John Kerry shows us that his apology was completely hollow and that his comments about the military being dumb and lazy weren’t really a botched joke afterall. Why else would his campaign website have this on the front page?

Click for larger image

This isn’t just a simple case of software picking up a feed with keywords, as the image above shows Kerry’s people took the time to design the torn paper image of the key part of the editorial.

It’s a link to this editorial from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer entitled:

Republicans evidenced their election desperation by braying about an offhand comment that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., made at a California college rally.

“Education” Kerry said “– 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 can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Was Kerry making fun of the president, or warning students against the pitfalls awaiting the undereducated in general?

It doesn’t matter. Kerry was right either way.

So much for that apology.

For what it’s worth, that editorial is full of misinformation, perpetuating the myth of the “poor, dumb soldier”.

Although there are plenty of well-educated people in our armed forces — Kerry was one of them — military service has long been an opportunity employer for those with less education and fewer skills than they need to work in the private sector. Indeed, the military sells itself as a place to garner skills and to help pay for higher education.

I’ll remind the editorial staff at SP-I and John Kerry, himself about this study:

According to a comprehensive study of all enlistees for the years 1998-99 and 2003 that The Heritage Foundation just released, the typical recruit in the all-volunteer force is wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old citizen is. Indeed, for every two recruits coming from the poorest neighborhoods, there are three recruits coming from the richest neighborhoods.
…
If, for example, we consider the education of every recruit, 98% joined with high-school diplomas or better. By comparison, 75% of the general population meets that standard. Among all three-digit ZIP code areas in the USA in 2003 (one can study larger areas by isolating just the first three digits of ZIP codes), not one had a higher graduation rate among civilians than among its recruits.

Regardless, either way, John Kerry is an elitist, military-hating ass.

1. Since 1999, the Seattle P-I’s circulation has plummeted, while the Seattle Times has suffered only a modest drop. Is it any wonder this trend has occurred when the P-I editorializes today, “Kerry’s Remark: Right either way”:

   Seattle P-I in a death spiral

   Comment by SouthernRoots — 5:54 pm
   

2. I-John-F-ing-Kerry’s “people” would be well advised to also review this Defense Department release.

   I would love to see these military loathing elitist liberals pulling point for an infantry patrol in bad guy territory. They’d piss and crap their pants.

   Comment by Old Soldier — 6:52 pm
   

3. […] And John Kerry’s Web site did not hesitate to show it. (Thanks to Texas Rainmaker) “Kerry’s Remark: Right either way“ […]

   Pingback by Hang Right Politics - Archives » The Seattle PI Agrees With John Kerry — 7:13 pm
   

4. So Much For Kerry's Apology

   Whose sorry now?

   Certainly not John Kerry.

   Can Kerry be this dumb?  Does he honestly think that trying to defend his comments by convincing Americans that our soldiers really are dumber than average is a good political strategy at this point?…

   Trackback by Say Anything — 8:56 pm
   

5. One more look at Kerry, the Military and the Seattle PI

   Gawd, this just won’t die. 
   OK, I want to address the Seattle Post Intelligencer’s defense of Sen John Kerry and the representation they, and now he, are making about the military.
   First a recap to the folks asleep the last w…

   Trackback by Leaning Straight Up — 4:13 am
   

6. Kerry Keeps Digging

   Everyone I’m sure recalls John Kerry’s apology that we were just stupid to recognized what he was REALLY trying to say when he called our troops some unemaducated losers right?
   Now to make matters even more clearer we have his own site re…

   Trackback by Flopping Aces — 11:57 am
   

7. I believe that Kerry misspoke, just as Bush did when he called for a crusade in 2001.

   Clearly, the uniformed military knows what it is doing:

   For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

   Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

   And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

   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.
   .

   This quote isn’t from the MSM, but from the military’s own newspapers.

   Comment by endorendil — 12:19 pm
   

8. Thanks for staying on this. It’s been frustrating to hear all the apologists trying to give him an undeserved benefit of the doubt. Many of us have known Kerry hates the military, and as disgusting as it may be, it’s somehow satisfying to see him finally confirming it.

   Comment by reverse_vampyr — 12:43 pm
   

9. endorendil - as far as I know, armytimes.com is not an official government or military site or publication as you state.

   An official site would be more like: http://www.centcom.mil/ or http://www.defenselink.mil/.

   Comment by SouthernRoots — 1:32 pm
   

10. SR (#9), I didn’t state that the Army Times is an official government publication. If you call the Boston Times Kerry’s “hometown newspaper”, you don’t mean that the Boston city council publishes it, do you?

    The Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times are publications serving the military. Their sources and readership are military personnel. They’re very, very pro-military.

    Here’s some more information on Army Times, specifically the role it plays in the Army community.

    Being outside of the military command structure means that the Army Times only has to answer to its readership (almost exclusively active military personnel). That means it can’t be censored by the government. From that link:
    Army Times has been uniquely independent of military influence since its creation, and remained independent since Gannett bought the ATPC. This independence may be the reason Army Times has not suffered from internal struggles over censorship issues, like at least one other military-focused newspaper has.

    The Department of Defense hasn’t officially called for its chief to be fired, if that’s what you’re worried. Would be against regulation, old chap.

    Comment by endorendil — 2:08 pm
    

11. endo - Army Times is part of the MSM. All of the Military Times publications are owned by Gannett Newspapers, which also owns USA Today, so you are misleading in your implications that these are “official military newspapers”. http://www.gannett.com/web/gan013.htm

    Comment by SouthernRoots — 3:56 pm
    

12. Endorendil, is it possible for you to stay on topic? or must you try to hijack all comment streams? Just what does your cxomment have to do the I-John-Kerry’s debacle?

    Comment by Old Soldier — 5:12 pm
    

13. Just what does your comment have to do the I-John-Kerry’s debacle?

    Not a damned thing, but why let topic relevance get in the way of a good DNC talking point?

    Comment by crushliberalism — 7:51 pm
    

14. “The Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times are publications serving the military. Their sources and readership are military personnel. They’re very, very pro-military.”

    Interesting, considering the Department of Defense actually rebuts the article you quoted from the “Army Times”:

    On Saturday, Nov. 4, the Army Times published an editorial titled, “Time for Rumsfeld to go.” The editorial included a number of inaccurate and misleading statements.

    But nice try, endo… your BS is getting more and more creative.

    Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:01 pm
    

15. Thanks for always keeping it real. You are great!

    Comment by sandy — 10:59 pm
    

16. TR, did you expect Rumsfeld to agree with the Army Times? In case you forgot, he runs the DoD.

    SR, if the Army Times is part of the MSM, let’s stop calling the MSM a tool for the Democratic party.

    Are all of you just going to ignore the fact that the military itself thinks that the strategy is a failure and the political leadership is compromised? Then let me repeat my suggestion that the GOP change its mascotte to an ostrich.

    Comment by endorendil — 2:02 am
    

17. Jason, forgive my departing from the post topic…

    ”TR, did you expect Rumsfeld to agree with the Army Times? In case you forgot, he runs the DoD.”

    I doubt seriously that Rumsfeld responded to the ‘Army Times.’ And why shouldn’t the Pentagon respond to inaccuracies in an editorial, especially when the inaccuracies are printed in a paper whose intended audience is the military?

    “SR, if the Army Times is part of the MSM, let’s stop calling the MSM a tool for the Democratic party.”

    It seems the opposite case is made… that Gannet is now stooping to the point of using ‘The Army Times,’ ‘The Navy Times,’ ‘The Marine Corps Times,’ and ‘The Air Force Times’ to circulate an editorial hit piece.

    ”Are all of you just going to ignore the fact that the military itself thinks that the strategy is a failure and the political leadership is compromised?”

    The military is made up of individuals from all walks of life and all ideologies to include political ideologies. Although the military voting generally tends to favor the GOP about 70 percent of the time, there are Democrats within the services. Since the military is not about politics, political alignment is not considered in the selection process for promotions. The military is no different from any other large organization – there are those who disagree with the mission or execution. The difference is the active duty military, especially the senior officers, generally do not speak out politically. The retired generals, some with axes to grind, are free to speak out – just like Wesley Clark.

    Using your analogy: I suppose I can view Joe Lieberman’s support for the current policies more indicative of ‘real’ Democratic values - because his views align with mine.

    ”Then let me repeat my suggestion that the GOP change its mascotte to an ostrich.”

    My suggestion would be for the Democrats to get their mascot’s head out of its own ass! (No pun intended.)

    Comment by Old Soldier — 8:45 am
    

18. Comment by Old Soldier — 9:00 am
    

19. A DOD rebuttal to the editorial in ‘The Army Times.’

    Comment by Old Soldier — 9:02 am
    

20. endo - ”Are all of you just going to ignore the fact that the military itself thinks that the strategy is a failure and the political leadership is compromised?”

    As already pointed out, Military Times is a private enterprise. By saying, “the military istself”, you are implying that the publications are an official spokesman for the military and that is a deception. It’s like reading an editorial piece in Sports Illustrated and claiming it represents the views of all pro sports players.

    Did you read through the link if gave you? They offer a different opinion to the opinions pulished in Military Times.

    Comment by SouthernRoots — 10:22 am
    

21. […] related: Texas Rainmaker […]

    Pingback by Kerry Apology Watch, Day 6 « Nuke’s news & views — 12:45 pm
    

22. Page One of the NYT, but it ain’t Kerry

    Nary a peep about John Kerry’s faux apology (that he now clearly didn’t mean) on the front page…or anywhere…in the Old Gray Hag fishwrap. Nope, the front page was dedicated to the homo evangelist in Colorado.

    Trackback by Crush Liberalism — 9:15 pm
    

23. So Much For That Apology…

    John Kerry’s apology came late, and with a little B.S. attached, but it’s still an apology. Soldiers were outraged when John Kerry told them, they were stupid. John Kerry said: “You know, education…if you make the most of it…if you s…

    Trackback by People Pundit — 7:59 am
    

24. […] related: Texas Rainmaker […]

    Pingback by Nuke’s News and Views » Blog Archive » Kerry Apology Watch, Day 6 — 10:17 pm
    

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.