I think the one word that has been overlooked is “education”. That makes it sound to me like he was talking about his student audience and not Bush (in that sentence). While “education” can at times be synonymous with “intelligence”, it is rarely, if ever, used in the CIA-sense of the word. The use of “homework”, while much more understandable in itself, tends to support that interpretation.
Also, as has been pointed out, it doesn’t make sense that he was talking about Bush in that sentence, because why would he raise the issue of Bush’s academic education, which was basically as mediocre as his own? Doesn’t make sense. It seems to me that he was throwing a like-minded crowd a bone. He was combining 1) the audience’s self-image, 2) the Bush is dumb meme, and 3) an outdated steroetype concerning those who serve to score points with the crowd. He was attempting to do what any good speaker/comedian knows: make it relavant to your audience.
As far as his “apology”, does anyone think that is really an apology?
Kerry to Self: “Man I’m really sorry I botched that joke, if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be in this predicament.”
Self to Kerry: “Yeah, but I forgive you, you big lug.”
What he should have done is apologized immediately (will they ever learn) and made light of it as being a botched line with something along the lines of. “Oh my God, it looks like what the President has may be contagious!”
Dudes, I heard it as, “If you don’t study, you’ll get stuck in Iraq.” Not sent to, stuck in. “If you don’t research your case, you’ll wind up suing someone with right on their side.”
See: SCO vs IBM.
I am not sure if it is my duty as a citizen, because I really don’t care one way or another, and it’s not going to change my, personal, opinon of him, no matter WHAT he was trying to say. So, no, I don’t think I am obligated to spend my time to watch his speech in order to parse it out. As Fear Itself helpfully suggested to me, it is smart to use critical thinking, and if I thought this was in any way going to have an effect on what I think about 1) the President, 2) the war, or 3) the upcoming election & who I’m going to vote for, I would probably work a little harder in that direction. I basically see this as a non-story, something he said that clearly came out in a way he did not intend, and not even really worth as much of my time as I have spent even writing out these posts!
Whether or not the pundits have an obligation to be sure they get the story straight is another matter. Whether or not John Kerry deserves his reputation or not is another matter. I’m just trying to look at the reality of life in the 21st century, and demostrate why, if I were a Democrat running for office right now, I wouldn’t necessarily want John Kerry campaigning for me.
I think we may be talking past each other, because I don’t understand how that relates to the post of mine that you quoted.
At any rate, I’m quite sure that Kerry was talking about Bush, but I don’t see the difference between apologizing for a botched joke and aplogizing because some people might have misunderstood (and been offended). Especially since he admits that he misread the text of his speech and left out the explicit reference to Bush. The writers probably had a good reason for putting it there-- ie, avoiding exaclty the kind of confusion created by its absence.
He’s trying to present himself with a superior intellect and can’t even get a “joke” out right? (And the correct joke wasn’t very funny in the first place. Trite and overused.)
I suppose it’s beyond his realm of comprehension that someone could join the military out of love of country and sense of duty and not because they couldn’t get into college? We even had one soldier give up a promising NFL career to join! It’s an all volunteer army…no one is forcing these boys and girls to join up.
I was half-hoping the Reublicans would lose the House this year. They need a serious wake-up call or 2008 is going to be a blood bath. Kerry isn’t helping the Democrats much, half-hearted apology notwithstanding.
I agree that it wasn’t all that funny. Everyone knows that Bush is a moron and that his conduct of the War from its inception reflects that.
This is irrelevant to the question of the botched joke, since it wasn’t the point he was trying to make then or now.
And they still will, because all this is doing is reminding everyone that all Bush has is silly twisting of facts and spin-based character assassination. A false assertion that John Kerry maligned the troops isn’t going to make anyone think that Bush really hasn’t completely screwed everything up. Given that this is the best thing the Republicans have had to say for months, you can count on 2008 being a bloodbath after all.
A very important distinction, John, not because of the sincerity of Kerry but for the insincerity of his accusers. None of whom has anything to offer but inference and innuendo.
Take, for instance, your entirely fair citation of his apology: without the clarification that he was apologizing for botching the joke, you know as well as I that there are…some people here…who would say that he was apologizing for “dissing the troops” without blinking an eye, and would claim you as supporting that proposition.
Facts don’t mean diddly squat to these guys. Not one of them has dared to offer any sort of citation or proof, because there isn’t any. Its not because I am so widely beloved that I am not contradicted, its because there isn’t any fact to offer. Zero, zip, zilch, nada damn thing. I have asked…what?..five or six times now for a citation of his words that show that he was talking about the troops, and they simply continue nattering on as if it were a proven fact. Which, of course, it isn’t. They believe what they are told.
It should be a non-story, yet the snapping turtle like behavior of the media in this case shows to me how hard pressed was the media to show a counterpoint to the really bad Republican news.
This counter point looks the more a red herring because now the Republicans insist in demanding an apology, that then forces one not to ignore that more than a hundred American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis died last month just to continue to press a political point for the President. Republicans have no shame.
Kerry really stepped in it with this one. I can’t see how anyone can view his statement as not talking about the students going to Iraq.
“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.”
It matters not that he was bashing Bush before this statement. This statement clearly indicates the students will get stuck in Iraq (as in soldiers), not will get the country stuck in Iraq (as in they are president and decide to go to war there).
Kerry’s handlers statement of what he was supposed to say does make sense.
“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.”
If he had said this then people would be correct in interpreting his statements to be about Bush. But, he didn’t.
He either simply screwed up big time by mis-speaking, or he really does think that the troops are dumb. Given his past statements about soldiers and his history of mis-speaking I think both scenarios are quite possible.
OK. But keep in mind that the title of the news story I linked to was: “Kerry apologizes for “botched” Iraq joke”. I apologize to anyone who was offended by my not putting that title in my post.
Which begs the question: To whom is he apologizing? To the Democrats who are getting crap thrown at them (unjustifiably so) by the Republicans? To the Dem candidates running for (re)election, and who had the spotlight taken off them for a day or so? To the troops, or other Americans, who might have taken it the wrong way? To all of the above? I honestly have no idea at this point.
Can some one explain to me why this is at all newsworthy in any case? Kerry is not a likely candidate right now. Even if he was stupid enough to dis the troops with that line, he’d still have been a better President than one who disses the troops by getting them killed for no good cause other than administrative incompetance and untruths.
This info you provided is a little disingenous. You are giving statistics about RECRUITS, not active military. Only after starting to research this, did I realize that the reason that I thought your info was so wrong was that it dealt with RECRUITS. Yes, they do tend to be less educated because they are RECRUITS. Not many 18 year olds have advanced degrees, you’re right. And I knew the figure for high school completion rates was wrong, the number is 97.7 as of 2003 for ACTIVE DUTY. General population is 84.1 in 2003. Again, it’s not surprising that RECRUITS have a lower percentage of high school completion rates, than the general population, because um, hello, they’re *still in high school. * I can also bring some statistics about your assertion of less educated and poor, if you like.
It is a proven fact. He said it. He might have meant to say something else, but he didn’t.
If I say “Hey, elucidator! Go jump off of a bridge!”
How would you interpret that?
Do I mean:
A. I want elucidator, the poster, to go jump off a bridge.
or
B. I want elucidator to become president one day and have the country jump off of a metaphorical bridge.
It’s funny that despite Kerry’s many gaffes and mis-statements, some posters are still willing to hear pink zebras when Kerry says horses. Any unbiased listener of Kerry’s statement, even with the Bush bashing context before it, would interpret it to mean the students get stuck in Iraq as soldiers, not as POTUS’.
So, where is the word “soldiers”? Does that word appear anywhere in his speech? Any reference to the troops at all? Absent such, how can you claim that it is “clear” that he is talking about something he has not even referenced? From whence do you draw your inference? Have you a Certificate of Telepathy? You know what people are saying even if they don’t actually say it? Quite the gift.
Does this mean you are free to interpret his remarks any way you feel like?
You are entirely free to believe what you like. I just want to make it clear that you do so without benefit of evidence.
And brickbacon, many of your cites leave something to be desired. An article from the Chicago press from 1991? Let’s use relevant up to date facts to make your point, please?
Concentrating on this faux scandal allows the media to ignore other stories.
Bush on Limbaugh’s show, admitting that Oil is, indeed one of the main reasons we’re in Iraq. (And isn’t it nice that Limbaugh’s slagging of Michael J Fox has been forgotten.)
The recent revelation that “one of the first female soldiers killed in Iraq died by her own hand after objecting to interrogation techniques used on prisoners.”
