I'm so mad with Kerry; it's clear from the full tape that he was insulting the troops and the president, not just the latter as he claims. He has gifted this to republicans. And, he is wrong, and totally incapable of respecting those not as accomplished as he is. Kerry, please just go, in the name of god, just go now.

why don't we just take Kerry at face value? over 3000 soldiers are dead and 30,000+ are injured. is that a graduation present you want? hell no! americans want a white picket fence, 2 kids, a handsome or beatiful spouse and a dog!

I say a net plus as well. No one is really going to believe that Kerry was slamming the troops. So, then he gets to come out and slam those that haven't ever worn the uniform yet again. And, best of all, he gets to get into a legitimate fight with McCain, by demanding that McCain instead demand an apology from those that sent the troops in under a failed policy.
If Kerry had been wishy-washy, it might have hurt. As it is, Kerry gets to say "failed policy" about a hundred times, and then have it played over and over and over.
Kerry looked presidential. The president looked like a shrill rightwing radio host.

Is the full text of Kerry's statement available anywhere? I just saw the clip on Olbermann, and if you hear the preceding comment, about Bush, it seems pretty clear that he's talking about Bush, not the troops.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

See a tongue-in-cheek posting that employs the same GOP tactic used in relation to Senator Kerry to creatively interpret remarks made by the President in the most unfavorable manner...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

P.S. Architect are you a troll? A lot of your comments look trollish.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/user/9862/comments

What a surprise it would be if trolls started popping up now!

I accept Kerry's statement he meant to insult Bush, but his admittedly ill chosen phrasing was tailor made for Republicans at the very moment when Casey, Tester, Ford, McCaskill, Menendez and Webb--and all the Dem. House candidates in suddenly close races-- need to keep the attention on their opponents' shortcomings to win. As soon as Kerry said it, he should have been astute enough to correct the botch--face it: the guy's a loser. Stop apologizing for him. I'd sooner vote for his wife Teresa than him in '08, and I gave him a hell of a lot more money in 2004 than most of you did.

"No one is really going to believe that Kerry was slamming the troops."

Why not? He has said a lot worse before.

The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir

i think we should remember that those who *could* win back the senate are those who stand up against the republicans and their failed policies, bullying tactics, and failed rhetoric.

attacking sen. kerry will not help our situation in iraq.

attacking sen. kerry is another bullying tactic that only alienates people left or right who wish to see our legislators and leaders work on policy not fight for power.

attacking sen. kerry is another link the failed rhetoric chain that "democrats hate the troops". if anyone believes that junk, i have a house to sell you in d.c.

all this is true, but the worst part is is that they took his comments out of context. it was clear (if you saw the whole video or read the whole transcript) that he wasn't badmouthing the troops. i will admit that it did look bad when you only see part of the clip. but once you investigate a little bit more you find out the truth. the gop failed to do this, and from the looks of it, you may have as well.

...somebody expresses anger-- undoubtedly the feeling of the vast majority of the country upon hearing Kerry's remarks...For the record, no. I'm a centrist democrat.

I think most of us here recognize you're not a troll. I know you've been posting here a long time.

No one's trying to purge moderates from the party. What people to the left of you are doing, though, is trying to stop people in our party from attacking other Democrats in these media-driven situations.

Personally, I don't see how you can say it's obvious Kerry's comment was attacking the troops. Moreover, when he explained himself, why isn't that explanation acceptable?

Who do you believe -- Kerry, or Bush and Tony Snow?

I'm going to generalize, but the biggest problem I see coming from the self-identified "centrist" crowd is believing and accepting what George Bush and Company say at face value. That needs to stop.

And if you haven't noticed, the "liberals" such as the Daily Kos blogofascist crowd, have CHAMPIONED and supported the candidates you've cited as centrist -- Jim Webb would not be where he is today without the support of the netroots.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

What's really outrageous is the media response to this! We can expect Bush to try and rally the base with this stupidity, but the local media here in Denver are giving saturation coverage to it on the local "news."

CBS news4 actually had an interview with a master sargeant who of course says "I feel insulted and I'm still waiting for Kerry's appology."

They showed the clip from Kerry's speech, then Bush (who could barely talk -- is he on meds or something, he sounded unusually incoherent) demanding an appology.

There was NO coverage of Kerry saying that he was talking about Bush on two of the three news channels, but all three of them gave this incident the kind of coverage that is normally reserved for Broncos victories.

The story "Bush demands Kerry appologize" is supposedly big news, much bigger than 103 service men and women killed in Iraq over the last month! Forget about that, lets jump on the trivia!

Corvid

If Kerry says he misspoke, then he misspoke. But I don't see why his original remark shouldn't stand. It's a fact. Poor, badly educated Americans end up going into the military and then, after swearing to defend their country, get shanghaied off into crackpot overseas adventures. What's new here? What isn't factual? What is there about this observation that is surprising to anyone? In Iraq right now, the troops are basically wandering aimlessly, getting picked off and blown up while we fiddle around (both Dems and Repubs) trying to figure out some darned way to save our national face. Kerry should have defended his remarks as true, and other Dems should have backed him. His mistake is in his retreat, and the rest of us who reinforce that make the same mistake. I suppose some of this stems from the shameful fact that most liberals/progressives/Democrats are as appalled as Republicans at the thought of trying to revive the draft, which would be surest way to restore fairness in military service (if it's a rigorously fair draft, with virtually no exemptions) and ensure that mass of decision makers don't get us involved in "optional" (read bullshit) wars. No, like the Bushes and Cheneys, we're far more comfortable outsourcing our dirty, bloody empire-building/"humanitarian"/Wilsonian overseas adventures to the poor and, increasingly, the hopeless middle class.

Except it isn't a fact. Neither the education nor income level of those going into the military is particularly low.

So people don't join the military because it's the only way for them to pay for a college education? 

What do you consider "particularly low"? I assume most that join have a high school diploma, but a high school diploma isn't really a ticket to the promised land these days, is it?

Dissent Protects Democracy.

More trollish behavior down here.

What has he said that is worse, pray tell?

I also looked at your other comments, which include:

"didn't you also write in the nyt a month before 9/11 that the threat of terrorism was exagerated and overblown or was that another Larry Johnson."

and an endorsement of Henry Kissinger's involvement in Iraq War planning. That's gone great, huh?

cscs, i have noticed that markos is supporting webb and others. It's a good sign and I welcome it.

ohiomeister, larry johnson writes the most outrageous stuff, usually pointing out something just doesn't get it about our current predicament but there is never any acknowledgement as far as i can tell that he just "didn't get it" himself before 9/11. As for kissinger, i think it is better that the administration talk to outsiders than not talk to them. We should comment on the substance of kissinger's view, not just dismiss him because you don't like him.

Corvid

Their income levels may not be particularly low--as measured by the median household income. But the median income itself is very low, something around $42,000. The New Yorker did a good piece sometime back about a Missouri family trying to survive on the median income, and it wasn't a pretty picture.
.
But forgive me for not being more precise. The fact is that the United States is an increasingly divided country in terms of income and power, with a small percentage at the top benefiting from globalization (because they have the money to make meaningful investments) and the rest of us struggling to varying degrees, losing our health care, our pensions and decent jobs as our incomes stagnate. So whether the average income level of military recruits goes up or down a bit is immaterial. What's important is the fact that very few congressmen or people in the very upper decision-making ranks of American life have offspring in the military.
.
These people run both parties--not exclusively, but to a very large degree. With no kids in uniform, they're free to make all sorts of crackpot calls about where they choose to risk the lives of the children of the losers, ie the remaining 80 percent or so of the population that basically has no say, especially when there's scarcely a hair's breadth between the parties on "national security" issues, including ones that in point of fact have nothing to do with national security.
.
Eisenhower gets a bum rap for a lot of things during his presidency but he was magnificent in some quiet ways. In the early years of his first administration he was repeatedly urged by advisers to launch a war in Asia, expanding on the Korean War to spread American dominance and enlightenment. Ike resisted. When asked why he felt qualified to reject the collective wisdom of all the pro-war wisemen, Eisenhower said he had one qualification they didn't have: signing letters informing families of their sons' deaths. I'd like to think he also had some inkling that the U.S. would have absolutely no clue how to run or administer "Asia" once we "liberated" it.
.
I don't see much evidence of that anywhere today. Why is Iraq--where we have, quite predictably, only unleashed a whirlwind--worth even one AMERICAN life? These troops were sworn to defend their country, not another, and not when there was no imminent threat. This was the optional war in Asia that Eisenhower and Bush I resisted.
.
But are the Dems really any better on the core question of optional war? When Colin Powell resisted the idea of U.S. intervention in the Balkans, Madeleine Albright famously asked what good such a magnificent military is if we never use it. Supposedly this put Powell in his place. But I think it shows a rather shocking, class-ridden and cavalier attitude about young men's and women's lives.
.
It also reveals a weirdly naive Wilsonian impulse, an unexamined belief that we somehow have all the answers if only the rest of the world would perk up and listen, and that sometimes we need to help them do so with the pointy end of our military. This too easily can yield to the aggressively anti-democratic machinations of neo-conservatism--the belief that an excellent few have license to hornswoggle the rest of us into projects that benefit the decision-makers.
.
Again, I think Kerry was on the mark with his original "botched joke." And unless we have a fair draft, which ensures that the decision-makers have some blood in the battle, we're likely to keep making the same mistake.