See? Like I said, I didn't know (and apparently still don't know) much of anything regarding what happened. I assumed (there I go again) that Kerry's seat was up for re-election, and that he was stumping for himself. Mea culpa.

I still think his non-apology is understandable—he didn't slander the military (intentionally or unintentionally), he was talking about Bush diving into Iraq without "studying hard." (And I'll jump right up there with you in reminding everyone that Kerry supported invading Iraq.)

I guess I just don't really care to spend time talking about what "dirty tricks" the Democrats are up to, because I'm not on their side. The Republicans (and Conservatives, in general) are more my political "family," so I feel more of an impetus to point out when a right-wing talking point is wrong. I want to hold The Right to a higher standard when it comes to stuff like this.

If you read his "apology" again, I hope you'll see that he's saying reporters and pundits were the ones too stupid to know what he meant:

"I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended."

Really, the idea that he was making a dig on the troops is less plausible than the Bush administration being behind 9/11, and harping on this is just making Conservatives look dumb.

And I didn’t buy anything “hook, line and sinker”, because that term is only used when someone has convinced you of something that you normally would not have been (usually by means of lying). I was already of the opinion that Kerry’s only line of defense was to try and hit below the belt. You say that the GOP is “milking it for everything it’s worth”, even though Hilary Clinton himself called him “old news” and called for an apology. (Last time I checked, he still voted Democrat.) :p

Now you say that the R’s have eaten this up because it’s election time, but the point could also be made that if Mr. Kerry wasn’t campaigning for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time he made the faux-pas, none of this would even be an issue. It also wouldn’t have happened if he had been focusing on the strong-suits of his endorsee, instead of talking about all of the President’s failures. (BTW, Angelides is running for Governor of California, not the Senate or the Presidency, so what good was Kerry’s comment going to do anyway?)

So you can’t blame one party for using this against the other when the one who started the attack couldn’t even get it right. It reminds me of a joke:

“What do you do when a blond throws a grenade at you? Pull the pin and throw it back.“

“It was that one word that got everyone ticked.”

Which one word was that? “Stuck”? “Iraq”? “Smart”? :p I mean, now that I think of it, according to your quote there’s no direct reference to the military at all. He could just as easily have been saying that Bush didn’t study hard, Bush didn’t make an effort to be smart, so now Bush is stuck in Iraq.

The problem with things like Army recruiting methods is that there’ll be an official story, and then there’s the opposition’s account. Right now, the opposition tends to be liberals. So no matter what evidence I can point you to, it’ll probably be from a source you don’t trust.

Have you considered that you’re being played for a fool? I have no doubt in my mind that this would have been a much smaller issue if it had happened in ’05. We’re just days from the mid-term elections, though, and the GOP is milking this thing for all it’s worth; not because they care about “our troops,” but because they care about Senate and House seats.

And you’ve taken it—hook, line and sinker.

“Kerry may have said it, but the Army recruiters are acting it out on a daily basis. Who should we be more upset with?”

Where are your facts? Just because some anchor on CBS News (surprise, surprise) says that recruiter’s are “going fishing in the shallow ponds”, you take the claim as factual? If I really need to write another page on this, then it’s obvious my original post didn’t get through. I was saying that instead of apologizing to people that were offended because Kerry can’t even get his own joke right, this barnacle tried to avert the attention and blame to the same “whale” he’s been clinging onto for over 2 years: The war in Iraq. Let me try it a different way:

Let’s say that I’m speaking to the public about education. I say, “If you want to make something out of yourself, you better study hard, or else you’ll end up as a *racial epitaph*…”

Okay, so what I meant to say was “…or else you’ll end up like a *BIGGER* dummy than our president”. Should I apologize to those who were offended because of my own stupid mistake, or should I go on the defense and say “I owe no one an apology regarding my comments about the president and his stupidity!”

See, the problem would be that the comments that got me in trouble in the first place had nothing to do with the president!!! It was that one word that got everyone ticked. It was my own fault and I should apologize because I let something out of my mouth that offended people, accident or not. Kerry refused to admit that he made a stupid mistake, and instead tried to pull a “Look over there! It’s the president and his failed strategy in Iraq!” move, while he slinks into the shadows.

Does that help “build my case” any?
(Ya know, if it wasn’t for these smileys at the end of our comments, one of us would have killed the other by now…)
…

Okay then, I at least see one line toward that top that was likely inspired by some of our prior discussions.

“Oh, and I think we should be more upset with Kerry…”

Well, I’m not trying to get into a “did not/did too” argument. Do you think this because (a) you don’t believe the statements made re: Army recruiters are accurate, (b) you think it’s bad for a Congressman to insult our soldiers’ intelligence but okay for recruiters to do so, (c) both, or (d) something else?

I don’t just want to know what you think, but why you think it. C’mon, if you’re so right, build a case for it!

When I read the Kerry quote here, my reaction was that he was making a dig related to the military recruiters who are specifically targeting the students in traditionally “poor-performing” high schools.

“No, the troops are not stupid, but let’s state the obvious: A great many of them join the military because college isn’t an option.

The military recruiters know this. That’s why they specifically target inner-city and rural schools, and stay away from places like Phillips Andover, where you can go to Yale even if you get crappy grades” — CBS News

Kerry may have said it, but the Army recruiters are acting it out on a daily basis. Who should we be more upset with?