Update:
Hugh Hewitt – Are Troups Satisfied With This?
Update:
Some perspective about why Kerry’s comments matter a lot here.
Some perspective about why Kerry’s comments may not matter so much here.
===============
Update: Soljers hav a funy pikcher here.
===============
===============
His actual words were preposterous. By now, almost everyone has heard Senator Kerry’s “botched joke” about the the troops and Iraq.
I don’t really care that he “meant to trash Bush”. I’m pretty sure he did – that was my initial thought.
Whichever direction his comments would have gone, both directions illustrate the extreme arrogance of Kerry and those who think like him.
As a veteran, I was offended at the actual words he used. As a veteran, I would expect an apology from someone who said words like that. I think Kerry could have deflected much of the issue here by simply saying something like this: “Look, I tried to say something else as a joke and it came out wrong. As a result, I did insult our troops. Please try to understand that it was not my intent. Please accept my apologies. The words I used were wrong and I asked for you to understand that I do not feel this way. If I go further to try to explain the original joke, I feel it would make things worse.”
Something like that, done imediately, I feel would go a long way to making this mere bump in the road for the Dems instead of the firestorm it really should not be. The fact that he did slam the troops warrants an apology.
So if you look at Kerry’s remarks, in context with the rest of his record, and then his extremely curious defiance afterward, I think you’ll find the core of how the elitist liberal establishment actually thinks. The thirst for power seems to cloud the things they’ve actually said and done in the past, and the words they actually use mean nothing.
I’m not real fond of the conservative response to this, however. Mine would be more measured. For example, I would like to see the conservative blogosphere give some weight to the idea that it was intended to be a slam on Bush, not a slam on the troops. Not that it would have made any more logical sense (as Bush is at least as educated as Kerry), but no matter what Kerry actually meant, he reveals much about himself and about those who think in like manner. After all, most of those in his party were just as responsible for “getting us into Iraq”. All of them based their decisions on what was known at the time.
A common argument that both Tim (my fellow author on this site) and I get into with others is the notion that Bush “lied” about WMDs.
The argument against Bush goes something like this:
[Anti-Bush Arguer] “Bush lied about the war in Iraq”.
[Tim/Russ] “Why do you say that?”
[Anti-Bush Arguer] “He said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”
[Tim/Russ] “How does that make him a liar?”
[Anti-Bush Arguer] “There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, therefore he lied”
[Tim/Russ] “Have you ever been wrong about something? Like, for example, you said you left your keys in the car, but they were actually in your coat pocket?”
[Anti-Bush Arguer] “Well, sure”
[Tim/Russ] “Did you, because you thought they were in your in your car, lie about it because they were actually in your coat?”
[Anti-Bush Arguer] “Of course not”
[Tim/Russ] “Well then how, if all of the known intelligence at the time suggested there were WMDs, and the fact that Hussein had used WMDs on his own people, does it follow that Bush lied about them?”
(Now comes the appeal to common opinion fallacy)
[Anti-Bush Arguer] “Oh come on now, everyone knows he lied.”
Now it’s possible that he did lie, but the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument that we constantly hear. Of course, the exact same standard can be applied to the liberals in congress (and our former president and democratic candidates too). If there are no WMD’s, then they must have also lied.
This constant drum-beating of calling the Republicans liars about the war, should, if analyzed further, be just as damning to Kerry, Clinton, Schumer and everyone else on the other side of the aisle that voted for the war. Of course, it could be that the politically expediant thing at that time would have been to be for it.
November 1, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Bush did not lie. However, he did:
1) ignore evidence to the contrary,
2) accept only (faulty) evidence that reinforced his pre-determined position,
3) cut short the inspections that where looking for hard evidence,
4) set as the criteria to avoid war the turning over of weapons and weapons development facillities that did not exist,
5) developed new rationals for the war as the facts contradicted the old ones,
6) I could go on and on…
But just because Bush did not lie he is not therefore absolved of leading the nation into an unnecessary (and as it is turning out, counter-productive) war based on flimsy information. Why? Who can know his motives? I tend to think he had both good ones (a friendly democracy in the middle east) and bad ones (get even with Saddam). Nonetheless the war has become an unmitigated failure and some of the people most responsible for that failure have been given Medals of Freedom while those who suggested that we needed 700,000 troups (Shinseki) and that it would cost over $200B (O’Neil) were ridiculed and/or fired. That’s some kinda screwed up, don’t ya think?
So you are right to defend the Administration and the GOP from being accused of lying (to get into the war, they’ve lied plenty about the war since). Actually they are guilty of groupthink, bravado, and stupidity. And that opinion is held by many Republican conservatives.
November 1, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Your position has some merit, of course. That’s the overall point I try to make. The ad hominem nature of attacks does not.
For the record, I am not as much into the all of the details. Nor am I defending the decision to go to war just because I’m not convinced Bush lied. There is merit to having gone, and there is merit to the point that (in hindsight) maybe we should not have. But there is a pretty good case to be made that despite the WMD’s, we should have gone.
I won’t be able to hold my own in any debate specific to that end without a lot more research that, frankly, I don’t have time for. But I am much more inclined to read and respect input from someone (like yourself) who present arguments with merit as opposed to ad-hominem, mind-reading attacks without real foundation. That’s how minds are persuaded, right?
November 22, 2006 at 12:10 pm
[Tim/Russ] “Well then how, if all of the known intelligence at the time suggested there were WMDs, and the fact that Hussein had used WMDs on his own people, does it follow that Bush lied about them?”
Hate to be a fly in the ointment Russ, but the above comment is not accurate. “All” available intel did NOT suggest Saddam had WMD’s. On the contrary, that is the crux of the issue at hand. Bush ignored the evidence that was contrary to his agenda and provided to conbgress only limited intel that supported his positions. Call it whatever you like. It was deceptive if only by ommision. But certainly foolish to start a war over.
I certainly feel decieved.
Nice blog you got here Russ. Hope all is well
TC
November 27, 2006 at 10:36 am
Nice of you to stop by TC. I knew you’d come by sooner or later. I’ll give ground in that it’s certainly possible that there were ommissions; I’m not well enough versed to be able to claim otherwise. I think, based on some of what I’ve read, that Bush was intent on making this happen. When you’re in a persuasive mode, as a leader should be trying to state their case as convincingly as possible.
That’s really beside the point – at least the point I was attempting to make. My beef is not with those that have investigated this and come to another conclusion. My beef is with the simplistic argument that goes like this:
“You said the car keys were on the counter. They’re not on the counter, therefore you lied.”
That statement represents a statement about something that is not true. It is not a lie unless the person said they were on the counter, but ***knew*** that they were not.
In the Iraq situation, I have not seen enough compelling evidence to suggest that the Administration (and the previous one) knew for a fact that there were no WMD’s.
That said, going into Iraq was the right thing. The way the war was prosecuted – different subject.
And you know I’m certainly not Bush’s biggest fan.