Father of Slain Hero Slams Kerry, “Misses” Joke
This post began as an update to my earlier post on Senator Kerry’s failure to apologize for his remarks insulting the military. As I worked on it, I realized the article was too good to be included in an update to a day-old post and wanted to make sure that our readers who don’t check OpinionJournal regularly saw Ronald R. Griffin’s excellent piece on Senator Kerry’s remarks. Griffin, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq “missed” the erstwhile Democratic presidential nominee’s joke.
“Mr. Kerry,” writes Griffin, “said exactly what he meant and meant exactly what he said. In those words Mr. Kerry did in fact wash completely away the facade of his support of our magnificent troops and revealed for all to see his true colors.“
knew full well that he could not defend his remarks, so he attacked President Bush. In doing so he reinforced his now fully revealed condescending attitude towards our troops. He talked over them, as he always does, never even beginning to understand that there might be individuals who were truly and deeply offended by his remarks. The explanation for that is quite simple: He firmly and deeply believes that anyone who would be so stupid as to join the military is beneath the high moral perch on which he thinks he sits.
Even in his so-called apology the next day, Mr. Kerry could not bring himself to admit that he had made a mistake. It was not his fault that I might be offended; it is my fault because I “misinterpreted” what he said.
Griffin notes that soldiers voted against Kerry by a margin of “almost 4 to 1.” There is much to commend in this piece, but my words can do little justice to those of a man, the father of a hero, deeply insulted by the words of a Democratic leader. So, just read the whole thing!
28 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Kerry either intended to disparage our troops or is just a liar.
His “joke” was supposed to insult the President? By lying that the President didn’t have a valid education?
Let’s review, shall we: a degree from Yale and another from
Harvard…is he also then disparaging students from either of those schools who’ve attended meaning their education is crap, as well? Wow, this gets better all the time; truly the gift that keeps on giving.
So, this first part of the joke insults the President and alumni from both schools; Bush’s grades were better than Kerry’s – enough said.
The second part then was meant to disparage the troops. His subconscious says exactly what he’s thinking which has been a pattern of behavior since he returned from Vietnam.
Either way you slice it, he’s a liar and insulted Harvard/Yale alumni or intended to disparage the troops, you choose which one.
Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 11:14 pm - November 3, 2006
Boy, Scooter, you’ve really got the old Bush spirit working there. Same meme, same logic. Same fallacies.
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:22 pm - November 3, 2006
Look it up, the facts are the facts. You see, that’s what Republicans are about, facts, not “emotional feelings” when it comes to understanding the world around us and politics.
Don’t be a coward with some bumper-sticker mentality, if you don’t believe the facts that Bush went to Harvard and Yale, that his grades proved higher than Kerry’s, then look it up for yourself. You should anyway if you’ve never seen it, otherwise you’re just repeating something of which you have no solid knowledge. Now that’s just stupid and uneducated.
Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 11:37 pm - November 3, 2006
Scootsie says: “Look it up, the facts are the facts. You see, that’s what Republicans are about, facts, not “emotional feelings” when it comes to understanding the world around us and politics.”
“Facts” such as these?
—G Bush served his country honorably during Vietnam.
—9/11 didn’t happen because G Bush was asleep at the wheel.
—Iraq has WMD.
—The smoking gun will come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
—We’ll be greeted as liberators, with flowers and candy.
—The occupation is going great, just another few weeks left.
—There is no insurgency, just dead-enders.
—OK, there ARE insurgents, but they’re in their last throes.
—Freedom Fries — that’s the ticket!
—There is no such thing as “global warming”.
—We need a FMA to protect the sanctity of marriage.
—You’ve done a heckuva job Brownie.
—Mark Foley’s the right guy to protect vs. child exploitation.
—Ted Haggard’s weekly advice is important to the President.
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:58 pm - November 3, 2006
In a way I sort of agree with the guy…Kerry’s apology sucked. So did the “joke”. Kerry should have apologized immediately for any misunderstanding and then make a less volatile reponse to Bush. I’m glad you pointed that article out!
Comment by Tim — November 4, 2006 @ 12:42 am - November 4, 2006
Eddie, Eddie, Eddie,
Typical liberal spin, are ANY of those facts related to the topic of Kerry’s comments? Do ANY of those facts endorse/deny the specific statements made by Kerry regarding President Bush’s education or evaluation thereof?
The answer is: NO! Tell him what he’s won Joe!
I’d spend time disputing each and every one of those “bumper sticker” statements you made, but facts don’t matter to you people, just your lobbing of drive-by media statements that are intended to arouse emotional distraction from the facts.
Example: Irap has WMD
Left: “No…they didn’t find it…he’s a liar…Bush lied…People died…”
Facts: May 2006, an Intel report was released stating otherwise that wmd, still dangerous and viable, was found;
March 2006 postings of thousands of documentation regarding Iraq’s intel was posted upon translation, which stated that Saddam was about 1 year away from having his nuclear bomb ready to go;
January 2002 President Bush stated wmd as a reason for going after the axis of evil to include Iraq/Saddam but it wasn’t the only reason;
Sept. 2002 after 17 United Nations Resolutions ignored by the Iraqi regime over 10 years the United Nations voted to remove Saddam; All foreign leaders, congress, senate, security council viewed the exact same intelligence and voted(if 1 lied, then they ALL lied)
Jan 2006 General Georges Sada, former top official to Saddam releases his book Saddam’s Secrets which states that he and his officials were told to get rid of their documentation and he knew that planes, under the guise of humanitarian assistance, were being used to off-load wmd into Syria.
March 2003 David Kaye testifies to the 9/11 Commission that terrorist organizations moved freely in/out of Iraqi training camps without impunity;
additionally Hans Blix never gave Iraq a clean “bill of health” regarding wmd and was thrown out of Iraq….
Shall I go on?
I haven’t even started quoting the Clinton Administration and their croynies regarding Saddam and his wmd along with their convincing defense that he was a vital threat…
If 1 person lied, then they all lied – it’s called personal responsibility and accountability – if you voted for removing Saddam you had damned well better have investigated yourself by researching the intel given you by the United Nations, Foreign Intel and the President before making such a vote. Much like you, Eddie, not researching your facts before making a statement of judgement.
Hear what you wanna hear? See what you wanna see?
We get it – you hate President Bush
We get it – you’re bitter
We get it – you’re emotional and not rational
We get it – you don’t research statements you just repeat rhetoric from DailyKos
Comment by Scooter — November 4, 2006 @ 5:34 am - November 4, 2006
Scoots, let’s review your so-called “facts”:
Re: Iraq has WMD, you write, “May 2006, an Intel report was released stating otherwise that wmd, still dangerous and viable, was found.” You go on to cite David Kaye as a sub-source to support your “fact”. I listened to Mr. Kaye just last evening (11/04/06) describe that claim as involving “finding a bunch of rusty old cans left over from pre-1991 and calling them WMD just so Sen. Santorum could justify his insistence over the years that there really were WMD.” By the way, the same Mr. Kaye just laughed at your rumor of “off-load wmd into Syria”. Your “fact” is not, in fact, a fact, but a hope.
And you unwittingly add, “March 2006 postings of thousands of documentation regarding Iraq’s intel was posted upon translation, which stated that Saddam was about 1 year away from having his nuclear bomb ready to go”. Don’t you even follow the news? Here’s a scoop Scoot: the very website you allude to was taken down yesterday by an administration embarrassed by the NYT expose of its providing engineering advice to the terrorists – in Arabic even! Furthermore, the “postings” were again pre-1991 materials.
As you write, Scoots, you seem to get sloppier and sloppier with your so-called facts.
Shall you go on, you ask? I sure hope so, for you add “I haven’t even started quoting the Clinton Administration and their croynies regarding Saddam and his wmd along with their convincing defense that he was a vital threat…” No, but you should, for it would please me immensely to simply point out over and over again the critical difference in how two presidents responded to concerns considered in the void of real intelligence: one, President Clinton, rallied the world to be on the watch about this issue while the other, Bush, launched a full-scale invasion that has (1) cost the lives of 2,900 Americans, (2) left 20,000+ Americans physically mangled, (3) cost the Treasury $300B+ (so far), and (4) produced a bloody, relentless, perhaps enduring civil war between two 13th Century-focused religious sects. You seem very proud of those outcomes.
And you do go on and on with, “If 1 person lied, then they all lied – it’s called personal responsibility and accountability – if you voted for removing Saddam you had damned well better have investigated yourself by researching the intel given you by the United Nations, Foreign Intel and the President before making such a vote. Much like you, Eddie, not researching your facts before making a statement of judgement.” I can only imagine the outrage that would have emanated from you in the reactionary (and it turns out, very gay) Old Party had even one Democrat tried to stop your side’s poorly thought out rush to war by pointing out the weaknesses in the intelligence. But we will starting Nov. 8. I trust we can count on your support of the investigation.
No need to repeat the rest of your rant, as it’s in plain view above. But I would caution you on your use of the term “fact”. I don’t think you’ve actually ever considered the meaning of that word. Until you do, stop using it so carelessly.
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 4, 2006 @ 7:08 am - November 4, 2006
Sadam tried to assinate an American President…this alone is a recognised act of war.Wmd’s were one reason,but not THE reason Eddie and you know this full well.At the very least,the war served as a showcase for our major weapons systems.Our enemies fear these weapons and our allies are free to buy them(if they can buck up that is:O) ).
Get your head out of the idealistic clouds Eddie and read “The Prince” by Machiavelli.The only real politics are power politics Eddie.So long as you buy into all that peace and love bullshit,you will always be a usefull idiot to our enimies and just an idiot to your countrymen who have the nadds to protect you from those to whom you would foolishly bear your throat.
Comment by Bobby Alpy — November 4, 2006 @ 7:51 am - November 4, 2006
7: Military newspapers now denouncing the war in Iraq and calling for Rumsfeld’s departure. Respected neoconservatives turning against the Bush administration. Kerry’s bad/botched attempt at making an attack on the president seems pretty miniscule compared to the waning support the Bush administration has from its staunchest allies. It seems now that the majority of people in this country want us out of Iraq. This country lived already through a war with no end in sight. Are we going to wait until we’re treated again to video of helicopters airlifting people out of an American Embassy?
Like a good liberal, I watch Bill Maher regularly. He’s had several repeat, conservative guests on over the last few years and they’ve taken an interesting turn of their beliefs, Andrew Sullivan and Chirsty Todd Whitman being the most notable. Mr. Sullivan is pretty outspoken, while Ms. Whitman is a bit more demure, although its clear what she’s thinking. You can’t keep trying to villify each and every person who turns again the Bush administration. Seems the only weapon that Bush’s unfaltering supporters can resort to are inane personal attacks that are getting them into trouble (Pretty much anything Anne Coulter says these days, Rush Limbaugh’s attack on Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson, etc). I think people really are coming around to the fact that Osama Bin Laden still hasn’t been caught after 5 years and they’re starting to wonder why.
This is still America and its (hopefully) still a government that’s by the people and for the people. It’s time for a change and (hopefully) we’ll see it come Wednesday morning, although the folks at diebold may want a say in that.
Comment by Kevin — November 4, 2006 @ 8:58 am - November 4, 2006
Who gives a shit about ossama bin-laden!As if killing him will end our trouble with the arabs…not very f***ing likely.If you coward liberals will not fight this war,for what would you fight?It’s not as if any of you have volunteered to serve so what stake do you have in it??Sit back and watch the show and let better men fight your battles for you.The cowardess and unmanly bearing of the left makes me want to yuke.They’re like a bunch of eunichs clamoring to see who can surrender in the most dramatic fashion
Comment by Bobby Alpy — November 4, 2006 @ 9:27 am - November 4, 2006
Eddie, you need only read the hypocrisy of the NYT to understand this issue…
http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=
Comment by Scooter — November 4, 2006 @ 10:43 am - November 4, 2006
Comment by Bobby Alpy – great post!
Comment by Scooter — November 4, 2006 @ 10:46 am - November 4, 2006
“had even one Democrat tried to stop your side’s poorly thought out rush to war by pointing out the weaknesses in the intelligence”
Rush? Rush to war? 10 years and 17 U.N.Resolutions are a rush? If anything we waited too long. Your lack of being able to grasp the subject matter is stunning.
Bobby states it well, you don’t understand the caliphate of the radical islamic:
1) Convert
2) Subjugate
3) Die
That’s there mission, they endorse the idea to lie, cheat, steal, decieve, whatever it takes to accomplish it’s goal which is that EVERYONE is under Islamic Rule.
If Radical Islam has their way, gays would be hung in the town square. Of course, it’s all so dramatic and fear mongering since it will never happen…
…yeah, no one thought anything like 9/11 would ever happen either.
Comment by Scooter — November 4, 2006 @ 11:00 am - November 4, 2006
Final comment on this subject as this thread isn’t about wmd, etc. it’s about Kerry’s disdain for America:
“I’m sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?
What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been “no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat”, for the past three years solid. Now we’re being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.
Let’s go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.
I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a “Boy, did Bush screw up” meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the “there was no threat in Iraq” meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh… al-Qaeda.
The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn’t dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn’t work. It can’t be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it’s in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.”
- Jim Geraghty National Review On-Line
Comment by Scooter — November 4, 2006 @ 11:04 am - November 4, 2006
Perhaps this is what Kerry really meant to say:
“And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq….AS A TERRORIST.”
He really meant to say that you’d be too stupid to do anything other than become a terrorist not all this other hoopla!
Comment by Scooter — November 4, 2006 @ 11:06 am - November 4, 2006
Lets be honest Scooter…The left has such a vile hatred for our President that they would gladly engineer our defeat in order to be able to say “I told you so”.They’ve put all their political eggs into one basket and now nothing less than the utter defeat of The United States will vindicate their moronic ideology.
I served under President Clinton…I thought he was a smarmy asshole and a coward but he was my President and I was duty bound to serve at his pleasure.I would never have dreamed of criticizing him openly during a time of war.Brothers may fight,but it is the duty of all family members to close ranks against outsiders.The democrats are like the jilted husband who burns down his house rather than let his wife rule the roost without him.Of course they’re not at all concerned about the potential damage that their “surrender for power” strategy will cause…after all,their whole gameplan is to throw a monkey wrench in the works and than to shrilly scream about how it’s Bushes fault for starting the machine to begin with.
Comment by Bobby Alpy — November 4, 2006 @ 11:26 am - November 4, 2006
Comment by Bobby Alpy – I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said and you said it more eloquently than I could have.
When the issues place them in a position of not being able to defend, then the tactic is to deflect. I’ve watched the game on a daily basis and it’s always the same.
Thank you for your service to the United States. So many of us appreciate and honor your dedication to our freedoms and democracy.
Comment by Scooter — November 4, 2006 @ 11:43 am - November 4, 2006
don’t carry on about my service…I served under clinton,remember.Back then it was open season on Americans and rather than weild his army Clinton choose to put us to work doing area beautification and cleaning weapons he never intended to allow us to use.
Comment by Bobby Alpy — November 4, 2006 @ 11:52 am - November 4, 2006
And please Scooter…stop calling it a democracy:O).Sometimes I think thats half the problem…too many Americans have this fantasy that they live in a democracy.We are a Republic
Comment by Bobby Alpy — November 4, 2006 @ 11:54 am - November 4, 2006
Bobby Alpy – you still served and were always in the position of being called to fight if it were deemed necessary, so there’s no way to disparage your time in the service, even under the SexClinton Administration.
You wore the uniform, you served the nation, in whatever capacity. We’re grateful and honored you did.
Comment by Scooter — November 4, 2006 @ 11:57 am - November 4, 2006
The incompetence and negligence of Bushco is pushing the military closer to outright insubordination than I suspect we’ve ever been before. This Monday’s unprecedented joint editorial in all four military newspapers calls for the firing of Rumsfeld. This is the day before the election and I think it comes on the heels of Bush insisting that Cheney and Rumsfeld will stay to the end of his Administration and John Boehner’s blaming the generals for the mess in Iraq.
So keep harping about Kerry’s botched joke. The really bad joke is the destruction and havoc that this disastrous administration is wreaking on this nation and yes the military itself.
Comment by Ian — November 4, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - November 4, 2006
what the hell would you know about the military Ian?I can tell by the sound of your relativism that you’ve never been.I just love it when hippies carry on about how they think the military should be used.You sound like my dad dude…”The evil U.S. government is going to destroy the world…We should have apologised to them for having the audacity to buy oil from them…I can tell that Bush is evil cause back in vietnam all us draft dodgers decided that all war is evil…better to lay down and die than to fight…I’m bored…maybe i’ll put on my dads field jacket,paint a peace sign on it and find some professional protesters to help me decide what i’m against.”You and my hippie dad should get together and hash out your conspiracy theories.If he gives you any coolaid…drink it…it was made for you.
Comment by Bobby Alpy — November 4, 2006 @ 2:05 pm - November 4, 2006
#23: All rant, no substance. Whatever.
Comment by Ian — November 4, 2006 @ 2:53 pm - November 4, 2006
“All rant, no substance.Comment by Ian”
You’re right Ian, YOUR post is all rant and no substance.
Comment by Scooter — November 4, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - November 4, 2006
Bobby dear, here’s your pill. Now now there. Good. Don’t try to spit it out this time, OK honey?
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 4, 2006 @ 4:52 pm - November 4, 2006
Military newspapers now denouncing the war in Iraq and calling for Rumsfeld’s departure.
Wrong. Those are 4 newspapers which cater to the military and are owned by Gannett all with the same editorial board. Gannett also happens to own USA Today. This is one of the biggest non-stories I’ve seen in quite awhile. Does Rumsfeld need to go? Yes, but not because of this trumped up BS.
Comment by John — November 4, 2006 @ 8:02 pm - November 4, 2006
#26:
We need to start to reduce our presence in Iraq and redeploy troops to Kuwait and the Gulf states. We also would have to refocus on Afghanistan. We can’t afford a failure there or we will be in an incredibly weakened position in the world. None of the states bordering Iraq or elsewhere in the region have an interest in its collapse so we will have to start talking to them and that includes Syria and Iran. I think this plan presents some useful ideas. The situation is pretty fluid so adjustments would have to be made e.g. we can’t permit al qaeda setting up shop in western Iraq. Unfortunately, there are no longer any great options – we have to implement plans that are best for OUR long term security. “Stay the course” or whatever the Bushco slogan de jour policy description is no longer is viable.
Comment by Ian — November 5, 2006 @ 8:34 pm - November 5, 2006
#27 – Great! So if things go badly as we pull out or re-deploy as you call it, then will the Dems be accepting full and complete responsiblity and be 100% accountable to the United States when things don’t go well, when oil fields are taken over by Iran/Syria, when violence goes up and the government crumbles there in Iraq, and most especially when America gets hit again. Will the Dems accept responsibility for the demise of 3 1/2 years of work or will they, as they usually do, blame President Bush for anything that doesn’t go “their” way.
I’m find and dandy with the Dems taking it over, just as long as they accept full and complete responsibility for ANY demise, negativity, attacks on America, crumbling of Iraq, anything that goes wrong, no excuses, no mistakes, no blaming.
Comment by Scooter — November 7, 2006 @ 10:59 am - November 7, 2006