Wednesday, December 27, 2006
John Kerry visits Iraq
After reading this, I almost - almost - feel sorry for the guy. Ouch. OUCH!!!
22 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Dec 27, 02:53:00 PM:
ssshhhh, John Kerry's CIA. Pass it on. The guy is so obviously part timing as a CIA guy. He's been on the payroll since the 60's one presumes. Kerry is so dispicably un-American he can gain entre into places no other American politician can. He's got to be our good cop dolt whose job it is to take measure of the enemy. Did it in Vietnam. Did it in Nicaragua. Doing it in the ME now. IMHO of course. And anyone who thinks the CIA isn't divided into different camps (all American but taking different approaches to a problem) is being naive.
By 
Charlottesvillain, at
Wed Dec 27, 03:24:00 PM:
You reap what you fracking sow. I know that using the military as a prop is standard operating procedure for politicians of all stripes, and it has become an annoying cliche. But its really quite galling when someone like Kerry, who's contempt for the military has been on his sleeve since 1970, continues to try to capitalize on the association. You can't have it both ways, bub.
By K. Pablo, at
Wed Dec 27, 03:37:00 PM:
Not to be churlish, but I would hope that a Harvard Ph.D. would know the spelling of "shadenfreude".
By K. Pablo, at
Wed Dec 27, 04:16:00 PM:
oh crap!!! :) that is indeed what I meant!!
By , at
Wed Dec 27, 05:25:00 PM:
You've heard of people who don't know anything.....John F. Kerry doesn't even SUSPECT anything......
By Pudentilla, at
Wed Dec 27, 05:41:00 PM:
Um, guys, Kerry's already lost the election. What psychological need does pissing on his cornflakes serve? Distracting you from the performance of the Decider?
By skipsailing, at
Wed Dec 27, 06:45:00 PM:
oh jeeze pudentilla, shut up and eat your broccoli.
Tell ya what: you and all your knee jerk friends lay of the president and I'll THINK about giving Kerry a break.
OK?
By Pudentilla, at
Wed Dec 27, 09:14:00 PM:
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Wed Dec 27, 11:10:00 PM:
pudentilla, if Kerry were indeed eliminated from the national scene, then your observation would remain correct. Kerry is contemplating another run at the presidency, he remains a Senator or several committees related to military matters, such as Intelligence, the party nominee remains titular head of the party until someone takes the mantle from him (which no one has), and he continues to insert himself into the debate on Iraq as frequently as possible, at which times he is given wide coverage by the national media. He recently went to Damascus to independently negotiate and influence on "behalf" of the American people.
See, winning or losing elections is not merely the scorekeeping whereby you know if your tribe is ascendant in bragging rights.
As to your "Decider" comment, we can hear you titter. Sorry to hear that's a convincing argument among your people.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Dec 28, 04:10:00 AM:
I can understand the desire to pick on Kerry. He has an awful lot of flaws for a politician. My personal fave is his megalomania and inflated sense of self-importance. Not surprising though, since he's the kind of guy who decided to run against Bush in 2003. When you take on a stitting war president with a approval rating way over 50% you're either a gambler or a megalomaniac. (All the self-esteem and detachment of a billionaire...) Anyway, while I give him credit for doing better than most people thought he could, he's still a big loser.
Bush also has a number of flaws. That's what made 2004 a closer race than it should have been (and 2006 less close than it should have been). It was more drunken brawl than prize-fight, but I guess that's politics. Kerry was the best the Democrats could find that year. He's a decent senator, but far from the best that the party has to offer.
This year though, Republicans have blood in the water, and that's going to draw out the big guns. Clinton? Obama? Who cares? "Whoever" is unlikely to do worse than Kerry, and they won't have to do a whole lot better. So obsess over Kerry all you want, because he really does need to be knocked down a peg. Also, the real contenders in 2008 will be pleased. Here's how I see this hand playing out...The usual suspects will smear Kerry enough to take him out of the competition. Then, by the time they move on to attacking the front-runners, they'll already be established as bitter partisan hatemongers who enjoy kicking losers when they're down. It's almost a perfect foil for Obama's positive message of national unity.
Conservatives should be rooting for Kerry. After all, he's the guy you're almost certain to beat. On the other hand...things could go wrong. If the last six years have taught us nothing else, it's that no one wins with stupid.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Thu Dec 28, 08:54:00 AM:
I'll never root for Kerry. I'd really prefer the nominee be someone who could actually have my respect as a president. (And I say that fully acknowledging that I think Bush has been terrible in many ways, and that I had grave concerns in 2000 when he was the best the Republicans could offer up.)
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Dec 28, 11:05:00 AM:
How, Charlottesvillain, would say that Bush has "been terrible"?
I'm terribly curious.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Dec 28, 12:41:00 PM:
I know I was disappointed by Republicans in 2000. I wonder what the country would be like if McCain had won the primary?
By skipsailing, at
Thu Dec 28, 02:31:00 PM:
I'd prefer to look at this incident as an indicator of the divide between many Americans and the military.
Kerry insulted everyone serving. he insulted the families of those serving. he denigrated, once again, the entire military.
The military clearly despises this man and they have every right to that strong emotion.
Predictably the liberals that visit here are trying to change the subject to george Bush but the simple fact is electing Kerry will decimate our military as people simply walk away rather serve with this bufoon as the commander in chief.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Thu Dec 28, 03:55:00 PM:
SH, I've been disappointed in Bush's inability to speak coherently since I first saw him speak. While I don't think he is dumb as a post, the evidence certainly indicates that he is of "average" intelligence, and I think the American people deserve more of their president. On the policy front, fiscal conservatives such as I are deeply disappointed in Bush's unwillingness to resist the profligacy of the legislature, something I think in the short term proved a disaster for the GOP politically, and terrible for the country from the financial perspective. I'm not a social conservative so I'm always annoyed by the attention given to that segment of the party (although I also don't think that cutting off federal funding for something is the same as making it illegal).
Happy now?
By Pudentilla, at
Thu Dec 28, 04:05:00 PM:
It appears the Kerry chortles may be nothing more than a cheap shot. Start kerning folks.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Dec 28, 04:34:00 PM:
It is wrong to blame the profligate spending solely on Bush. he didn't create all those earmarks. he didn't go on an all pork all the time diet.
I, too, am a fiscal conservative but I don't blame bush for vetoing bills sent to him by feckless congressional republicans.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Dec 28, 04:58:00 PM:
Pudentilla: Full rebuttal here.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006613.htm
I don't know what the hell 'kerning' means, but I think I'll put it off for now.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Dec 28, 06:03:00 PM:
excuse the typo:
I don't blame Bush for not vetoing the bills sent to him by feckless congressional republicans.
Why is it up to the president to impose responsibility on congress? Are you suggesting that the official motto of congress should be:
"Stop us before we spend again"?
sorry john, but the people in congress are adults. If they lack self control, and that is quite clear, it's not up to the president to impose it.
Should the president veto these spending bills? Perhaps. Is he REQUIRED to do so? no, he's not.
Its the old parent/child situation. The children in congress will blame anybody who acts like an adult by insisting on disciple. blaming bush simply enables these little boys and girls.
they are the problem john. And they were turned out of office by the most recent election. Let's see spending discpline Democrat style. Should be entertaining.
By Pudentilla, at
Thu Dec 28, 06:51:00 PM:
skipsailing,
Following your suggestion, I followed the link to the "Full rebuttal." Now, I understand the dustup:
1) Hennan posts a picture of Kerry in Iraq talking to a guy sitting across the table from him. Chairs around Kerry are empty. The photo is used in support of an argument that the troops in Iraq abhor and avoid Kerry.
2) TPM Muckraker challenge the picture.
3) Malkin defends the authenticity of the picture, in part, by posting a second picture of Kerry during the same trip, in which he is seated surrounded by troops.
I'm no expert, but I believe this is an example of what Colbert means when he says "truthiness."
In other, much less discussed news, today, the Decider (which is his own self-description) still hasn't decided what to do about Iraq. Let's find those pictures of Kerry windsurfing. Those were great.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Dec 29, 02:53:00 PM:
Actually, I posted that link. I hate to simply speculate, but it's entirely possible that Kerry went and sat with the troops himself. Then they left when they finished eating. Then no more came.
You left out the commentary on that page sent in by a trooper in Iraq who specifically said that people avoided him "like the plague."
The whole exercise about 'do the troops hate Kerry? let's look at picture' is friggin stupid anyway. Just ask us. Yes. But only a little. Not as much as John Murtha.
By Pudentilla, at
Fri Dec 29, 10:09:00 PM:
Finally, the facts. Unfortunately, they still have a well known liberal bias.
