Republican Majority leader blames troops

[letterdavidman]

Why so much attitude?

I attribute it to: 1) The Bush administration, an administration that has long been proved to value unquestioning loyalty above all else, including natural curiosity, from both sides;

and 2) unfailing, robot-like towing of the party line from such media "luminaries" as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

 

[letterdavidman]

Another conservative piping in. The first I heard about this is here. It was not a nice thing to say and he should apologize.

It's interesting however, the contrast between this thread and the Kerry thread. There you have Democrats/liberals defending and agreeing with what Kerry said.

(Kyle, can you ever agree that a Democrat does ANYTHING wrong? EVER!!??).

There was also plenty of redirection and deflection by bringing Bush into the mix.

So far, not here.

Okay. I'll say Kerry was wrong for not immediately apologizing for how his comments may have been taken. He was strident and cocky, and displayed, once again, how easily he can be tripped up by the bogus Swift Boat crowd.

But, come on. How much, during the last three years, has the architect of this bloody travesty, President George W. Bush, apologized for his, and his admin's, eff-ups? And, really, whose screw-ups have the potential to cost more lives? Kerry's, or Dubya's?

 

[fabshelly]

He didn't insult the troops, he insulted the shrub.

 

[What the Heck]

Okay. I'll say Kerry was wrong for not immediately apologizing for how his comments may have been taken. He was strident and cocky, and displayed, once again, how easily he can be tripped up by the bogus Swift Boat crowd.

Ok, you are admitting he made a mistake but then look at what you do to it. You end up by saying he's a vicitim of the "bogus Swift Boat crowd". They didn't write that line, they didn't review the line to make sure it was ok, they didn't review it again to make sure it was ok, they didn't review it again with the Senator to make sure it was ok, and they didn't say it. He wasn't tripped up by the "bogus Swift Boat crowd", he was tripped up by the basic attitudes and assumptions of the Senators staff and the Senator himself.

 

[What the Heck]

He didn't insult the troops, he insulted the shrub.

He wasn't talking to the shrub, he was talking to college students. The only way it can be seen as not an insult to the troops is if there is a starting point of superiority to the basic troop. Without that starting point, there is no possible way for it to not be seen as an insult to the troops. Not to the generals, not to the leadership, but the men and woman who are in the thick of it. It was mean spirited and condescending. Which had a lot to do why he lost the election in 2004.

 

[letterdavidman]

Right wing controlled media??!?!!




You owe me a new screen. Milk out the nose!!!

You watched the Today show lately? Specifically, Matt "W." Lauer?

 

[letterdavidman]

He wasn't talking to the shrub, he was talking to college students. The only way it can be seen as not an insult to the troops is if there is a starting point of superiority to the basic troop. Without that starting point, there is no possible way for it to not be seen as an insult to the troops. Not to the generals, not to the leadership, but the men and woman who are in the thick of it. It was mean spirited and condescending. Which had a lot to do why he lost the election in 2004.

Humor 101: What Kerry was, admittedly wrongheadedly, trying to say was that if one is stupid, one gets mired (or "stuck") in Iraq. Remind you of any currently sitting President ("I will take time to restore chaos and order" vs. over three long years since "Mission Accomplished" was declared... by the same person)? Admittedly, now, nuance is a near-foreign concept to Dubya.

 

[DISUNC]

He didn't insult the troops, he insulted the shrub.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

No, not really because this thread mentioned the Kerry thread. That's what I was talking about but it was a stupid question because the answer is obvious. It's no.

You complained of deflecting all the while yourself deflecting. But nice try.

Right wing controlled media??!?!!

Still trying to convince us Rupert Murdoch, Sinclair, Disney, Westinghouse, Gannet, and GE Capital are pinko libs I see.

Again, john/charade ignores the point of my prior post. The military press is covering this issue and covered the fact that Boehner refused to apologize to the troops. That has to be a blow to the morale of our troops.

Why is Boener emboldoning the terrorists?

This is amusing. ABC believes that the lack of media coverage of Boehner's insult of the troops is due to the fact that the Democrats are not as good as the Republican in manufacturing media events.

Hollow symbolism is what they do best.

 

[fabshelly]

He wasn't talking to the shrub, he was talking to college students. The only way it can be seen as not an insult to the troops is if there is a starting point of superiority to the basic troop. Without that starting point, there is no possible way for it to not be seen as an insult to the troops. Not to the generals, not to the leadership, but the men and woman who are in the thick of it. It was mean spirited and condescending. Which had a lot to do why he lost the election in 2004.

With all due respect, you are totally and completely wrong.
Have you heard the entire speech? I have. Maybe you should, instead of Hannity telling you what to think and cutting out the rest of the jokes that put the remark in context.

But why bother with facts when a good old ignorant rant is so darn satisfying?

 

[conciergekelly]

The "liberal" press has not given the Boehner story even close to the amount of time as the Kerry statement. In fact, there was another clip about Kerry on on MSNBC today. I haven't heard a word about Boehner in days. Kerry isn't even running for office right now and Boehner is and he is said to be in the running for the majority leader after the election. He could be in a high powered position to help make change in this war and he has defended Rumsfield vehemently.

Let s face it the Democrats don't have the media machine that the Republicans have. I read an article about how Matt Druge is the pulse of Washington and the media. Many come into work each day and check what he has to say. They even called him the "Walter Cronkite"(sp?) of our generation.

 

[crcormier]

They even called him the "Walter Cronkite"(sp?) of our generation.

If that is the case, then our generation is very, very sad.

 

[TheDoctor]

Rep. Boehner insulted the troops in order to protect and defend Rumsfeld. Well the leading paper sold to the troops has a great editoral calling for Rumsfeld to be fired. Here is part of an editorial that is going to appear in Monday's Military Times, Army Times, Marine Times, Air Force Times and Navy Times. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10582

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Cuts down on thinking...the other national deficit.

 

[What the Heck]

With all due respect, you are totally and completely wrong.
Have you heard the entire speech? I have. Maybe you should, instead of Hannity telling you what to think and cutting out the rest of the jokes that put the remark in context.

But why bother with facts when a good old ignorant rant is so darn satisfying?

Of course, lets not worry about facts, lets ignore what he said. Its so much easier to appear superior and tell everyone how stupid they are, or how they are just parroting what someone else says.

Fact - he was addressing college students
Fact - he told them that "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."

Ok, lets play the pretend game. Lets pretend it was taken out of context. Lets pretend that he was insulting the President. In other words, he was doing it in such a way that only the superior intelligence of the Democrats can tell us stupid moderates and Republicans how we should think. So, even though the vast majority of Americans believe it was a remark made against the troops, we are all too stupid to see where it should have went.

 

[TheDoctor]

Of course, lets not worry about facts, lets ignore what he said. Its so much easier to appear superior and tell everyone how stupid they are, or how they are just parroting what someone else says.

Here is a fact that you will not like.
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has a good editorial out on the Kerry so called insult. http://thepremise.com/archives/11/03/2006/556

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.

Every time you hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney lash out against Mr. Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, “They must think I’m stupid.” Because they surely do.

They think that they can get you to overlook all of the Bush team’s real and deadly insults to the U.S. military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Mr. Kerry’s mangled gibe at the president.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the U.S. military than to send it into combat in Iraq without enough men — to launch an invasion of a foreign country not by the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, but by the Rumsfeld Doctrine of just enough troops to lose? What could be a bigger insult than that?

The Kerry quote was a mistake taken out of context. Everyone who watched the rest of the speech has agreed. However, bush and Rove are counting on people buying their lies and it appears that they were correct as to a decent number.

 

[conciergekelly]

If that is the case, then our generation is very, very sad.

I agree.

 

[What the Heck]

Here is a fact that you will not like.
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has a good editorial out on the Kerry so called insult. http://thepremise.com/archives/11/03/2006/556The Kerry quote was a mistake taken out of context. Everyone who watched the rest of the speech has agreed. However, bush and Rove are counting on people buying their lies and it appears that they were correct as to a decent number.

Everyone who watched the speech agreed? Then how did it come out to be released in the news? Oh, I guess they weren't actually watching the speach.

So it's not everyone who watched the speach agress, but everyone from the far, far left who watched the speech (such as the New York Times) who agrees.

Mr. Friedman starts off with a statement that isn't even correct. This story isn't being handled or ran by the White House, they don't have to. Its being handled and ran by the other members of the press.

Some facts about Mr. Friedman, from Wickepdia:

Thomas Loren Friedman, OBE (born July 20, 1953) is an American journalist, columnist, author and three-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize, currently working as an op-ed contributor for The New York Times. His columns, concentrating mainly on foreign affairs, appear on Wednesdays and Fridays. Friedman is known for supporting a compromise peace between Israel and the Palestinians, modernization of the Arab world, environmental issues and globalization, while sometimes remarking on their potential pitfalls to the United States economy and society. His books address various aspects of international politics and major shifts in the future world order, from a centrist, liberal perspective on the American political spectrum. Friedman is the recipient of the 2004 Overseas Press Club Award for lifetime achievement and has been named Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II.

So, some facts you might have missed Kyle:

1. An editorial is not a fact as you imply in your post.
2. An editorial from someone from the far left is only further proof of my point, not a fact against it.

 

[letterdavidman]

So, even though the vast majority of Americans believe it was a remark made against the troops, we are all too stupid to see where it should have went.

"Vast majority of Americans"? Try, "Vast majority of Republicans".

Listen, even my uber-conservative, right-wing-apologist, friend and pastor (when I actually choose to attend church) has enough inteligence and a sense of humor to concede that Kerry was attempting a joke at the President's expense. Of course, said President is counting on people like you to look past the facts and vote your emotions on November 7.

 

[letterdavidman]

Ok, you are admitting he made a mistake but then look at what you do to it. You end up by saying he's a vicitim of the "bogus Swift Boat crowd". They didn't write that line, they didn't review the line to make sure it was ok, they didn't review it again to make sure it was ok, they didn't review it again with the Senator to make sure it was ok, and they didn't say it. He wasn't tripped up by the "bogus Swift Boat crowd", he was tripped up by the basic attitudes and assumptions of the Senators staff and the Senator himself.

Okay.

Now answer the second part of my post. If you dare.