Kerry & the Troops

[roo_ster]

Quite a lot of ink (& pixels) have been spilled over Kerry's remarks.  I think the part I highlighted in maroon gets to the heart of it: our elites are alienated from America.  This is why they go on about how America is the problem in the world, how they want to hand over power to organizations staffed by their kind (UN, ICC, etc), & the like.

It is a serious problem, IMO. 

Kerry, etc. [Michael Ledeen]
It's always interesting to see psychological projection at work. Kerry and his alliesobviously the Dems are defending him, aren't they?are blaming the troops for the Dems' own ignorance and stupidity. I mean, it's hard to imagine anyone stupider than Kerry. Only a total buffoon would attack the troops at a key moment in the campaign. It makes it possible to say that the Dems really are the party of Kerry, Murtha, and the other appeasers. Must be Rove hypnosis at work.

Secondly, it underlines the near-total alienation of the American intellectual elite. I dare say that the leading news and editorial rooms, like the offices of the major universities, are full of people who quite agree with the notion that our troops are stupid and underprivileged. Each time one of our children ships out to the Middle East, we get condolence calls from friends and relatives. They simply cannot fathom it, it is so totally removed from their own experience and from their own narcissistic lives. They do not know uniformed people, they have only a totally misleading stereotype.

Third, I believe that the percentage of veterans in Congress is under fifteen percent. That makes it difficult for them, as a group, to understand military virtue or war. Obviously military service is not a panacea, as Kerry and Murtha have demonstrated. But I do think that in times of war it would help to have more veterans in the legislatures.

Finally, we know lots of military people, from bestarred generals to lance corporals. We've spent plenty of time with them, especially those who have been shot up and blown up. It would help the elite to spend some time in military hospitals, they'd be quite surprised at the intelligence, thoughtfulness, and good character of most of the men and women in uniform nowadays.

Quite aside from the politics of Kerry's buffoonery, this is a serious matter. The war is almost surely going to get worse, and we need leaders with a grasp of what it's about.

[Perd Hapley]

Kerry's original remark was a stupid blunder, but consistent with his character and past behavior.  It didn't rile me up that much.

What did anger me, and amuse me, was Kerry's refusal to apologize.  Worse is his transparently fake anger at Republicans for "spinning" his comments so that they seem disparaging to the military.  What a galling insult to the intelligence of ordinary people.  And his attempt to pass off his comments as a slam on the President - as if that would really be an acceptable joke from a Senator when we're at war.   

[Iain]

I know plenty of bile is bound to be vented, but actually it really does look like a remark aimed at the President, which I'm not convinced would be an unacceptable joke, much worse has been said. That won't prevent it being used as a "Dems are traitors" 'example' to try and rile up the Republican vote.

Have to say, our politics isn't as nasty as this. It will be, but I'm just thankful that it isn't yet.

[Ben]

While I can maybe buy that he messed up a joke aimed at the President, the "mess-up" either inadvertently or purposely (depending on your take) insulted the military. A man would have apologized. Kerry is pulling his usual "It's Bush's and the Republicans fault that I said that. Damn them all!"

[Perd Hapley]

I know plenty of bile is bound to be vented, but actually it really does look like a remark aimed at the President, 

In what world?  That is completely unbelievable. 

The meaning of Kerry's jab is obvious and there is no other reasonable interpretation.  He was remarking on the fact that some people join the military out of a lack of other options.  But the implication was that anyone in the military is there out of stupidity or laziness.  Kerry should have known better than to make such a careless remark, especially when he has a history of accusing American troops of war-crimes.*  He should have simply apologized and explained what he was trying to say.  He did have a valid point that the military is often an option for those with poor academic records.  He would still be attacked for his remarks, but at least then I could agree with some on the left that the whole episode was over-hyped. 

*In 1972, John Kerry appeared before Congress to make false charges against soldiers then fighting in Vietnam, accusing them of atrocities and likening them to Ghengis Khan.  Just recently, he told a journalist that our troops in Iraq were "terrorizing" inoccents.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find a link to this more recent incident, but here is some info on his remarks in 1972.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Anti-war_activism_.281970.E2.80.931971.29 

[StopTheGrays]

You know, education, if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you -- you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.

...just like president Bush. /intended end of the "joke".

I still do not understand what Kerry's point was. The only two I can come up with are

"If you do not do well in school your only choice is to go to Iraq and be stuck there." or "If you do not do well in school you will be stuck in Iraq just like Bush because he did not do well in school."

Is there another meaning I am missing? If not, then the meanings I listed above do not make any sense. Either only under educated soldiers are over there or the military is stuck there because Bush did bad in school.

Both do not hold up because a lot of our troops are not there because of poor academic performance and Bush had slightly better grades than Kerry. Wouldn't that mean Kerry should be struck in Iraq if that is the case?

[CAnnoneer]

It is obvious it was a slip of truth. He meant it exactly the way it is interpreted by reps. Hopefully, it will cost the dems the election.

People like carry are a fine example why aristocracies ultimately always fail, and why the only meaningful system is meritocracy. Kerry is a fine example of half the things that are wrong with dem leadership, Soros is the other half.

[Ezekiel]

Honestly?  The fact that the vast majority of our collective Armed Forces has High School diplomas makes them far from educated.  (I'm not impressed.)

Frankly, Kerry had a point: the military is the last resort of tens of thousands of erstwhile American losers who just cannot cut it in society.  In sum, if you're a dumbass, you end up in Iraq.

"I don't see the issue."

[Perd Hapley]

Really?  Allow me to quote myself:

He was remarking on the fact that some people join the military out of a lack of other options.  But the implication was that anyone in the military is there out of stupidity or laziness.  Kerry should have known better than to make such a careless remark, especially when he has a history of accusing American troops of war-crimes.*  He should have simply apologized and explained what he was trying to say.  He did have a valid point that the military is often an option for those with poor academic records.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

But that isn't what Kerry said.  He said essentially the same thing I've heard from other liberals over the years:  the only reason anyone would possibly be in the military is because they were too stupid to do antyhing else, as if being a soldier were somehow a disreputable, embarassing, and shameful personal condition.  The "smart" move is to avoid the military; anyonre in the military is by default too dumb for any other purpose.

It offends the hell out of me.  Some of my best friends are active military members who GAVE UP full ride scholarships to good universities to serve their country.  They could have graduated with solid degrees that virtually guaranteed them first year salaries in the $50,000 range.  But they decided that their country needed them more than they needed the cushy college life and fat paychecks.

Kerry and his ilk just can't fathom these people who put the country ahead of their own self-serving interests.  The concept is simply to alien.

[wingnutx]

[Ron]

In sum, if you're a dumbass, you end up in Iraq.

"I don't see the issue."

When you say it it doesn't mean anything other than you are an insensitive asshat. When a US Senator says it it takes on a whole different character.

Senators should show some respect to the men and women protecting us and enforcing our foriegn policy.

It is the condescension and stereotyping that the left engages in that causes the problem.

[The Rabbi]

Beat me to it.

One of the funniest pics I've seen.  No guessing whether they would have been happier with "Commander-In-Chief John Kerry."

[Perd Hapley]

Bonus points to anyone who can identify that unit or the source of the picture.

I have stated in two other threads that Kerry's spin on his comments was brilliant, and if he made speeches like that two years ago, he might be president today.  I might add it could also be called his "Daffy Duck speech," for his repeated use of the word "despicable."

But he could have done better.  He should have avoided the laughable lie that he was discussing the president.  He should have said something like the following:  

"Sometimes the truth hurts.  This president and his administration have refused to improve the condition of the poor in this country, blah, blah, blah.  For the last five years, disadvantaged youths in this country have had little option but to put their lives on the line in a military that is fighting a useless, hopeless, illegal war in Iraq.  A war based on lies and conducted in defiance of informed opinion on the conditions in country, and how many troops would be required, blah, blah, blah.  Am I to be blamed for illustrating the sad reality that our young people are sent to war out of their desperation in a nation where the Republican powers-that-be keep them in poverty and use them as cannon-fodder?  

Something like that.  

[Ezekiel]

It is the condescension and stereotyping that the left engages in that causes the problem.

But it's true.

1.  If you cannot cut it in society, you join the Army.
2.  If you join the Army, you wind up in Iraq.
3.  Folks who join out of uber-patriotism will be judged by their brethren.

I never said it was fair.

Certainly, I am an "insensitive asshat."  I am, also, not in Iraq supporting a failed foreign policy designed and implemented by dunces.

Frankly, that makes me a smart insensitive asshat, in my opinion.

"Sometimes the truth hurts.  This president and his administration have refused to improve the condition of the poor in this country, blah, blah, blah.  For the last five years, disadvantaged youths in this country have had little option but to put their lives on the line in a military that is fighting a useless, hopeless, illegal war in Iraq.  A war based on lies and conducted in defiance of informed opinion on the conditions in country, and how many troops would be required, blah, blah, blah.  Am I to be blamed for illustrating the sad reality that our young people are sent to war out of their desperation in a nation where the Republican powers-that-be keep them in poverty and use them as cannon-fodder?

VERY nicely done.

[wingnutx]

Bonus points to anyone who can identify that unit or the source of the picture.

Dogfaces all look alike to me.

[Perd Hapley]

A failed foreign policy?  What, do you have a crystal ball?  

Ezekiel, what makes the Army less respectable than other career paths?  The last time I checked, the military IS society and there are still standards to meet there.  You could just as easily say that if you can't cut it in society, you get a college degree to impress people with.  Or, if you can't afford college on your own, you write a cheesy essay in a scholarship competition.  

And how do a few losers impeach the respectability of those for whom military service has always been their ambition?

Finally, how dare you use your disagreement with our foreign policy as a reason not to serve?  I'm not criticizing you for not serving.  I got out myself.  But citizenship demands that if your brothers are dying in a failed war, you have all the more obligation to help that war succeed by enlisting yourself.  But I think we could hook you up with a commission.  A brilliant young lieutenant like yourself should be a great asset to our idiotic troops.  

[wingnutx]

Please, please do not talk this guy into joining up.

[Perd Hapley]

As a lowly butter-bar?  What difference could he make?   

[wingnutx]

We don't need none a his fancy book-lernin in teh military!

[mtnbkr]

1.  If you cannot cut it in society, you join the Army.

I'll remember to talk slowly next time I see my coworker who was in the Army.  He's  such a failure that he owns multiple properties in the MetroDC area, is only the lab test portion away from getting his CCIE, and is a major resource on this project.  Or there's the guy who got sent to Iraq a couple years ago as a reservist (he's back now).  He was our head IT security guy.   

Plenty more like them around here as well.  Military, smart, driven.  All failures in life.

Chris

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

But it's true.

1.  If you cannot cut it in society, you join the Army.

But it's NOT true. 

Sure, there are some people whocan't cut it in society and therefore join the military.  But these types make up a distinct minority in the military.  And of those who can't cut it in society, only a minority turn to the military.  It is a very small and mostly coincidental correlation.

Most of the people who can't cut it wind up on welfare.  Most of the rest end up doing menial labor jobs.  County queen or toilet scrubber is the likely fate of those can't hack it in society, NOT the US military.

What's more, those who are in the military are reasonably well-educated in how to perform their job.  The military teaches its members how to be halfway competant soldiers, which constitutes a certain level of vocational training and aptitude.  Even the dumbest and most loser-ish military men have are a cut above the unskilled laborers out in mainstream society.

[wingnutx]

I served in Iraq with quite a few entrepreneurs, school teachers, engineers, nurses, police, firefighters, and  computer geeks like myself.

Few of us were doing what we do on the outside.

For example, my friend Steve is an EE who owns a company that makes a machine to reclaim gold and other materials from IC boards and chips. They license the technology to Intel, Motorola, etc. He's a multimillionaire, and he's also an E-5 electrician in the Seabees.

[Ezekiel]

A failed foreign policy?  What, do you have a crystal ball?

 

Even if you consider this a long-term event, down 28-0 in the metaphorical 1st quarter implies something, don't you think?  To me, it means you're going to lose.  (We won't even enter into why we decided to play a road game, against a team without definable uniforms, with nothing significant to gain, in a conference we don't care about.)

Ezekiel, what makes the Army less respectable than other career paths?  The last time I checked, the military IS society and there are still standards to meet there.

Nothing, if you had a wide array of choices and are either an uber-patriot or nationalist ninny.  Having few choices and deciding the Army is where a lazy loser is least likely to get fired, however, certainly cheapens the "respectability" of said decision.  (And, thereby, the Institution.)  As for standards, they have been increased to beyond having a pulse.  I think, now, you must have a pulse and be able to do simple math before they'll give you a rifle.

You could just as easily say that if you can't cut it in society, you get a college degree to impress people with.  Or, if you can't afford college on your own, you write a cheesy essay in a scholarship competition.

Of course, none of those models contain the lowest common American denominator (LCAD) turned loose in a Third World country with a gun and no inhibitions.

And how do a few losers impeach the respectability of those for whom military service has always been their ambition?

Just a few?!!  Do I sense Utopianism?  We take the LCAD, indoctrinate them into our own brand of Imperialist Nationalism, give them guns, turn them loose without significant oversight, attempt to whitewash any fallout to protect the organization, and you don't think this is systemic?  Let me spell it out: this is not "Just a few."

Finally, how dare you use your disagreement with our foreign policy as a reason not to serve?

What?  Please tell me you're kidding.  Such is the perfect and penultimate reason not to serve: with the ultimate being that you are now dead -- as part of ludicrous policy -- for having done so.

I'm not criticizing you for not serving.  I got out myself.  But citizenship demands that if your brothers are dying in a failed war, you have all the more obligation to help that war succeed by enlisting yourself.

You could criticize, I would not take offense.

As for citizenship, I vehemently disagree.  Citizenship demands that, if your brothers are dying in a failed war, you cease to support the failed war.

But I think we could hook you up with a commission.  A brilliant young lieutenant like yourself should be a great asset to our idiotic troops.  

I don't think I'd last too long: something about disobeying direct orders and instructing "leadership" to shove it up their rear echelon.

[The Rabbi]

A failed foreign policy?  What, do you have a crystal ball?

 

Even if you consider this a long-term event, down 28-0 in the metaphorical 1st quarter implies something, don't you think?  To me, it means you're going to lose.  (We won't even enter into why we decided to play a road game, against a team without definable uniforms, with nothing significant to gain, in a conference we don't care about.)

What is "down 28-0" mean?  Why is a football metaphor a reasonable way to discuss this?  What do you think "losing" would entail?  What "team" did not have definable uniforms when we entered this war?

Ezekiel, what makes the Army less respectable than other career paths?  The last time I checked, the military IS society and there are still standards to meet there.

 As for standards, they have been increased to beyond having a pulse.  I think, now, you must have a pulse and be able to do simple math before they'll give you a rifle.

Do you actually know this or are you just guessing here?

I don't think I'd last too long: something about disobeying direct orders and instructing "leadership" to shove it up their rear echelon.

Something tells me you wouldn't last too long in any organization that had more than 3 members that you werent in charge of.