Kerry part 2

[Redleg]

So nice and simple , option a or option b
John Kerry meant with his statement.......
a stupid people join the military

b stupid people get stuck in a crazy situation without a clue as to how to get out (and they are not really sure why they went in in the first place)

In the matter that Kerry screwed up his attempt at a low blow, I can only conclude that he meant both. When one ad libs a joke, they often demonstrate their own feelings toward something.

Now Lemur's noted article is very telling - and I have a tendency to agree with the author's thought. The insuing political flap by both Kerry and Bush is very telling on both of them.

[Kanamori]

Bush started it.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I thought the "joke" was offensive. I don't mind him saying stuff about Bush, but he should have re-phrase it,because it does sound like he racking up our troops sadly.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What Kerry said was;
a stupid people join the military

Though it appears he meant to say;
b stupid people get stuck in a crazy situation without a clue as to how to get out (and they are not really sure why they went in in the first place)

Why he wouldn't just apologize after being called on it by non-partisan organizations, like the American Legion and American Veterans, though, is puzzling if one accepts he does not believe in option a and meant and only believes option b.

Continuing what Redleg said, it is likely he meant to say something like option b, though it seems to me it is likely he believes option a (especially given his past comments about an all volunteer army being all poor and minorities, and more likely to commit war crimes.)

Most fair-minded people will have to concede that, in retrospect, this was a very, very, very low blow. It hadn't sunk in for me till last night how low. In retrospect, this incident says much more about Bush than about Kerry.

Sullivan assumes he was distorting Kerry's meaning; given Kerry's refusal to apologize for several days, I find it hard to believe one could know absolutely that Kerry did not mean what he said. It seems to me, it was Kerry who distorted the meaning of his speech, and with his refusal to apologize, I am unconvinced of how Bush comes off as terriblely evil in his response.

Crazed Rabbit

[CrossLOPER]

I thought the "joke" was offensive. I don't mind him saying stuff about Bush, but he should have re-phrase it,because it does sound like he racking up our troops sadly.

HE. MESSED. THE. JOKE. UP.

Yes. The joke, as he gave it in his speech, was offensive. However, the fact that the Republicans are knowingly misinterpreting it and assaulting the Democratic party is also quite offensive in a sense. Not that there is room to get offended in politics.

[yesdachi]

Wasn’t Kerry’s GPA a bit lower than W’s? Isn’t W the President of the United States of America? Didn’t Kerry loose a presidential election to W? If W is soooo dumb why is Kerry speaking at a university and not from the White House? Bush may be a stupid slacker that’s unprepared to lead but he still beat John Kerry.

Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Its pretty lame to not be smart enough to pick on someone else about being smart.

[drone]

If it's pure politics, it might be a little short-sighted of the GOP to crush Kerry on this. While it may help win over a few votes in the mid-term elections, it also eliminates Kerry from future presidential runs. The possibility of Kerry running again in 2008 would be a GOP wet dream.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

HE. MESSED. THE. JOKE. UP.

Yes. The joke, as he gave it in his speech, was offensive. However, the fact that the Republicans are knowingly misinterpreting it and assaulting the Democratic party is also quite offensive in a sense. Not that there is room to get offended in politics.

NO.KIDDING.

He should have known that it was going to stir up alot of People's Feathers.
Having the Republicans striking back is ok to me, you messed up a joke before election day,that your own fault..

[Major Robert Dump]

Who is this Jim Kerry you speak of? Surely he ain't no Democrat

[CrossLOPER]

NO.KIDDING.

He should have known that it was going to stir up alot of People's Feathers.
Having the Republicans striking back is ok to me, you messed up a joke before election day,that your own fault..

I'm not even sure about you anymore.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I'm not even sure about you anymore.

And What Happens to be your Point?

[Don Corleone]

I think Redleg is right. The prepared joke was most likely less offensive towards the troops. Kerry's bungling of a seemingly simple line to repeat indicates his own personal biases.... i.e. he read it the way he really feels, not the way his speechwriter intended.

As for Bush being some nefarious character for seizing on a chance to swing back... come on Lemur, you really are turning into a shill. Yes, Bush took advantage of a bad situation and pulled it further then he knew it was originally intended.

Is it your contention that the president should sit back and let Kerry insult him and when Kerry screws up and winds up insulting the armed forces, Bush is supposed to just keep quiet and silently suffer the slings and arrows?

I imagine the truth is Bush and his advisors said "Good, let's make Kerry own what he said, not what he meant to say". Maybe that's a low blow for you and the rest of the DNC, but in the real world, when you kick a guy in the shins, you don't expect him to follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules when he repsonds.

[Watchman]

Personally I think US politics in general suck. The politicians even worse. The campaign tactics, for their part, conduct a spirited attempt at limboing under the trivial and tasteless.
And am quite happy it's not my country.

Anyway, as my younger brother is wont to say: "serving your military time is a healthy learning experience - it gives you considerable motivation to study hard, so you don't have to make a career there." He also says it fulfills several useful roles in society; first, it's a dumb and crappy job that nonetheless needs to be done, and second it cleans young men out of the streets at the age when they're just about at their dumbest. And finally it is a convenient repository for folks who're really better off languishing as junior officers until their retirement...

[Don Corleone]

Personally I think US politics in general suck. The politicians even worse. The campaign tactics, for their part, conduct a spirited attempt at limboing under the triviall and tasteless.
And am quite happy it's not my country.

Anyway, as my younger brother is wont to say: "serving your military time is a healthy learning experience - it gives you considerable motivation to study hard, so you don't have to make a career there." He also says it fulfills several useful roles in society; first, it's a dumb and crappy job that nonetheless needs to be done, and second it cleans young men out of the streets at the age when they're just about at their dumbest. And finally it is a convenient repository for folks who're really better off languishing as junior officers until their retirement...

Totally agree Watchman, American politics is a cesspool these days. Sure, Bush and Rove took the low road, but that's where Kerry was in the first place, making a crack about how dumb Bush is getting us stuck in Iraq. For everybody to start clamoring "This isn't fair... Bush should just shut up and let the insults pass" is pretty pathetic. If Kerry can't take it, he shouldn't dish it out.

[Watchman]

Dissing Bush over Iraq is merely a demonstration of possessing a minimum degree of good judgement, these days. Not terribly original though.

But you know the election priorities are fookered when the results just might turn out hinging on a lame duck joke about soldiers.

[Pindar]

The issue is not the intent or the mis-delivery per say, but the response to the reaction. Kerry's folly was in entrenching instead of apologizing under intense Democratic pressure two days after the fact. Kerry handed a club to the GOP and effectively killed any 08 notions he might have carried.

[Watchman]

You sure you're not rather overrating the Amercian electorate's five-second attention span there, Pindar ? ...well, okay, if you consider that Rove (in the case he's not finally been jailed for spouting so much hot air and BS it's become an environmental issue) and his jolly fellows are bound to dig it up...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Anyway, as my younger brother is wont to say: "serving your military time is a healthy learning experience - it gives you considerable motivation to study hard, so you don't have to make a career there." He also says it fulfills several useful roles in society; first, it's a dumb and crappy job that nonetheless needs to be done, and second it cleans young men out of the streets at the age when they're just about at their dumbest. And finally it is a convenient repository for folks who're really better off languishing as junior officers until their retirement...

The tone of your post indicates perhaps a dissatisfaction with a conscripted service. National service may indeed provoke the observations made by your brother.

However, the US Forces and the UK Forces are both volunteer and professional. They provide ways for young people to excel, and build the skills necessary to take that excellence back into the civilian community. Service also builds character and resilience.

The men I was proud to lead were not dumb youngsters and they were not performing a dumb and crappy job. Far, far from it. They were consummate professionals, in many cases brighter (in the sense of more savvy) than some of the MBAs, directors and others I have worked with in other paths of life.

Since Senator Kerry was not making misplaced remarks about Finnish conscripts but about US professionals, I don't think your argument helps him.

As for the earlier issue, I agree with Redleg that neither side comes out of this with any credit, but Senator Kerry should have apologised immediately. I also think he ought to have had a little more respect for the office of President - I don't agree with most of President Bush's policies, but I don't think he is any sort of a fool.

The wretched politics of negativity will eventually come back to haunt not just politicians, but voters too - and the very fabric of our democracies.

[Watchman]

The tone of your post indicates perhaps a dissatisfaction with a conscripted service. National service may indeed provoke the observations made by your brother.

---

Since Senator Kerry was not making misplaced remarks about Finnish conscripts but about US professionals, I don't think your argument helps him.

Argument ? Merely an observation. And I - as well as most Finns, my brother included - actually quite like our concript/reservist system. It has all kinds of neat attributes. One is that it's a cheap way of maintaining troops in the numbers required for credible regional defense. Another is that as it is a civic duty shared by everyone (okay, so it's voluntary for women), the motivation is ultimately high.
The fact that reservist armies frankly suck for foreign adventures also rather helps disperse certain worries people might have of what the ultimately soldiers get employed for, and discourages the governement from getting stupid ideas.

But one of the altogether greatest assets in the system is the fact that not counting certain small groups (some pacifistic religious sects and the inhabitants of the Åland islands, which have been demilitarized with an international treaty since around WW1) and sufficient medical conditions, each and every adult male undergoes it. Rich, poor, upper class, lower class, second-generation Somali immigrant or scion of ancient German noble family, it's all the same. Everyone dons the uniform (affectionately known as "the cucumber suit"), lives in the same dreary barracks, eats the same bland food, undergoes the same training regimes, stands guard over a tent in driving rain deep in the woods, has to put up with the same annoying regulations and officers... Does wonders for a certain sense of social camaraderie and belonging irrespective of individual background, you know ?

More practically, not a few guys rather benefit from the experience of having to arrange their beds and tie their shoelaces themselves. Having to deal with the kinds of idiots you'd normally avoid like the plague also builds interpersonal skills and tolerance.

However, the US Forces and the UK Forces are both volunteer and professional. They provide ways for young people to excel, and build the skills necessary to take that excellence back into the civilian community. Service also builds character and resilience.

It's also an interesting detail that by what I understand of it not a few of the US ones do it to pay for their future education. (I personally rather prefer a system where the poor have fair chances of getting decent upper education without having to risk their lives in uniform, but...)

Which sort of illustrates one of the issues with straight volunteer/professional militaries, namely the inescapable underlying suspicion of "the poor fighting for the rich". I'm willing to bet the lower ends of the social and income scales are rather proportionally over-represented in the ranks, for the rather simple reason the better off have by far fewer concrete incentives to enroll (and those that do are probably dedicated enough to make it into senior positions relatively quickly if they're not terminally stupid or lazy, and are likely somewhat rare too).

Which, by what I know of US education system, would also suggest rather low average base education level in the military in question.

The US and UK aren't exactly the only ones with fully professionalized armies BTW, just so you know. Reservist systems like the Finnish and Swiss ones are becoming increasingly uncommon these days.

The men I was proud to lead were not dumb youngsters and they were not performing a dumb and crappy job. Far, far from it. They were consummate professionals, in many cases brighter (in the sense of more savvy) than some of the MBAs, directors and others I have worked with in other paths of life.

Good for you, although personally I'm slightly dubious of the objectivity of your judgement. I would be singularly surprised if the professional armed forces did not have their quota of rank idiots and jerks like all other walks of life; all the more so as unlike the conscript systems (which get the entire age-group, sometimes also of the women as in Israel) they can't really be all *that* picky about their recruits.

Which, I've read, is actually becoming a bit of an issue in the US. Some merry folks apparently like to draw swastikas on Baghdad walls, and some street gangs reputedly encourage members to sign up so they can bring home decent training in firearms and explosives...

Incidentally, my brother ended up as a squad leader. He was in the unadultered opinion that of his about five subordinates he'd trust about two with a gun in a tight spot. In the service the opinion on the long-serving career personnel also tends to be rather low, should they still be stuck on a junior rank - since there's obviously reasons why they haven't progressed.

The opinion on people who choose to become rank-and-file soldiery tends to be rather low in general around here. Tends to boil down to them being regarded as either disturbingly zealous patriots or hapless sods with no better career opportunities. The vaguely mercenary air that hangs around the financial side of all-professional forces doesn't really help; it probably brings the merry days of "musket, fife and drum" to mind a little too readily.

And, yes, I have personal antipathies against glorifications of militaries. What made you ask ?