I’m willing to accept that John Kerry was not trying to criticism American soldiers as stupid but mistakenly called them unmotivated, lazy, and ignorant. So I agree with Ms. Barber that Mr. Kerry is being unfairly attacked on this subject:
“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.”
That’s a clear reference to Bush, who Kerry implies is dumb. But it came out like this:
“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’s bad enough that he’s being condescending. John Kerry is where he is today not through diligent application in school, but by being willing to do anything to advance himself no matter what.
But far worse is that he’s trying to turn a policy disagreement into a stupid joke. Literally. Great, that’s who I want trying to determine national policy. I guess that means Kerry’s idol, JFK, is a dumb fratboy like Bush because he got stuck in Vietnam – the original “quagmire”.
Not every politician can tell a joke, and it really isn’t a senatorial requirement, but I don’t think that let’s JoKe off the hook. Besides, calling them stupid woudn’t have been near as bad as things he’s actually called them – war criminals.
What are the things Democrats complain about Bush?
That he’s a poor public speaker? Guess what, this latest from Kerry only shows that Kerry’s worse.
That he doesn’t admit mistakes? Has Kerry admitted his mistake and apologized? Ha, he’s gone the blame everybody else route. [And now belatedly apologized.]
That he’s dumb? Hey, Kerry got worse grades in school. And he flubbed an easy joke.
Look, I find that Kerry is everything that the Democrats today complain about Bush (including the liar part) only moreso, yet not only can they stomach Kerry, they made him their Presidential candidate in 2004. The Democrats could have been a contender – they could have put the standard in Joe Lieberman’s capable hands in 2004 but instead that went with a pathetic loser like Kerry and kicked Lieberman out of the party.
#1 by George on November 1, 2006 - 12:02 pm
Quote
I think the republicans are clutching at straws, there is real anger about the direction of the USA at many levels, not only the war, but also inequality.
Soldiers are mostly from poor families, especially in the USA. Why is that? Why aren’t rich kids going off to war? What kind of democracy allows this to happen?
The fact that the poor are usually not very educated (lets be honest: some are stupid some are average, few are highly intelligent but very very few would have gone to the army if they had alternatives especially these days) reflects the fact that most higher education in the US is very expensive and private.
Poor people are mostly excluded from education. The big change now is that unlike the past if you don’t have a college degree you are unlikely to get a good job, and blue collar jobs are going to China Mexico and India, making the rich people that own the companies exporting those jobs richer (shareholders are included in this).
Increasingly middle income americans are affected too, mostly through their children. Sometimes as there are no good jobs to go to to live like a human being, people are forced to go to the army as it offers training and the only viable career…
Some become criminals… some become cleaners etc..
Whereas C students like Bush succeed based on their parents money not their own efforts, so this is hardly meritocracy. I wouldn’t call Bush a smart man certainly he doesn’t think about policy. I think he has outsourced the thinking to other unelected people who are influenced by lobbyists around him which is a big problem in a democracy.
As we live in a world were the rich can avoid the army, saying that poor people are the ones fighting the war is not a lie
Just think about it… Increasingly being poor makes you a non citizen in America..
This is particularly relevant since both Bush and Cheney avoided going to Vietnam by Bush getting his rich family to intervene for him to guard the fearsome invaders in Texas (i.e. nobody) during Vietnam, always at the ready from the bar, armed with several bottles of alcohol. Whereas Cheney used his university study as a reason not to go to Vietnam and he was granted this.
If they had fought in a war i would have much more time in listening to Bush or Cheney talk about the necessity of war or sacrifice, the reality is neither has experienced it… and they talk far too much about it.
I also fear that they use the war to obscure the financial interests they protect in the background. Americans need to do something about the corruption of their government.. its overwhelming everything and is making the country wobble.