stuck,” and…”
What he actually said is,
“…you can do well, if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Not “they” but “you”.
Clearly Kerry was not referring to the Bush administration at that moment or he would have said “they get stuck in Iraq.”
But he said “you” as if addressing his student audience and identifying them as future soldiers in Iraq.
Perhaps he accidentally said what he really thought.
Comment by dougger — 11/2/2006 @ 10:23 am
[...] Unless you’re the NYT: What makes this piece so outrageous is that it flat-out lies about what Kerry said. [...]
Pingback by bloodthirstyliberal.com » Lies, Damned Lies, and the New York Times — 11/2/2006 @ 10:25 am
[...] One MSM outfit does some homework while another one outift, the NYT’s, tries to pass off the “corrected” version of Kerry’s comments as if it was what he really said: (via Patterico’s Pontifications) It also completely buries any description of the actual remarks themselves. It is the eighteenth paragraph (!) before Zernike even alludes to the actual content of the remarks. There is plenty of discussion about the fallout from the remarks — but what did Kerry say? It takes eighteen paragraphs to even get to the issue. Amazingly, Zernike quotes praise for Kerry from a small-time lefty blogger before she gets around to telling us what the hell Kerry had said that was so controversial. [...]
Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Real John Kerry, Redux — 11/2/2006 @ 10:31 am
Yeah, I still trust the NYT. I trust them to obfuscate, lie, distort, confuse, confound, and supply false, liberal, left-wing nutroots bull**** as truth. I do not believe that trust is misplaced.
Comment by mikeyslaw — 11/2/2006 @ 10:33 am
Staunch Defense And Daring Offense…
If there were any doubt that certain elements of the mainstream media have taken sides in the midterm election (and, really, there isn’t any doubt, but play along with my hypothetical for a moment), those doubts can be dispelled by…
Trackback by Joust The Facts — 11/2/2006 @ 10:35 am
Actus, where are you? Patterico and his ilk are hammering us on this NYT thing. Help! Help!
Help us Obi-wan Actus, you’re our only hope….
Comment by EFG — 11/2/2006 @ 10:54 am
you’re beating a dead horse. the gas tank in this story is empty.
john kerry is just one man, not the entire democratic party. i groaned when he was nominated in 04 because i knew the ballgame was probably over right there. i believe most of the party has “movedon” and his outlook in 08 is bleak.
john kerry lied when he said his remarks were about the president, not about the troops. the new york times lied when it doctored his remarks for its readership.
the irony here which so few acknowledge is that kerry was telling the truth in the remarks themselves. like most wars including vietnam, this war is being fought by people who are disproportionately poorer and less educated than the citizenry at large or the readers of political blogs. we would be the beneficiaries of their sacrifice if this were a well-planned, well-executed mission, but we are not making the sacrifice ourselves.
the world has changed. creeping corporate globalism has stifled individual opportunity in america. the middle class is dying. the good union jobs that could support a family are all gone to asia now.
imagine you’re a recent high school graduate with a “c” average. your options are limited. if you can take the time off to study, you might get a community college degree. you could also get a mcjob. the third option, which is so attractive to many in this situation, is to join the military. uncle sam gives you a steady paycheck, you get to go to foreign countries and there’s a structure there that will give you an identity and a home, through which you might rise through the ranks. nobody can be blamed or dishonored for making this choice. all the blame and dishonor goes to the civilians (who never served themselves) who put these young americans in harm’s way for the foolish, futile mission of establishing american corporate hegemony over the oilfields.
john kerry missed an opportunity to stand by his remarks and explain vital points to the american people. he displayed dishonesty and cowardice. he’s a gutless weasel.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 11/2/2006 @ 10:57 am
Why should actus or anyone else bother arguing this? The NYT is a BUSINESS. If you don’t like their product, don’t buy it.
“But Leviticus, they market their ‘product’ as truth!!!” Yeah, so do about 50 conservative commentators. The only difference between the two sides is that the NYT has actually reported truth in the past, and has a reputation for it.
The media is full of inference, and when you rely on inference in reporting, someone is always going to claim that you’re biased.
On the same note, quotes get cleaned up all the time so papers don’t waste space writing “uh…” or “hmmmm…” or “let’s see…” every time they ask a politician a question of a remotely inquisitive nature.
Comment by Leviticus — 11/2/2006 @ 11:04 am
The vast majority of clips of John Kerry’s quotes cut off right after “you get stuck in Iraq”, thus leaving open the possibility that the NYT got the balance of the quote correct: “Just ask President Bush.” Here is a video showing more context, demonstrating that he said no such thing:
Also, this video seems to undermine Kerry’s spin that this “joke” was in the middle of other jokes about Bush. There are no jokes that immediately follow. Rather, it seems the quote is a specific tangent from talking points about education.
Immediately before: “We’re here to talk about education, but I want to say something before”
Immediately after: “I just want to say a word about Iraq for a minute before I talk about Phil Angelides and education”
Comment by JDK — 11/2/2006 @ 11:07 am
You gotta read this blog post regarding the media bias — proven by a CMPA study.
http://sopebocks.blogspot.com/2006/11/topic-liberal-bias-in-media-proven-im.html
Check it out. 77% of “big three” stories regarding politics are favorable to liberals (or at least Dems in general).
Comment by JonCarry — 11/2/2006 @ 11:13 am
“Capt. Bush took time away from flying one of the most dangerous aircraft ever to be part of the US Air Force fleet to travel to Paris to treasonously meet with a North Vietnamese contingent during a time of war. He also managed to find time to slander the entire US military in testimony to Congress in self-serving support of his political aspirations.”
-Daveg
Let me guess. “Kerry” was AWOL from the Air National Guard because he took his plane out to kill the Vietnamese all by himself. He just didn’t want anyone to know how patriotic he was.
Also, there’s a difference between “treasonously” meeting with the North Vietnamese (which some would call freedom of speech, in a bygone era) and snorting cocaine while being AWOL from the air national guard (both of which constitute CRIMES).
“Not only missing the point entirely, but reinforcing my contention that you are choosing your battles unwisely…”
-bains
Fair enough, bains. But I’ve stated over and over again that the Democrats are a bunch of shady bog trotters, and you tell me that Kerry is the best candidate “we” have got. What “we”?
None of us care about fighting this “battle”. We’ll just be happy to have a deadlock in Congress so neither side can screw us (too badly) for the next couple of years.
Comment by Leviticus — 11/2/2006 @ 11:19 am
Oh me oh my. Now it’s a conspiracy between the video editors and the NYT to spin Kerry’s remark.
You want a little conspiracy try this. The NYT, ABC, CNN, Washington Post, AP, Baltimore Sun, NPR, Newsday, USA Today, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times all reported that Rush Limbaugh had apologized for the Michael J. Fox remarks within 48 hours of Rush’s remarks. He had not apologized. They were all lying.
This does not excuse the NYT slip up or deliberate misquote but jeeze people, get a little perspective.
Comment by Paul — 11/2/2006 @ 11:19 am
@joncarry:
two points:
1. you’re accepting the word of an obscure, conservative blog (sopebocks, not patterico) as revealed truth?
2. there’s an explanation for 77% of “big three” stories regarding politics being favorable to democrats which does not involve media bias. maybe, just maybe, the democrats are smarter and have it right this time. a week from now you will come to find that about 2/3 of the voters agree. your statement presupposes that there is an ideal, perfect, nonbiased media line which, with your perspicacity, you could no doubt recognize when you heard it. sorry to disillusion you about this, but the media is just people+money. all the smart people i know are biased one way or another. i sure am.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 11/2/2006 @ 11:26 am
Paul,
No conspiracy. Just an observation that without further evidence (i.e. the precise works following Kerry’s quote), the NYT claim could not be discounted. I provided the evidence.
Take your finger off the trigger. I wasn’t looking for a fight, just a more complete perspective.
Comment by JDK — 11/2/2006 @ 11:38 am
“Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up…” losing circulation daily.
Comment by John Hansen — 11/2/2006 @ 11:38 am
words not works.
Comment by JDK — 11/2/2006 @ 11:42 am
A heartfelt thank you to KFI.
Comment by Gbear — 11/2/2006 @ 11:50 am
A Plethora Of Polling, Punditry, And Predictions…
NRO’s The Corner: Dems +6 in the Senate…
Reuters/Zogby: Menendez by 12(!) in New Jersey…
Rutgers-Eagleton: Menendez by 4…
Larry Sabatto: Dems +5-6 in Senate, +24-30 in House…
Patterico: Truth +50 over NY Times…
……
Trackback by Decision '08 — 11/2/2006 @ 11:54 am
Kerry was the best Dem in 2004 in that he was the party nominee. You, as in generic (and collectively) Democrat. I didn’t mean to imply you specifically.
Back when Sen Lott made his ill-advised comment, I understood the context in which it was issued, and thought the statement rather benign. But I wasn’t going to defend him, cuz I was glad see him yanked from the national stage. It was a tactical battle that the right could have fought, but with strategic consequences. (Choosing Frist as his replacement was a strategic error in and of it self IMO).
One of the first comments I heard from the pundocrisy on Tuesday was that Kerry’s comments, and especially his clarification, effectively disqualified him from the 2008 contest. Given Kerry’s abyssmal performance in 2004, I’ve got to wonder why so many are seeking to “rescue” him now.
Comment by bains — 11/2/2006 @ 12:05 pm
The obvious thing I haven’t seen mentioned is that Kerry voted to get us stuck in Iraq! I think it was really a self deprecating joke.
“You know, education — if you make the most of it, 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 “vote to” get “us” stuck in Iraq.”
And if the grey lady didn’t pander to barking moonbats with this type of blather there wouldn’t be anyone reading the disparaging dirge at all.
Comment by ravingcowboy — 11/2/2006 @ 12:06 pm
Actually it’s fabulous that the NYT is destroying its still influential franchise in this way, and I applaud them for doing it. At this rate they’ll about as significant as ‘The Nation’ in less than ten years. Faster, please!
Comment by ZF — 11/2/2006 @ 12:10 pm
My very enjoyable, but not necessarily reliable, source, Early Times Manhattan, informs me that the first draft of Kerry’s prepared remarks read:
Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up chasing rich young heiresses and even richer widows for their money.
Comment by nk — 11/2/2006 @ 12:16 pm
JDK I agree, a more complete perspective is exactly what we need here. How about a little pesperctive by exorcising the demons of our ten minute memory/attention span and comparing this to some of the things Bush has said in the past.
Bush 2004 “We will stand up for terror. We will stand up for freedom.”
Bush 2004 “The truth of the matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were president of the United States, and we’d be alot better off.”
Bush 2005 “Our enemies are innovative and resourcfull, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
Bush 2003 “The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain agression and evil by force.”
Bush 2002 “There’s no doubt in my mind that we should allow americas worst leaders to hold America hostage, to threaten our peace, to threaten our friends and allies with the worlds worst weapons.”
I could go on and on but the point should be clear. If you would hold Bush to the same standard many of you now want to hold Kerry to, and not allow for the possibility that kerry flubbed his delivery, then Bush would indeed be a madman bent on violence and dictatorship based on his own words. The media have been giving Bush a pass on this stuff since before he became president but if they do it for Kerry the right wing blogosphere explodes in outrage. Go figure.
Comment by Paul — 11/2/2006 @ 12:17 pm
[...] The New York Times’s Kate Zernike runs interference for John Kerry on the topic of his controversial “stuck in Iraq” remarks — to the point of flatly misrepresenting to readers the content of the remarks. [more] [...]
Pingback by The Two Malcontents » New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s Remarks — 11/2/2006 @ 12:24 pm
While your points are all well taken, all that means to me is the NYT has continued to define its market to an ever decreasing and smaller segment of the tri-state radical chic market–They are publishing the stuff that will maintain their rapidly diminishing circulation, and to do that, that have to cater to the wealthy tri-state, Lamont type, moonbats. The NYT has never told the truth on its editorial pages (although they are, properly, opinion) and has now abandoned any pretense of objective reporting. Its a rag.
Comment by rogera — 11/2/2006 @ 12:50 pm
…rico,
Mr. Kerry did not mean to disparage the troops, in that he did not intend to talk about the troops in that comment. He was talking about education, and because it was an unscripted comment, he relied on his own opinion of something bad that could happen to the students if they didn’t take their schoolwork seriously. He would not normally let that opinion out, but he spoke before he thought, and now it is out there.
Comment by Mike S — 11/2/2006 @ 12:52 pm
[...] The really sad thing is how Kerry is enabled by an increasingly irresponsible media: The New York Times’s Kate Zernike runs interference for John Kerry on the topic of his controversial “stuck in Iraq” remarks — to the point of flatly misrepresenting to readers the content of the remarks. [...]
Pingback by A Second Hand Conjecture » The Erstwhile President — 11/2/2006 @ 12:58 pm
Paul:
No argument, Bush has misspoken… frequently.
Kerry’s “joke” would be easier to dismiss if he did not have a history of hostility against our armed service members:
1971:
1972:
2005:
History like this does not exist for the Bush misquotes you cite. If Bush were asked to defend those quotes, he would not. But Kerry’s first reaction is not to apologize to those he might have offended, but to rant for 5 minutes straight about Republicans.
Additionally, quotes like this indicate that Kerry’s actual words reflect common opinion among the left (see comment #68 above):
This is not the first time I have read that defense in the last couple days.
Did Kerry botch the joke? Probably. Was it intended to be about Bush? I’ll buy that. Did he apologize? A little late, but yeah. Did this episode reveal how the left really feals about our troops? You bet.
Comment by JDK — 11/2/2006 @ 1:01 pm
The difference between the New York Times and toilet paper is that toilet paper is softer.
Ok, maybe there are other differences, but I’m only going to point out one of them, and if you’re presuming that is the only one, you also shouldn’t read the article as you’ll fail to understand the issue with Kerry’s statement.
Real NY Times readers, writers, and editors will understand the nuance and complexity of my initial statement, and therefore won’t be offended. I’m sure of it.
Comment by Gekkobear — 11/2/2006 @ 1:17 pm
JDK the truth is it’s own defense. You say this episode shows how the left feels about the troops when this episode shows how the right is willing to disingenuously jump on any issue to try and paint the left as anti-military, even if it involves misrepresenting the case.
Kerry’s remarks about a volunteer army are not at all anti-military and stem from a realization that many people join the military for reasons other than patriotism and that the military is over represented by the poor and minorities. Sorry if that rocks your boat but it is the truth and to try and paint someone who says this as anti-military is dishonest.
The 2005 comment about U.S. military is totally on the mark and factual. Our soldiers routinely break into Iraqi homes at night. An action which terrorizes the ocupants who consist of women and children. Apparently another inconvenient truth for you. The fact is our military is in agreement with Kerry on this and would like to use more Iraqi troops for these raids. Remember winning hearts and minds?
You state these things Kerry said as if you were prooving some point but never back up your assertions that they are “anti-troop”. Was the investigation into Mai Lei ani-troop. To point out immoral actions of people on your own side is not disloyal. After the Nuremburg trials it should be clear that it is in fact the only way to keep more atrocities from happening.
You also say that because the Kerry comment backs up some preconceived prejudice the right has about Kerry being anti-military then it is probably what he meant even if he says it is not and was just a joke. I could just as easily point to Bush’s “joke” about how it would be much easier to run America if it was a dictatorship. That certainly fits into what many on the left feel about Bush. That he want’s to be a dictator. Does that mean he meant what he said?
Comment by Paul — 11/2/2006 @ 1:32 pm
Reading the comments to this article gives a good cross section of online responses. A huge number of posters are talking about something other than what Patterico brought up.
My 2 Cents:
No one that I read was able to refute Patterico’s point, which is, the NY Times lied to make Kerry look better and the President look worse. An election built on misinformation is hardly what our Constitution is all about. I believe that a lying press is in many ways just as dangerous to our liberty as lying politicians.
Comment by tyree — 11/2/2006 @ 1:40 pm
Assistant Devil’s Advocate says:
the irony here which so few acknowledge is that kerry was telling the truth in the remarks themselves. like most wars including vietnam, this war is being fought by people who are disproportionately poorer and less educated than the citizenry at large or the readers of political blogs. we
One of the irritating things about many liberals is their bland assertion of liberal talking points as established facts without regard to their actual truth. The statement above is a particularly egregious example of this practice.
The reality of today’s military–using a methodology that identifies recruit’s ZIP codes and median incomes in those ZIP codes, plus their actual educational level upon enlistment shows that the volunteer army is better educated than the general US population, comes from families with a higher than average income, and are more rural than the general US population. They tend to come from families with $30K to $80K annual incomes—a chunk cut out of the heart of the middle class.
Now I know that our Senate is largely populated with millionaires or near billionaires who got elected using their or their daddy’s or wive’s or husband’s money (Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein for illustrative examples) or who made hundreds of millions themselves (Frist, Corzine, Cantwell) and spent some of their boodle to buy themselves a seat in the Senate.
I don’t begrudge them their place in the Senate; they spent a lot of dough and effort to get there.
But they and their sycophants on the blue coasts and in liberal academia are obnoxious when they talk about their sympathy for the “little guy” and demean the accomplishments of those “little” guys from the middle class in small towns. Elitist John Kerry couldn’t carry the jockstrap of the average Marine Lance Corporal.
Comment by Mike Myers — 11/2/2006 @ 2:03 pm
tyree, Patterico’s point that the NYT lied about Kerry’s remark stands irrefuted as far as I have read here but it was put into context by me and I have not seen anyone adress that. If you think the NYT lied in order to make Kerry look better and the president worse then follow your logic. The NYT lied about Nancy Pelosi on Monday saying “She favors alternative sentencing over prison construction, schools without prayer and death with taxes.” That is a lie to make the democrats look worse and the republicans look better. The NYT and tons of other news organizations, as I listed in a comment above, lied about Rush Limbaugh stating that he had apologized about what he said concerning MJFox when he had not. That was a lie designed to make the democrats look worse and the republicans look better.
Just following your logic there tyree. A lying press is indeed dangerous. Thats partly how we got into Iraq to begin with.
Comment by Paul — 11/2/2006 @ 2:18 pm
I’d like to join the debate, but my comments are not getting past the spam filters here. I’m also having the same problem on other sites. I’m informed that “Black Jack” is a prime spam indicator.
Consequently, I’m going to use the name “mokus” but I’m still the same guy. Perhaps one day Black Jack can come back. I’m looking forward to it.
Comment by mokus — 11/2/2006 @ 2:57 pm
Paul:
You have agreed with Kerry’s 2005 quote by saying (comment #91):
Would you agree with this statement also?
Comment by JDK — 11/2/2006 @ 3:06 pm
This is no different from when Rumsfeld said that Flight 93 was “shot down”. I didn’t hear any conservatives claiming that is what he really meant.
Comment by Kirk — 11/2/2006 @ 3:16 pm
Kirk:
See comment 89 above. Key point:
The plain language of Kerry’s original quote is consistent with a track record of other quotes showing similar disdain for our troops. And despite this, Kerry begins his first press conference with: “I will apologize to no one”.
What makes the Kerry quote different than the Cheney misstatement you cite is that Kerry’s quote, in the context of the history of Kerry’s quotes, supported by a host of other quotes from the left, shows that the left generally (not universally) holds contempt for the members of our armed services.
Comment by JDK — 11/2/2006 @ 3:31 pm
JDK, no I don’t think the American army is any more violent or murderous now then in past wars but I am not a military historian and that would be a hard thing to either prove or disprove.
Comment by Paul — 11/2/2006 @ 3:36 pm
Patterico Has The Hammer And Nails For The NY Times…
You gotta love it, folks. The NY Times is already reeling from the drop in circulation and ad dollars, and they print stories like this one where they out-and-out lie about the issue at hand. It just goes to show that these jokers don’t care whether…
Trackback by The Asylum Pundits — 11/2/2006 @ 3:38 pm
This is not true, in fact. The current military personnel make-up is as close to representative of America as any organization known. The only variances to that are that the average educational background of active duty personnel is higher than the national average, and that middle- and upper middle-class whites are slightly over-represented. Blacks, hispanics, and asians are within two percentage points of matching their respective societal representations in the population.
Comment by Freelancer — 11/2/2006 @ 3:47 pm
Paul:
Your response is a little vague:
I’ll focus the question a bit. Do you believe the American army is generally murderous?
Comment by JDK — 11/2/2006 @ 3:50 pm
Actually, sharon, I’d love a chance to continue beating on Limbaugh. You game?
When you’re old enough to sit in a bar and drink a beer with me and not need me to point out your milk moustache, then we can do that, ok? Till then, you should probably get back to Spongebob.
Comment by sharon — 11/2/2006 @ 4:01 pm
FAQ - John Kerry!…
1) What was the “joke” that John Kerry allegedly meant to tell when he got himself in all that soup?
According to the Kerry propaganda ministry, a.k.a. The New York Times, Kerry meant to say, “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, i…
Trackback by Dean Barnett — 11/2/2006 @ 4:03 pm
I do not believe the American army is generally murderous. I beleive that war is a horrible, uncivilized activity that inevitably will lead to some soldiers going over to the darker side of human nature if you will. Hopefully in more civilized societies their soldiers will do that less often than the soldiers of say a China or Cambodia or Congo but if the society at large, the home front, me and you, refuse to acknowledge the crimes and atrocities if and when they happen that in no way helps support the troops and only encourages those who may have a violent, sadistic nature to loose control as they know there will be no punishment for their actions. A fish rots from the head down.
I also think that in your comment 98 you are basicaly accusing Kerry of thought crime and guilt by association. Do you really want me to find some of the sick and nutty things said by people on the right in order to “prove” Bush meant the things he said in my comment 84?
Comment by Paul — 11/2/2006 @ 4:06 pm
Freelancer, if in fact the military is as you state then I stand corrected. I will do some research on that but Kerry made his comments in 1972 and they may well have been true back then. I’m sure the military has changed in 34 years.
Comment by Paul — 11/2/2006 @ 4:11 pm
How many consecutive quarters of declining readership and revenues will it take before NY Times investors recognize that they are just not out of step with the nation, but with the NY metroplitan region as well. It would be sad to lose a newspaper like the NY Times, but they would only have themselves to blame.
Comment by Donald — 11/2/2006 @ 4:16 pm
Actually, I have not come across a single story that from the beginning made note of whom Kerry was addressing. He was addressing a college crowd in a school and therefore it is really plausable to believe Kerry meant the comment for the students and not Bush.
There must have been a republican spy there who called the story in. And, I guess the journalist we have now-a-days have gotten their
training at The Enquirer and other rags with the accent on ’sensationalism’.
Most of the journalist today suffer from a deficit
in their honesty and definitely they seem to share the trait of “go after the liberals and you will get a lot of coverage”.
Comment by Mary — 11/2/2006 @ 4:27 pm
Donald,
Why would it be a shame to lose the NYT? No more Walter Durantys? No more tipping off the terrorists as to investigative techniques? No more slanted coverage misleading voters and promoting a top-heavy elitist view of the world? No more echo chamber for hate and envy thinly disguised as compassion?
Presumably, you mean - correct me if I’m wrong - that we shouldn’t throw out the baby w/the bathwater, that the NYT has good writers and editors as well as bad ones. Fair enough.
But if some of them are really any good, those ones’ll be able to land on their feet elsewhere; it’s just the bad ones who won’t. Sounds about right, actually. We’d keep the good ones and lose the bad one along w/the now-tainted packaging.
Comment by ras — 11/2/2006 @ 4:31 pm
Media bias? What media bias?…
How many newspapers carried this photo today?Only two.Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for the link!Now before my “comments” area fills with the question “Why does that show bias in the media?” Let me answer you.That photo made the rounds of the internet in….
Trackback by WhereAreMyKeys — 11/2/2006 @ 4:35 pm
Paul,
Kerry made the comments he did in 1972, but you made the comments you did today.
Is it now Kerry’s fault that you suggest facts which are not in evidence? Don’t bother responding, I withdraw the question. Change that is to was, and I wouldn’t have responded. Besides, there are so many more valid reasons for calling Kerry anti-military, like his voting record against funding every single major weapon system improvement since he took office.
Patterico is precisely correct when he says that the NYT article is a lie.
Premise 1: This piece of text is what Kerry intended to say:
Premise 2: Kerry left out the word us.
The NYT provides those two premises, and leaves the reader to draw a conclusion. Only one conclusion logically follows, that what Kerry really did say was:
That is not even close to Kerry’s actual quoted comment, but the article doesn’t help prevent this false conclusion. That is dishonest. If your child attempted this form of subterfuge, you wold rightly punish them for lying.
That is the beginning and ending of Patterico’s point, and it is valid.
Comment by Freelancer — 11/2/2006 @ 4:37 pm
Patterico…I never heard of Patterico. I have an idea: why don’t you take on the NY Times, maybe then someone from the “base” will care about your opinion. Put on a dress and a blond wig and you could become a regular Ann Coulter. There’s real money in that.
Comment by the dude — 11/2/2006 @ 4:51 pm
Paul,
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response in #105. It makes it easier to know that I am debating someone with the intellectual honesty to reject the core belief expressed by John Kerry in his 1971 senate floor testimony or recently by Seymour Hersh that our soldiers are generally murderous. However, you do assert that they generally, regularly and (I assume) wrongfully bring terror to innocent civilians when you said in comment #91:
This certainly parallels some of John Kerry’s ‘71 slander of our troops, which is troubling.
You state in #105:
I did no such thing. As to Kerry, his previous statements speak for themselves. You can dismiss them if you wish, but they help explain why people reacted so strongly to his current flap. He says his current flap was a misstatement, and I will take him at his word. But that does not alter that his most recent comment reopened the debate about the left’s attitude toward our armed service members and specifically reminded us of Kerry’s past accusations against our troops.
My assertion as evidenced by Kerry’s and other’s statements is: The left generally holds deep contempt for our troops.
As a fan of Kerry, you must also be a man of nuance. Certainly you can tell the difference between this and “accusing Kerry of thought crime and guilt by association.”
Comment by JDK — 11/2/2006 @ 5:02 pm
Sure, just keep fanning the flames you phonies. That way you don’t have to talk about the real issues: a failed war based on lies, corruption throughout the Republican Party, a phony war on terror based on fear, an absolute lack of Republican accomplishments despite full control of all three branches of the federal government, etc.
But it’s a lot easier to try to keep this non-issue, involving someone who’s not even running for office, alive and simmering. Sorry, but it won’t work this time.
Comment by BobH — 11/2/2006 @ 5:06 pm
What I find interesting is that the Poynter Online website which has no compunctions in jumping all over anything that Bush misspeaks has absolutely no record of anything that Kerry said. He is not even mentioned one time on this case. It was all shoved down a rabbit hole and forgotten immediately.
I also find it interesting that their take on the court decision that the NYT must cough up the identity of their source on the anthrax case that Nick Kristof wrote about for so long is that the court is infringing on the freedom of the press.
What I find interesting is that it is OK to ruin a man’s life by unsubstantiated rumors but it is not OK to require the press to be truthful about it all and verify the rumor before printing it. What then should we expect the press to do when it comes to reporting if they are not supposed to verify their stories. That is supposed to be their big advantage over blogs, that they have the resources to verify, but obviously it is not that important in their whole scheme of things. The same goes for this. They can misreport what Kerry said and it is not even a blip on the horizon. They can misreport what the president says and then dine out on it for years.
Comment by dick — 11/2/2006 @ 5:30 pm
Hey everybody, looks like we’ve lost BobH! Now we’re sunk!
Comment by Geo W — 11/2/2006 @ 5:51 pm
Paul,
Thank you for responding to Freelancer with respect, we look forward to the result of your investigation.
You will probably find that the educational status is higher now than in Vietnam, as I don’t believe you can get in anymore without a high school education. (Which may not be all good, as recent US Surgeon General Richard Carmona, grad of UCSF med school and trauma surgeon, went into the military without a high school diploma but worked to get his GED because he wanted to get into Special forces.)
But do you have any support for our troops “routinely breaking into homes at night and terrorizing women and children” other than John Kerry saying it in the months following his loss in the Presidential election?
It would be nice if we could all agree that bad and irresponsible journalism is just that, and it should not be tolerated, because if the reporting is faulty we either believe false info or get to the point where we don’t bother believing anything anymore, then the only ones who are happy are those who don’t care about the facts anyway.
After looking at the YouTube clip numerous times, I still don’t believe he muffed a joke about Bush, but if patterico and others who are not partisan think it was a muffed presidential joke I will need to disagree with respect.
It would also be nice to look at things with a bit of common sense and perspective. We all know President Bush has plenty of malapropisms. Listening to him the other day sounded a bit like listening to Jimmy Stewart stammering a bit. Hence, when he says something that makes us say, “What was that again?”, some may think that is a sign of stupidity, but we should all agree that he does that, and if he says, “I’m sorry, I meant to say…” we have cause to believe him. If someone is not known for misspeaking, then we are less certain if it was the rare goof or a Freudian slip. It is not an issue of “applying the same standards”, but applying the appropriate standards.
If someone believes that the US soldier in Vietnam was typically a goon, and that the current US soldier in Iraq is a goon, then it is not understandable why many are really upset. But if you think that the typical US soldier is a professional in a literal life and death situation, fighting for the security of our nation, then whether Kerry flubbed a joke about the president or not is secondary to the reminder of how much he has done to harm the reputation of the US military over the years. And such harm is not without consequences. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Southeast Asia when we refused to honor the commitment we agreed to at the Paris Peace Accords.
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/2/2006 @ 6:24 pm
Paul, re: 106,
You said you’d do some research on the demographic composition of today’s military.
Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11
That should help. It is almost exactly one year old. The most relevant commentary:
In re-reading the article, I realize that my statements in #101 above are not accurate, and I apologize for that. But my primary point, that active duty military are NOT disproportionately minority, poor, or undereducated, is factual.
Comment by Freelancer — 11/2/2006 @ 6:25 pm
Um, how does anyone know what line came after the joke? I don’t see a video or transcript anywhere that references the very next statement.
Comment by Joe — 11/2/2006 @ 6:42 pm
Does anybody ever believe anything the New York Times ever says anymore? MSM journalism is on a steady downhill road, and the NYT is leading the pack. Don’t buy the paper, ar anything related with the business - maybe they’ll go away in a few years.
Meanwhile - you honest Journalists out there… Please keep writing & reporting. After a while you really stand out from the crowd. Thanks.
Comment by historybuff — 11/2/2006 @ 6:55 pm
There are more Dems trying to change the subject today than yesterday, which is telling.
It’s hard to quantify the damage that Kerry did to the Dems, but it’s enough that the NYT, media bastion of liberalism and Dem support, deemed Kerry’s remarks damaging enough that they dared not publish the real quote, so it’s at least that much. That’s a lot.
Comment by ras — 11/2/2006 @ 7:38 pm
She’s referring to “prepared remarks” .. ie the remarks he was meant to follow rather than the words he spoke. That’s clear from her copy so you’ve actually completely misrepresented the story and created a nice little straw man. Don’t you have better things to do? (Indeed, what the hell am I bothering for!)
Comment by Surfer — 11/2/2006 @ 8:28 pm
Why do you bother? I don’t know, but I’m glad you do. You provide some unintended comic relief with your complete inability to read simple English.
Comment by Patterico — 11/2/2006 @ 8:36 pm
And the left fights back by outing another allegedly gay conservative. (Yahoo link that will not last.)
Comment by nk — 11/2/2006 @ 8:45 pm
The more I think about it, Patterico, the more I kinda agree with Surfer. By lying the NYT was really telling the truth kind of like Kerry.
Comment by Christoph — 11/2/2006 @ 9:01 pm
Charles Johnson of LGF says it best here, Patterico, and I really think you should read and consider his viewpoint.
It’s only 1-paragraph and 1-sentence long.
Comment by Christoph — 11/2/2006 @ 9:03 pm
Oh John Kerry.
A little birdie told me this is a Democrat supporting website although I haven’t verified that personally.
Nonetheless, it should win the prize for political cartoon of the year.
Da prizhe 4 pic ahv da yeer shood stil go too da troupes.
Comment by Christoph — 11/2/2006 @ 9:08 pm
It’s ridiculous that NYT would cover for Kerry like that. It’s embarassing! I don’t know. Maybe the NYT should look at its roll in the matter of Iraq. It pushed a lot of the WMD stuff for many years. And Kerry bought that stuff too.
Comment by David — 11/2/2006 @ 9:17 pm
Patterico,
I think you should take a second look at The Dude’s comment #112. Have you considered “taking on” a large city newspaper? You could read and critique the articles and perhaps even summarize your conclusions and post them online. With links! Yeah, that’s the ticket.
You really should consider doing that someday. Who knows, perhaps The Dude and others like him would read your blog and make you famous like Ann Coulter.
Comment by DRJ — 11/2/2006 @ 9:21 pm
Well, the NY times doesn’t get read much way out here on the west coast…besides…we already knew they were liars, ( and probably traitors too)…and all their reporters think we’re “stoopid peeple” and they can tell us anything and we’ll believe it…..
SORRY….can you just imagine if “Lurch” had actually been elected????? God saved us!!!!
That’ll drive all the liberals nuts….good !!!
They already are….
Comment by jerry robertson — 11/2/2006 @ 9:53 pm
YouTube is now a Google apparatus. Does anybody here really trust Google over the long haul to be fair and balanced?
Comment by Zeb Quinn — 11/2/2006 @ 10:04 pm
As if I needed another reason to hate that cheese eating, three-purple-hearts-without-a-day-in-the-hospital Frenchman, Kerry.
Thanks for the heads up on the NYT and Zernike - I chuckle every time I see something about how the big newspapers are losing money and cutting jobs (my sympathies to the individuals affected to the degree they are not liberal). I wonder what their explanation might be - certainly not that ever fewer and fewer people remain willing to buy their crap.
Perhaps this offshoring craze should include the NYT - then when the foreign nationals publicize secret intelligence programs, it wouldn’t be treason.
Comment by kevin — 11/2/2006 @ 10:11 pm
Move Over John Kerry, Or More Leftist Democratic Slander And Defamation Of Our Troops!!!
From Hyscience:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/11/more_leftist_de.php
As the November elections fast approach, it seems that it is “Open Season” out there on our military; and not only by Al Qaeda and the insurgents!
We all know about past statements being made by prominent Democratic leaders such as Senator Durbin, comparing our military men and women, and Gitmo, to “Nazis,” the “Russian Gulag,” and “Pol Pot.” And who can ever forget Representative John Murtha calling our soldiers “murderers,” or the infamous Senator Kerry saying they “terrorized Iraqi women and children in the middle of the night”??? But you would have imagined - especially after the recent Kerry insult to our troops in Iraq, which has stirred so much controversy and rightful condemnation of the Senator, who categorized them, by inference, of being uneducated oafs and underachievers, who “got stuck in Iraq” for “lack of an education” - that barely days away from the elections, the Democrats and their liberal, far-left, radical, socialist allies, would have the gall of being so brazen, as to continue to heap vilification and invectives on our troops! But then, Seymour Hersh does not feel constrained by any such considerations when it comes to dedicating himself to his ignominious “Life’s Work” of denigrating and defaming our military and of spewing his ideological venom!!!
So, here we are, barely five days from the elections, and Seymour M. Hersh, the Pulitzer prize winning vermin who broke both, the so called “Mai Lai Massacre” back during Viet Nam, and recently the “Abu Ghraib scandal” in Iraq, and who has dedicated his worthless life to only rabidly seek for, and dredge up as much muck and mud as he can possibly sling at or impugn upon our military, is at it once again; this time at a Canadian University!!!
According to a report on the O’Reilly Factor, on Fox, Mr. Hersh is reputed to have told his audience at the Canadian institution of learning (or is that of “indoctrination”?) that, quote: “There’s never been an American Army as violent and murderous as our Army in Iraq”!!!
Imagine that! And I was under the impression that our military has been so overly “restrained” in Iraq by our “politically correct,” “sensitive,” politicians - against the barbarity of the terrorist insurgents and their heinous, truly murderous methods, such as IEDs and suicide bombings - that for the most part, they can be accused of rather being “sitting ducks,” when instead they should be mowing down mercilessly all these savages in their lairs without any compunction! Rather that these murderous Jihadists die, than our brave young men giving up their noble lives, trying to make a “Democracy” of their damned, forsaken, rat hole in the sand… for the Islamic Iraqi ingrates!!!
And one has to ask in earnest, how the American citizenship, so eagerly sought by so many from all over the world willing to die to get to our shores, to enjoy what Mr. Hersh and his fellow Democratic “demagogues” so much “hate” and “detest,” namely America, is not stricken from them, and they are banned for good from our shores?!?!
Perhaps, it is high time that “citizenship” be not granted by blind birth (also the case with “Anchor Babies”), but by meritorious, and responsible civil service to our nation, and that such as Hersh, Kerry, Durbin, Pelosi, and their “Hate America” ilk have it stricken from them for good…who so despise the country and its institutions, while cynically taking full advantages of them, and of the unparalleled, unearned, Freedoms granted them!!!
And, no, don’t give me any of that crap about Kerry’s “Purple Heart,” “Bronze Star,” and the rest of his military “Regalia”! His treasonous actions back in the days of the Viet Nam War, his cuddling of the North Vietnamese in Paris with his willing advancement and abetting of their “agenda,” and his staged, infamous, false defamation of his fellow soldiers during the Congressional Hearings in 1971, amply negate any merits on his part; and even makes one think if he did not intend to get as many such “decorations” as he could, in the first place, with the intent of using his “Decorated War Veteran” prestige, as a “credible” bully pulpit from which to spew his leftists, anti-military ideology…as he did!
John Kerry may have as many ill-earned “medals” and “ribbons” on his chest as any “Tin-pot North Korean General in a Kim Jong-il Parade,” but he remains, in his heart of hearts, what he truly really is: “A Traitor” !!!
Benedict Arnold was also a “Decorated Officer.” Had he lived in our times, undoubtedly he would have been just another “Senator in Washington” with a “differing opinion,” like Kerry and his ilk, and his “treason,” and or “Patriotism,” just as with the Democrats now in Washington, would not today be “questioned”!!!
Simply amazing! Open up your eyes America!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 11/2/2006 @ 11:43 pm
The problem is the non-apology given by Kerry: he apologizes for the dumb folks who didn’t understand what he meant to say and who put out a misrepresentation of his comments by failing to read his notes or his mind. He never apologizes for how those sacrifcing everything to keep us safe might have heard his precise words to mean that he was saying that they were stupid. This is critical evidence of how out of touch our would be president is, and how he doesn’t understand that his own words prove him as being mendacious.
Comment by magold — 11/3/2006 @ 12:15 am
Magold, that’s ridiculous. Here’s his prepared remarks and as you can see, John Kerry merely left out one word, “us”, which changed the meaning completely and the Republicans and military exploited it; they used it for their cynical goals. It was a totally inadvertent slip-up anyone could make. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Comment by Christoph — 11/3/2006 @ 12:41 am
It’s stupid to keep defending Kerry’s mistake. He offended military personnel. It took 4 or 5 tries at an apology before he got around to saying, “I messed up and I’m sorry.” THAT’S the problem.
Comment by sharon — 11/3/2006 @ 5:18 am
[...] Patterico calls the New York Times to account. [...]
Pingback by Clark County Conservative » Blog Archive » What Exactly Did Kerry Say? — 11/3/2006 @ 6:31 am
I may have missed it but supposedly Zernike is quoting from the “prepared remarks”. You know that typed copy of the speech that is handed out afterwards. I wonder how log after it was handed out? Long enough, I bet, to have fixed the wording to make it a different joke.
I mean just look at Kerry - would anyone trust him to deliver a joke? No way would they let him do that! No he opened his mouth and out stupidity spilled.
Comment by Rich — 11/3/2006 @ 7:33 am
[...] Patterico’s Pontifications » New York Times Lies to Its Readers About the Content of Kerry’s Remarks What makes this piece so outrageous is that it flat-out lies about what Kerry said.That’s right. I’ll repeat it, because it’s so jaw-dropping: in the piece linked above, the New York Times tells a straight lie about the actual content of Kerry’s remarks. [...]
Pingback by Justus For All » New York Times Lies — 11/3/2006 @ 8:19 am
“When you’re old enough to sit in a bar and drink a beer with me and not need me to point out your milk moustache, then we can do that, ok? Till then, you should probably get back to Spongebob.”
-sharon
Well, I *never*… Must be that time of month, eh, sharon?
Now, allow me to elaborate on that totally inappropiate comment: I can’t control my age, just like you can’t control your gender. What’s more, my age doesn’t make me inferior to you, just like your gender doesn’t make you inferior to me (although each would’ve been claimed in a bygone era; Thank God we live in modern America, right?)
And, while I understand that my frequent posts exude an aura of unfettered sex appeal, I must decline your offer to “have a drink”. I can’t hold my milk…it lowers my inhibitions.
Comment by Leviticus — 11/3/2006 @ 8:33 am
John Kerry’s tortured, circumlocutious “apology” is no apology. I know an apology when I encounter one. Mr. Kerry’s so-called belated “apology” is just yet again more blatant duplicity & prevarication from this weasel to “us”, unenlightened masses. His choice of a begrudging, unremorseful attempt at an apology just reiterates and perpetuates the original insult.
Speaking of apologies . . . . in my opinion he’s still several delinquent apologies short. When will this despicable little man apologize to the Vietnam era veterans that he has repeatedly insulted for the last several decades.
What this stumblebum needs to do is resign his office while he apologies profusely as he disappears from view. Perhaps the rich widow will hire this joke of a human being to count the ketchup money.
Comment by D.T. Miller — 11/3/2006 @ 8:43 am
Leviticus,
I think your entire comment just proved my point.
Comment by sharon — 11/3/2006 @ 9:08 am
The Times has appended a Correction. Whether this will appear in the print version & where, I don’t know:
Correction: Nov. 3, 2006
A Political Memo article yesterday about the fallout for Senator John Kerry over what he called a “botched joke” referred incompletely to the differences between prepared remarks and what he actually said about the Iraq war to students at Pasadena City College in California on Monday. Mr. Kerry not only dropped the word “us,” but he also rephrased his opening sentence extensively and omitted a reference to President Bush. Mr. Kerry’s aides said that the prepared text read: “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.” What he said: “You know, education, 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.”
I worked as a reporter. Kate Zernike likely was so intent to absolve Kerry that she confused the claimed prepared version with the spoken words.
If one goes through the Kerry list, one finds that only a crazed fanatic would think they applied to Bush. To take the last item, about doing well: most people think that becoming President of the US is doing well. John Kerry surely does. The rest of the items fall away, especially in any Bush-Kerry comparison. It’s hardly a joke when one’s saying things so distant from reality and it’s even less of a joke when one engages in crass personal insult.
Further, this Massachusetts voter had to laugh at the “reliable redoubt of liberal caricatures” claim. Zernike is imagining what’s in the minds of conservatives, or better, her Other. And she’s dismissing the objections with, well, a MoDo-type caricature of her own. Ms Zernike should go far at The Times.
Comment by Alfred J. Lemire — 11/3/2006 @ 10:02 am
Oh, were you also making the point that age doesn’t matter in these discussions? I’m sorry, I must’ve misunderstood. The whole “Spongebob” thing threw me off.
Way to be specific, by the way.
Comment by Leviticus — 11/3/2006 @ 10:02 am
Mike S - “Mr. Kerry did not mean to disparage the troops, in that he did not intend to talk about the troops in that comment. He was talking about education, and because it was an unscripted comment, he relied on his own opinion of something bad that could happen to the students if they didn’t take their schoolwork seriously. He would not normally let that opinion out, but he spoke before he thought, and now it is out there.”
I’m sorry if I am just repeating what someone else has already said, but, if he was talking about education, why did he say immediately before the “joke” that “We’re here to talk about education, but I want to say something before”.
Comment by LS — 11/3/2006 @ 10:20 am
Joe #119,
See comment #70.
Comment by JDK — 11/3/2006 @ 10:31 am
i think leviticus and sharon should go out on a date. why don’t you two exchange email addresses? sharon, a younger man can be incredibly invigorating and make you feel younger too. you’ll be able to train him correctly in the ways of pleasure. you’ll be the envy of all your female friends.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 11/3/2006 @ 11:01 am
Now, allow me to elaborate on that totally inappropiate comment: I can’t control my age, just like you can’t control your gender. What’s more, my age doesn’t make me inferior to you, just like your gen