 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006"...you get stuck in Iraq."
All right, let's get to it. Here is the statement and the spin: "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." Kerry's office has released the following as what they claim are the actually lines prepared for the delivery of the Angelides speech: "It's great to be here with college students. I can't overstress the importance of a great education. 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." This squirming obfuscation is absolutely preposterous. He said "...YOU get stuck in Iraq." You. The students he was addressing. To claim what he really meant was President Bush is worse than a lie. The guy is an idiot and a coward. He was telling the students that if they didn't study hard they would become cannon fodder in Iraq. Why? Because the military is the only job they will be able to do. THAT is what he was saying, not that if you don't study real hard, you might end up as president. Good Lord. GAry Eickmeier [...] Your aeu-relevant point being . . . ? > [...] > > Your aeu-relevant point being . . . ? You really don't think this is about English usage? Gary Eickmeier > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier No, I don't. I think it's an opportunity for you to polish your Republican badge and wave it around. I don't particularly like Kerry but I'm not an American so it doesn't matter who I like. I wouldn't have said it if I were a politician. But then perhaps you need a touch of mongrel to be a politician. Kerry clearly made bad use of the language. To that extent, it could be used as an argment in here. But it's more about putting one's foot in one's mouth than about the meaning of particular words or phrases. But I had no trouble understanding that the point he was trying to make was: Study hard. If you don't you will grow up to be a moron, just like Bush." Bush joined him in the sin bin by deliberately misunderstanding him and using the troops as pawns, pretty much the same thing he accused Kerry of doing. To me, the most astonishing thing was the more or less universal assumption among journalists that this silly incident will influence some voters. This was one man's silliness. Hardly a party policy plank. > In article <xqe2h.1163$mV.1157@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Gary > Eickmeier [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> You really don't think this is about English usage? > But I had no trouble understanding that the point he was trying to > make [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > some voters. This was one man's silliness. Hardly a party policy > plank. The Fame Game or Popularity Game works, I think, just as does Dirty Politics. The whole "botched joke" issue underlines the oddity of having presidents and presidential hopefuls campaigning for the candidates for Senate and US House to influence the outcome of the elections of the representatives in the separate states. Their attempts to use their nation-wide prestige to rally partisan support tends to distort the issues that the Senators and Representatives may campaign upon, and reinforces the two-party system, to make partisan politics a team sport, and to make it easy for the media to call the shots. > To me, the most astonishing thing was the more or less universal > assumption among journalists that this silly incident will influence > some voters. This was one man's silliness. Hardly a party policy plank. You may be overestimating the average intelligence of voters. I hope that I'm underestimating it, but I fear that I'm not. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse halves of the user name for my e-address > > To me, the most astonishing thing was the more or less universal > > assumption among journalists that this silly incident will influence > > some voters. This was one man's silliness. Hardly a party policy plank. > > You may be overestimating the average intelligence of voters. He he I thought about that, Bill. > I hope that I'm underestimating it, but I fear that I'm not. The interesting thing, I think, is that stupid people are too stupid to know that they are stupid. No doubt there are some people who think I'm a moron. I sometimes worry "what to do if they are right?" > > Your aeu-relevant point being . . . ? > > You really don't think this is about English usage? I think you're wasting your time, though. We've always had politicians putting their foot in it and then having someone else come along and telling us what they Really Meant To Say. I've long held the opinion that anyone who was capable of being a good leader is far too intelligent to try to get the job. We've been voting for the person to whom we object the least, rather than for the person we think is good, for so long that there seems to be no difference. > > > Your aeu-relevant point being . . . ? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > putting their foot in it and then having someone else come along and > telling us what they Really Meant To Say. As it happens, the first time I saw a film of Kerry making the remark -- with no intro; I turned on the TV and there it was -- I thought he intended it to refer to Bush, not the troops. The Dems, and plenty of others, have been making these two points for years: (1) Dubya isn't all that bright, and (2) Dubya got us stuck in a hopeless situation in Iraq. It hardly seemed a stretch that Kerry would try to make a joke about this -- and that he would screw it up.[1] I quickly saw how it could be interpreted as a slur on the troops, but that didn't square with current political attitudes -- almost no one badmouths the troops, whereas Dems badmouth Dubya as a matter of course -- and it certainly didn't square with Kerry's image and attitude: decorated war veteran proud of his service and protective of the dogfaces. He saw armed combat in Vietnam. Did Bush? Did Cheney? Okay, Kerry can't tell a joke. Have it that he misspoke, if you'd rather. Compared to some of the inventive bonehead things that have come out of Dubya's mouth, it was a relatively straightforward slip. That the Republicans would put it in the worst possible light, distorting Kerry's intent, was forgone once the words were out. That people actually believed Kerry was insulting the troops and not the president strikes me as wishful thinking at its most extreme, and I can understand Kerry's initial reaction. Since Kerry's not a *complete* idiot, he soon recognized that an apology was due, even for an inadvertent insult, and coughed one up. > I've long held the opinion that anyone who was capable of being a good > leader is far too intelligent to try to get the job. We've been voting > for the person to whom we object the least, rather than for the person > we think is good, for so long that there seems to be no difference. Amen. [1] Has anyone yet seen the scene in the Borat movie where he takes lessons from a comedy teacher?  SignatureBob Lieblich Addressing the usage issue, not the political one (or so he intends) > Since Kerry's not a >*complete* idiot, he soon recognized that an apology was due, even for >an inadvertent insult, and coughed one up. I can't remember who wrote it, but some (national, I think) columnist on the OpEd page wrote that Kerry's apology failed because Kerry did not appear to be appropriately contrite. While I don't personally think that the flap over this is anything more than political posturing, I do admit to noticing - with extreme dislike - apologies that say something to the effect of "I regret that my comments have been misunderstood by some...". That's a bullshit apology from anyone. It places the blame on the listener. If there is an apology offered, it should be for what was said, and not a weasel that implies that failure of some sort on the part of the offended. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > > Since Kerry's not a > >*complete* idiot, he soon recognized that an apology was due, even for > >an inadvertent insult, and coughed one up. > I can't remember who wrote it, but some (national, I think) columnist > on the OpEd page wrote that Kerry's apology failed because Kerry did > not appear to be appropriately contrite. I've seen comments on non-apology apologies, and I suppose Kerry's fits somewhere in that category. > While I don't personally think that the flap over this is anything > more than political posturing, I do admit to noticing - with extreme > dislike - apologies that say something to the effect of "I regret that > my comments have been misunderstood by some...". How about the poor guy who said "niggardly" in a room full of black people? He ultimately apologized for giving unintended offense. I don't remember a lot of posts to the usage groups complaining that his apology was no good. There are times when people give *unintended* offense. I believe that to be the case with Kerry's remark. What's he supposezd to do -- say he insulted the troops on purpose and he's sorry? That's admitting to something he didn't do. Okay, he insulted the troops -- inadvertently, to be sure, but it's still an insult. So he apologies for the stupid thing he said. He doesn't apologize for deliberately calling them stupid -- because he didn't deliberately call them stupid. > That's a bullshit apology from anyone. It places the blame on the > listener. And why not? Who did you blame for the flap over "niggardly"? Should I research it on Google, or do you remember? (I don't remember what you said, but I'm pretty sure what the answer is.) > If there is an apology offered, it should be for what was > said, and not a weasel that implies that failure of some sort on the > part of the offended. "I'm sorry I said it, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt, but please understand that I didn't mean to say you were stupid, nor was it my intent to offend you." That's both apologetic and true. Does it pass the Cooper Apology Test? SignatureBob Lieblich Sorry he brought the whole thing up >> > Since Kerry's not a >> >*complete* idiot, he soon recognized that an apology was due, even for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >apology was no good. There are times when people give *unintended* >offense. Most of the time, probably. However, a true apology is "I'm sorry that I phrased it that way. I made a mistake, and I apologize." As far as what was said in this newsgroup, this is a usage group that would naturally key on the word, the meaning of the word, and the usage of the word including how it is perceived. It's not a group that would key on the subsequent apology. Why would you expect the group to do so? >I believe that to be the case with Kerry's remark. What's >he supposezd to do -- say he insulted the troops on purpose and he's >sorry? No. If he felt the need to apologize, he should have said "I'm sorry that I chose those words. I made a mistake, and I apologize." Kerry loses no matter what, though. He isn't going to rectify the situation with any apology or explanation. That's the way of politics. It doesn't make any difference at all that he didn't intend to insult anyone. >That's admitting to something he didn't do. Okay, he insulted >the troops -- inadvertently, to be sure, but it's still an insult. So >he apologies for the stupid thing he said. He doesn't apologize for >deliberately calling them stupid -- because he didn't deliberately >call them stupid. He apologizes for choosing the wrong words. That's his mistake, not the listener's. >> That's a bullshit apology from anyone. It places the blame on the >> listener. > >And why not? Who did you blame for the flap over "niggardly"? Should >I research it on Google, or do you remember? (I don't remember what >you said, but I'm pretty sure what the answer is.) What's that have to do with this? I have no idea what I said, or if I blamed anyone. It doesn't make a difference. My future doesn't depend on the public's perception of me. I don't have any influence that people will try to erode. >> If there is an apology offered, it should be for what was >> said, and not a weasel that implies that failure of some sort on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >intent to offend you." That's both apologetic and true. Does it pass >the Cooper Apology Test? Keep your day job. You aren't cut out to be a political speechwriter. That's probably the worst choice of words to use in this situation. If I'm the oppo speechwriter, I'm having my candidate manage to say "Kerry says he didn't *mean* to call you stupid, so I guess Kerry just accidently said you are stupid". You don't feed the opposition a straight line like that. I think the worst thing the Kerry supporters can do it to continue to explain what Kerry meant, that Kerry didn't intend to offend anyone, or that Kerry tried to make a joke about Bush and failed. It just keeps the issue simmering. They should pretend it never happened. That's what the Pope should have done, too. He should have said "I'm sorry that I said that. I made a mistake.", and then never discussed the issue after that. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > > While I don't personally think that the flap over this is anything > > more than political posturing, I do admit to noticing - with extreme [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How about the poor guy who said "niggardly" in a room full of black > people? He ultimately apologized for giving unintended offense. Washington, DC's black Mayor, Anthony Williams, gladly accepted the resignation of his white staff member, David Howard, because Mr. Howard uttered the word 'niggardly' in a private staff meeting. Webster's Tenth Edition defines the word 'niggardly' to "grudgingly mean about spending or granting". The Barnhard Dictionary of Etymology traces the origins of 'niggardly' to the 1300's, and to the words 'nig' and 'ignon', meaning "miser" in Middle English. No where in any of these references is any mention of racial connotations associated with the word 'niggardly'. In other words, it's a perfectly good and useful word. But there is the unfortunate coincidence that it starts with the same four letters as the word "nigger". The news media are so loathe to use the "N" word, that they've been substituting the phrase "racial slur", as in "...they mistook the word 'niggardly' for a racial slur..." I > don't remember a lot of posts to the usage groups complaining that his > apology was no good. There are times when people give *unintended* [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > deliberately calling them stupid -- because he didn't deliberately > call them stupid. The wingnuts are much better organized and disciplined. They stay on message with frightening consistency. Jon Stewart on the Daily Show has great fun showing clips of wingnuts using the same stock phrase of the day in speech after speech. The wingnut chorus is the perfect embodiment of Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm. When "stay the course" was the order of the day it was "four legs are good, two legs are bad" when "stay the course" was jettisoned last week in the name of "flexibility" it became "four legs are good, two legs are better". the dems can't compete. > > That's a bullshit apology from anyone. It places the blame on the > > listener. > > And why not? Who did you blame for the flap over "niggardly"? Should > I research it on Google, or do you remember? (I don't remember what > you said, but I'm pretty sure what the answer is.) The person who complained about the word niggardly was covetous of the job held by williams he saw it as a chance to eliminate a rival. the original complaintant knew what niggardly meant and was not confused he saw an opening and took it. > > If there is an apology offered, it should be for what was > > said, and not a weasel that implies that failure of some sort on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > intent to offend you." That's both apologetic and true. Does it pass > the Cooper Apology Test? If Kerry had told the "joke" as it was written there would have been no misunderstanding it. He has destroyed his own career and any Massachusetts Rep has visions of a job upgrade they must be salivating. Former Governor William Weld who Kerry defeated in the last election probably wishes he hadn't moved to New York.{an unforgivable sin}. > I can't remember who wrote it, but some (national, I think) > columnist on the OpEd page wrote that Kerry's apology failed because > Kerry did not appear to be appropriately contrite. I've never seen Kerry appear to be anything other than flat. If he had any sense, he'd get some acting lessons. >> I can't remember who wrote it, but some (national, I think) >> columnist on the OpEd page wrote that Kerry's apology failed because >> Kerry did not appear to be appropriately contrite. > > I've never seen Kerry appear to be anything other than flat. If he had > any sense, he'd get some acting lessons. Sadly, what you see is Kerry *after* the acting lessons. Now, we're quite sure he didn't say "stuck in a rut", are we? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > Okay, Kerry can't tell a joke. Have it that he misspoke, if you'd > rather. Compared to some of the inventive bonehead things that have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *complete* idiot, he soon recognized that an apology was due, even for > an inadvertent insult, and coughed one up. He didn't "misspeak." He said exactly what he intended to say, which jibes with everything he has always said about the military. Honest to God, Robert - do you really imagine that he meant "If you don't study hard, you could end up stuck in Iraq if you become president"? That is more absurd than the common understanding of his actual words. Gary Eickmeier > > Okay, Kerry can't tell a joke. Have it that he misspoke, if you'd > > rather. Compared to some of the inventive bonehead things that have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > He didn't "misspeak." He said exactly what he intended to say, which > jibes with everything he has always said about the military. That's not at all true. To my knowledge he has never once deliberately criticized the performance of the boots on the ground in Iraq. He's been critical of Dubya and Rummy and the top brass, but never the soldiers. > Honest to God, Robert - do you really imagine that he meant "If you > don't study hard, you could end up stuck in Iraq if you become > president"? That is more absurd than the common understanding of his > actual words. I'll say it again -- he was drawing on two very common tropes: Bush is stupid and Bush made a terrible mistake in getting us into Iraq. That's a lot more plausible than that a decorated war veteran would badmouth the troops when all around him people are saying that the only good thing about Iraq is the heroism of the American troops. Don't forget that he came back from Vietnam to less than a hero's welcome -- there was little support of the troops in the Vietnam war compared to what you see today. If he was insulting the troops in his recent remarks, he was in some sense insulting himself in retrospect. Come on! If you were asked which he was more likely to do -- badmouth Bush or badmouth the troops (and, by implication, himself)-- which would you pick? So what's so implausible about thinking that a guy who's no more a natural public speaker than is Bush would get tied up in what he wanted to say and have it come out wrong? Go read a few hundred Bushisms <http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=3944&qt=bushisms&submit.x=33&submit.y=10> and report back. Dubya frequently says things that mean exactly the opposite of what you'd expect him to say. He gets a free pass because everyone knows that he can't keep the tangles out of his tongue. Kerry, on the other hand, is held to the literal meaning of his words when he makes a serious slip. Would anyone have thought that Dubya was insulting the troops if he'd made a comparable slip? On top of which, Kerry's almost spontaneous anger when accused of badmouthing the troops tends to confirm that he really intended the insult for Bush. Otherwise he would have either repeated the original insult of the troops or apologized. He knew that he had meant to insult Bush, and his reaction was completely consistent with that. You're just ignoring the evidence. It's a small matter, ultimately, and will barely get a footnote in the history of the current election. But people who pretend to be intersted in English usage ought to consider more than just the literal meaning of words when examining public utterances that seem incongruous -- and, despite your attempt to rewrite history, if Kerry insulted the troops that would be incongruous. SignatureBob Lieblich Seeker of Truth >> > Okay, Kerry can't tell a joke. Have it that he misspoke, if you'd >> > rather. Compared to some of the inventive bonehead things that have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > people actually believed Kerry was insulting the troops and not the >> > president "President". Like him or not, this is a usage group and not the appropriate place to diss by omitting capitalization. >strikes me as wishful thinking at its most extreme, and I >> > can understand Kerry's initial reaction. Since Kerry's not a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Go read a few hundred Bushisms ><http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=3944&qt=bushisms&submit.x=33&submit.y=10> So your point is that Bush misspeaks so Kerry should be able to misspeak? >and report back. Dubya frequently says things that mean exactly the >opposite of what you'd expect him to say. He gets a free pass "Free pass"? You cite a website that collects "Bushisms", and a website that lists "a few hundred Bushisms" so we all can read about our President's gaffes and laugh at him, and then you say he gets "free pass"? > because >everyone knows that he can't keep the tangles out of his tongue. >Kerry, on the other hand, is held to the literal meaning of his words >when he makes a serious slip. Would anyone have thought that Dubya >was insulting the troops if he'd made a comparable slip? Sure, "anyone" would if "anyone", in this case, was opposed to Bush and wanted to hold him up to ridicule. I would, you would, and most everyone here except Maria would. >On top of which, Kerry's almost spontaneous anger "Almost spontaneous"? Is that an OY!? >when accused of >badmouthing the troops tends to confirm that he really intended the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >incongruous -- and, despite your attempt to rewrite history, if Kerry >insulted the troops that would be incongruous. The above is just fine in aue because it's a small forum with limited participation. If you're Kerry supporter, though, you should hope that no one advances this type of defense in a public forum. All it does is keep the controversy alive and provide the opposition with statements to argue with and extend the discussion other areas. "War hero", for example, sets up the anti-Kerry faction with a new reason to examine Kerry's "war hero" status. It's the type of defense, when the subject of an OpEd piece, sparks a series of Letters to the Editor that gives the issue legs. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > >> > Okay, Kerry can't tell a joke. Have it that he misspoke, if you'd > >> > rather. Compared to some of the inventive bonehead things that have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "President". Like him or not, this is a usage group and not the > appropriate place to diss by omitting capitalization. That guy ain't no capital-p president. Adrian >>>>> Okay, Kerry can't tell a joke. Have it that he misspoke, if you'd >>>>> rather. Compared to some of the inventive bonehead things that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Adrian That's President with a capital P and that rhymes with T and that stands for, er, trouble. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > > > Okay, Kerry can't tell a joke. Have it that he misspoke, if you'd > > > rather. Compared to some of the inventive bonehead things that have [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Bob Lieblich > Seeker of Truth Bush is an idiot and got us stuck in Iraq. What's Tony Blair's excuse? "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote : > He didn't "misspeak." He said exactly what he intended to say, which jibes > with everything he has always said about the military. > <...> I find it continually puzzling how certain ideologues can get take the fact that a brave veteran is criticizing the incredibly stupid and reckless acts of the powerful, cowardly, ignorant chicken-hawks-du-jour, and mischaracterize it as the opposite of what it manifestly is. Ya gotta believe. I guess. //The Grammer Genious. Another Viet vet. > "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote : > > He didn't "misspeak." He said exactly what he intended to say, which jibes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the powerful, cowardly, ignorant chicken-hawks-du-jour, and > mischaracterize it as the opposite of what it manifestly is. What he said. And a lot shorter than my version. Thank you, P. Schultz, or John Smith, or whoever. > Ya gotta believe. I guess. > > //The Grammer Genious. Another Viet vet. SignatureBob Lieblich U.S. Navy 1961-64 (and a Kerry voter; lesser of evils) >>"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thank you, P. Schultz, or John Smith, or whoever. Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry, 1971 to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971 "I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. "They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country." This "war hero" was there for a few months with his movie camera, compiling some medals for a possible future political career. He got out of there after 3 months on a swiftboat, and came back an expert on what the troops were doing on a daily basis. But my point was a simple one of English usage, the meaning of words, regardless of who said them. Seems that if you are a Kerry supporter it was a "botched joke," but if you are not he said what he said, and it was clear that he meant the students would end up stuck in Iraq if they didn't make something of themselves. He probably thought it was a really clever point, until he realized that he was insulting the troops who really were in Iraq. Yes, it was a stupid statement. No, he didn't mean President Bush. That's all I was after, not which party you are aligned with. God I hope you people don't take over the house on Tuesday. Gary Eickmeier > >>"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote : > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a > sense, made them do. You take something Kerry said 35 years ago, at a time when George W. Bush's most eloquent expression was probably a belch, and introduce it into a dispute over what Kerry's *current* attitude is. Well done! And even then, you don't get the point. That last sentence is the key one. Kerry empathized with the Vietnam troops, even to the point of attributing their horrible deeds to the country, not them. How is this different from what he's been saying about Iraq? > "They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off > ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which > is done by the applied bombing power of this country." Made to do horrible things, the troops did horrible things. But they were victims. That's what Kerry said -- 35 years ago. > This "war hero" Hey, I didn't hang the medals on him. I'm not the one who reported that he saved my life. > was there for a few months with his movie camera, > compiling some medals for a possible future political career. He got out > of there after 3 months on a swiftboat, and came back an expert on what > the troops were doing on a daily basis. So? Does that make a heroic deed any less heroic? > But my point was a simple one of English usage, the meaning of words, > regardless of who said them. Seems that if you are a Kerry supporter it > was a "botched joke," but if you are not he said what he said, and it > was clear that he meant the students would end up stuck in Iraq if they > didn't make something of themselves. So we always assign the literal meaning to remarks our public officials make, do we? Explain these, then: - "I was not pleased that Hamas has refused to announce its desire to destroy Israel." George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 4, 2006 - "I've reminded the prime ministerthe American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006 - "But Iraq hashave got people there that are willing to kill, and they're hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future." George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005 I particularly like that last one, because it can be taken either of two ways: secure the future of the Iraqis or seacure the future of the terrorists. Of course, it's obvious that Dubya wants to secure the future of the terrorists. I think he owes the American people -- and the Iraqis -- an apology. > He probably thought it was a really > clever point, until he realized that he was insulting the troops who > really were in Iraq. Yes, it was a stupid statement. No, he didn't mean > President Bush. That's all I was after, not which party you are aligned > with. You've simply ignored the other evidence I mustered, such as it was. You've ignored that he has produced the script of his speech, which he botched, showing that he meant Bush. And you still haven't produced a word of his from less than 35 years ago showing that he has any lack of regard for our troops in Iraq. By the way, I'm no Kerry lover. I voted for him in 2004 because I couldn't see how he could do any worse than Bush. I'm a veteran -- thank God not of a shooting war; I got out of the Navy just as Vietnam heated up -- and I have the greatest admiration for our troops in Iraq. Beyond that, it's all politics, and I don't care to spend any more time in that neighborhood. > God I hope you people don't take over the house on Tuesday. "You people"? I've already voted, and I voted for my Republican congressman, among other candidates. I also voted for a former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan to be my next senator. This is supposed to be a discussion of what to make of a stupid remark by a frequently stupid senator. Other than your uncalled-for literalism -- which everything else contradicts -- nothing supports the notion that he intended to assault the troops. I still think P. Schultz said it better; I know he said it shorter. SignatureBob Lieblich Not afflicted with literalism > So? Does that make a heroic deed any less heroic? Does everyone understand that Kerry wrote his own awards and decs? > So we always assign the literal meaning to remarks our public > officials make, do we? Explain these, then: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > future of the terrorists. I think he owes the American people -- and > the Iraqis -- an apology. I think we all understand the difference between a typo and bad usage, between a gaffe and a poor sentiment that was clearly stated. > You've simply ignored the other evidence I mustered, such as it was. > You've ignored that he has produced the script of his speech, which he > botched, showing that he meant Bush. And you still haven't produced a > word of his from less than 35 years ago showing that he has any lack > of regard for our troops in Iraq. You believe he had a script for that speech? And it was written before the big botch? > By the way, I'm no Kerry lover. I voted for him in 2004 because I > couldn't see how he could do any worse than Bush. I'm a veteran -- > thank God not of a shooting war; I got out of the Navy just as Vietnam > heated up -- and I have the greatest admiration for our troops in > Iraq. Beyond that, it's all politics, and I don't care to spend any > more time in that neighborhood. Maybe you could enlighten me, then, on what Bush is doing wrong. Do you not agree that we are in the struggle of the century with terrorists who want to change our way of life? Or do you think it is just a police action, and all we should do is catch Osama and it will all be over? Do you think we should have continued to be attacked, like a bunch of sitting ducks, as we did for the previous 20 years? It took us a while to understand just what we were up against, but this president can see it clearly, as no other could, especially Kerry. My god - we would be engaged in one conference after another if that a.shole was elected, while the terrorists expanded into Iraq and infested it with training camps and weaponry factories. The UN would be further humiliated, and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would be under attack once again. I don't know how strongly to emphasize the dangers that are out there waiting for a weak America, a weak west. > "You people"? I've already voted, and I voted for my Republican > congressman, among other candidates. I also voted for a former [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which everything else contradicts -- nothing supports the notion that > he intended to assault the troops. Words mean things. > I still think P. Schultz said it better; I know he said it shorter. P Schultz is a clueless liberal. Could someone please explain to me all this supposed Bush hatred? I know the dems are pissed at having their power taken from them for so long, but Jesus - President Bush and Tony Blair are the only thing standing between us and the Islamos. Gary Eickmeier [ ... ] > Maybe you could enlighten me, then, on what Bush is doing That's politics. I've been trying not to do politics. But okay, since you asked: Read a few of the more temperate liberal blogs (not the flamethrowers) and track down what they say about government spending, taxation, health care, the precariousness of employment today, global warming, our non-existent energy policy, Iraq, and such other topies as they address. Don't just read the blogs themselves -- go to some of the authoritative sources they cite. Consider, for exsmple, that even conservative Republican economists take for granted that the Bush tax cuts, even allowing for their stimluative effect, have greatly reduced federal revenues, even though Bush likes to claim the opposite. Consider that the annual rate of increase of federal spending is greater now than at any time since the end of WWII. Consider that China holds almost one trillion dollars in US debt. They won't have to invade us -- they'll own us. Consider that our military is stretched so thin that we have almost no ability to react to conflict anywhere other than Iraq. Hey, it's not just me. Only a bit more than a third of those polled think Bush is doing a good job. There must be some reeason. > Do you > not agree that we are in the struggle of the century with terrorists who [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > how strongly to emphasize the dangers that are out there waiting for a > weak America, a weak west. Those who know about the situation report that the primary reason why terrorists are streaming into Iraq is so they can attack the American occupiers. We're *creating* terrorists over there. The idea that we can kill them over there so they can't attack us here is a fantasy. Our attempts at protecting ports, public transit, power plants, etc., are laughable. We are doing some things right, but there's so much more that needs doing -- and we don't have the money to do it, because we cut taxes too much and are blowing a billion a day in Iraq. I both live and work within three miles of the White House. I frequently take the subway around central DC. I'm nervous as hell. Would Kerry have done better than Bush? I don't know. I can't imagine how he could have done much worse. > > "You people"? I've already voted, and I voted for my Republican > > congressman, among other candidates. I also voted for a former [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Words mean things. And you have no answer for the quotations from Bush that I posted and you snipped. How about the one where he seemed to say he was working to secure the terrorists' future? He gets to say things that literally mean the opposite of what everyone knows he intended them to mean, but no one says anything about it because everyone knows he can't make it from subject to predicate without losing his way. Kerry muffs one stupid joke and he's committed an irretrievable insult. [ ... ] > Could someone please explain to me all this supposed Bush hatred? I don't hate Bush. I fear him. He's ruining the country. I hope and yet fear to live until history's verdict on him is in. Okay, Truman was equally unpopular at the comparable time of his presidency, and today he's greatly admired. All I can tell you is that I don't see anything in what Bush is doing that could be used to justify anything remotely comparable to the turnaround that occurred with Truman's reputation. The presidency today is incomparably more closely studied than in Truman's time. We know almost everything about what Bush is doing and why. And my view is that he's doing his best to ruin the country. I did not feel this way about Reagan or Bush the Elder. Only Dubya. I pray that I'm wrong, but I fear that I'm right. Well, you asked. > He gets to say things that >literally mean the opposite of what everyone knows he intended them to >mean, but no one says anything about it because everyone knows he >can't make it from subject to predicate without losing his way. Kerry >muffs one stupid joke and he's committed an irretrievable insult. Hah! More of this "free pass" nonsense. How can you say "no one says anything about it" when you know that the everyone pores over every Bush statement to find the errors? A Bush speech is like a bridal shower where everyone gleefully watches while the gag gifts are opened and hopes for something more outrageous than the last one. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > I don't hate Bush. I fear him. He's ruining the country. I hope and > yet fear to live until history's verdict on him is in. Okay, Truman [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well, you asked. I really wish we could take politics out of Washington and put intelligent management in. Like, have the economy run by the GAO instead of the politicians. As it is, everything they do is to make themselves re-electable. This involves giveaway programs up the a.s, pork barrel projects that make no sense, and blustering and promises that are meaningless and unimportant. In between, there is some attempt at world affairs and keeping us safe, but, as you say, pretty soon we won't be able to afford it. There may actually be no one looking after the economy, which is the most important aspect of national security. The Republicans have traditionally claimed to be more concerned about the size of government and its cost, but it may be out of control of either party now. One thing that concerns me is the health care issue, which, if made free, could cost twice as much and more. We need some intelligent analysis and planning on this and Social Security - some people who can do computer models of what would happen under various conditions. What is so tough about all this? Probably convincing the politicians of any particular way to go. And we can only do that every two years. This year, it is a toss-up what the message would be to them either way - if we elect Democrats or Republicans - there are so many conflicting issues. I will continue to go Republican, because I am a conservative and because the Republicans have done the most good in the last 10 years, such as changing the welfare state, education, the tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and not believing that global warming is caused by human activity. They are attempting to deal with the energy crisis, but are often stopped by the other side. And of course, I believe in this war, which the Democrats would screw up royally and make us look like idiots. You think we are creating terrorists now? See what happens if we cut and run from Iraq. Wow. It would be just very bad if we succumb to the simplistic thinking that war is bad, soldiers get killed, so elect us and no more war, everything will be great again. If we just stop pissing off the terrorists, they will close up their training camps, stop bombing cities all over the world, and go back to growing poppies. Gary Eickmeier [ ... ] > I will continue to > go Republican, because I am a conservative and because the Republicans [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would screw up royally and make us look like idiots. You think we are > creating terrorists now? See what happens if we cut and run from Iraq. Wow. An excellent restatement of the Republican Credo. I disagree with almost all of it. Where I agree that you've at least accurately described the factual situation-- as with the tax cuts -- the cure is worse than the disease. We're stimulating the economy by taking on a crushing burden of debt. Our energy policy equates to tearing up irreplaceable wilderness to gain enough energy to run America's toasters. The only substantial energy gains will come through savings. Increasing the CAFE standards by one gallon would save more energy than is available through drilling in ANWAR. I'll stop there. Well, we're not going to agree. If there weren't disagreement, the country would be 100 percent red or 100 percent blue. I'm willing to leave it at that. As for John Kerry, I've been watching the Sunday talk shows, and he and his gaffe are already history. I'm willing to leave it at that. SignatureBob Lieblich Moderation at all costs > Maybe you could enlighten me, then, on what Bush is doing wrong. Do you > not agree that we are in the struggle of the century with terrorists who > want to change our way of life? Bush has made it the struggle of the century by invading Iraq. The result has been a huge increase in the number of people joining al Qaeda, and proportionally as many moderate Middle Easterners becoming more sympathetic to them. The war in Iraq has been a boon to al Qaeda, alienated other states in the area, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars. This is no liberal screed - it is the opinion of our intelligence agencies and military leaders. RY > You take something Kerry said 35 years ago, at a time when George W. > Bush's most eloquent expression was probably a belch, If that's not a straight line, I don't know what is... > But my point was a simple one of English usage, the meaning of > words, regardless of who said them. Seems that if you are a Kerry > supporter it was a "botched joke," but if you are not he said what > he said, and it was clear that he meant the students would end up > stuck in Iraq if they didn't make something of themselves. I spoke with a young man today who is very heavily "into" the Army. He's a soldier and very proud to be one. When he graduates from college in May he'll be a full-time officer. Almost everything he does, he does to make himself a better career-Army soldier. I asked him about John Kerry, and he let go with a short stream of epithets. We'll just say he doesn't like John Kerry. Then I asked him about Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" speech. Did he think Kerry was insulting the troops, or did he think Kerry was insulting President Bush? He didn't even pause. "He was insulting Bush." There are intelligent people on both sides of the idea. Hoping Bob Lieblich will read Kathleen Parker's column today at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker.php3 titled "Live From Comedy Central: It's John F. Kerry" Ms Parker, my now-favorite columnist because she agrees with me, says in part: "Roughly translated, here's what Kerry really said: "I'm sorry you're so stupid that you didn't get my meaning, but then, you're so stupid.'' A non-apology isn't an apology." SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > Hoping Bob Lieblich will read Kathleen Parker's column today at > http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker.php3 titled > "Live From Comedy Central: It's John F. Kerry" I just read it. > Ms Parker, my now-favorite columnist because she agrees with me, says > in part: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A non-apology isn't an apology." Yes, that's what she says. I disagree with her. I disagree with you. The world will continue in its orbit. SignatureBob Lieblich I think we've reached a dead end > > -- > > Tony Cooper > Orlando, FL [...] > I think we've reached a dead end No, not "reached": this thread *started* at a dead end. > This squirming obfuscation is absolutely preposterous. He said "...YOU > get stuck in Iraq." You. The students he was addressing. To claim what > he really meant was President Bush is worse than a lie. It is called the impersonal 'you' as in 'one' (and hence the aeu relevance). It is also typical of Kerry's aristocratically tinged manner of speaking to use this style albeit clumsily. Since the sequence of events he described is the Bush biography, and because he was making cracks at Bush and has been campaigning for other candidates in the leadup to the election, there is no doubt that Bush is who he was referring to. What conceivable motivation could he have had to deliberately malign troops in that, or any other context, and as the Bushies disingenuously harrumph? Richard Yates > > This squirming obfuscation is absolutely preposterous. He said "...YOU > > get stuck in Iraq." You. The students he was addressing. To claim what [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Richard Yates If nothing else, Kerry killed any hope, slim though it was, of ver being elected President. In fact a smart dem in Mass could probably challenge him for his Senate seat. I wonder how ambitious Marty Meehan or Barney Frank are feeling. > In fact a smart dem in Mass could probably challenge him for his Senate > seat. > I wonder how ambitious Marty Meehan or Barney Frank are feeling. Rich? Is that what you mean? I often get confused with meritocracies and democracies and the like when I try to contemplate US politics. How does one equate the ability to accumulate a vast fortune and still have it after winning how many presidential elections in a society where you have to be able to spend money like water just to stay in the race? But then I am very easily confused. When I watched the women being gunned down today by Israeli troops I thought of the gunmen as Americans. I think it was the ruined black quarters as opposed to the assumed luxury the white troops were defending by making the black ghettoes even more uninhabitable. Something to do with meritocracy again, I imagine. > All right, let's get to it. Here is the statement and the spin: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > THAT is what he was saying, not that if you don't study real hard, you > might end up as president. Good Lord. The explanation that was given sounds perfectly reasonable to me, Gary. Whether it's true or not is another matter. Adrian |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.