Kerry Was Not Talking About The Troops

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Actually they weren't. Bush had a 77 average and Kerry had a 76 average through 4 years at Yale. Both C's. Yes, it doesn't matter.

What does matter is you're still wrong.

Actually, no it doesn't matter if I'm wrong or not. But it's no joke that G.H.W.Bush made large contributions to Yale before and while his son was there. There were many reports on GW's grades slipping and his father bailing him out, using money and his Alumni status to convince Yale to keep him. Bush also has a considerable DUI record in Texas, as well as two failed business endeavors that he somehow managed to bankrupt but not end up in financial trouble himself.

Kerry worked his way through college.
Bush dodged military service by joinging the Texas National Guard and then didn't show up for duty.
Kerry toured Vietnam as I'm sure you know.

But NONE of this matters...not now. Bush is President, Kerry is not. The Democrats were right to ask Kerry not to tour with candidates, he DID misspeak and even as someone who voted for Kerry, whatever he said it didn't sound pro-troops. Regardless of what he meant. But I'd still rather have somone in office who can't decide how he feels about war, but DID go into combat, than someone who NEVER went into combat, relied on family money and support most of his life before becoming governor of my former state of residence, and by all evidence dodged what little duty he DID have as a member of the Texas Air National Guard.
Hey, speaking of psuedo-pilots, anyone remember Bush in front of a big sign on the USS Abraham...gosh...what did it say...? Oh that's right "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" If the mission was public deception, misuse of American military forces, political backstabbing (John McCain ran for president, a REAL veteran, remember someone smearing his campaign?) and dividing the American public between red and blue, evangelical and not, gay or not, or RICH or not, then...you bet.

And bill Clinton wasn't referring to Monica when he broke out the errrr... "I didn't have sex with that woman".

lmao!

BogoEN wrote:

Actually, no it doesn't matter if I'm wrong or not. But it's no joke that G.H.W.Bush made large contributions to Yale before and while his son was there. There were many reports on GW's grades slipping and his father bailing him out, using money and his Alumni status to convince Yale to keep him. Bush also has a considerable DUI record in Texas, as well as two failed business endeavors that he somehow managed to bankrupt but not end up in financial trouble himself.

Kerry worked his way through college.
Bush dodged military service by joinging the Texas National Guard and then didn't show up for duty.
Kerry toured Vietnam as I'm sure you know.

But NONE of this matters...not now. Bush is President, Kerry is not. The Democrats were right to ask Kerry not to tour with candidates, he DID misspeak and even as someone who voted for Kerry, whatever he said it didn't sound pro-troops. Regardless of what he meant. But I'd still rather have somone in office who can't decide how he feels about war, but DID go into combat, than someone who NEVER went into combat, relied on family money and support most of his life before becoming governor of my former state of residence, and by all evidence dodged what little duty he DID have as a member of the Texas Air National Guard.
Hey, speaking of psuedo-pilots, anyone remember Bush in front of a big sign on the USS Abraham...gosh...what did it say...? Oh that's right "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" If the mission was public deception, misuse of American military forces, political backstabbing (John McCain ran for president, a REAL veteran, remember someone smearing his campaign?) and dividing the American public between red and blue, evangelical and not, gay or not, or RICH or not, then...you bet.

Alright, so with all of that said... Bush had the better grades. What's with all the secondary stuff?

Kenny Olav wrote:

But the intention of his words were the same as the intention of the prepared text. I understand that Kerry's words sounded like an insult to the troops, but once he clarified what he meant, shouldn't that be enough??

i'm not calling for Kerry's head. He did apologize and he said something very stupid...why would he insult, even in jest, the entity that would protect him if he became president? He's not a threat to win the nomination or the presidency; he should just quit trying to think that he's a player in the presidential realm and try to be a senator.

But it's politics and it's not enough in that world (sadly). Look at how much slack bush gets from the left...even if he clarifies...which granted doesn't happen often.

Kenny Olav wrote:

Did you not notice the title of this thread? Did you miss the whole point of this? He did not insult the troops!!

then why did he apologize to the troops who felt insulted? look, i can read and i know how he wanted it to come across, the bottom line is, it came across poorly and troops were insulted. If Bush isn't given the benefit of the doubt on mispeaking, why should Kerry get the benefit of the doubt. I personally don't care about Kerry. He's not my senator and he's just someone who wishes he was relevant in a presidential race and in his party.

Kenny Olav wrote:

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended."

So it's everybody else's fault for misinterpreting his words now. That's kind of a half-assed apology. It would have been so much easier for him if he just said, after the event, something like, "I'm sorry...I misspoke." Bush could really do that a lot of times too.