Post-Gazette Editorial – 11/2/06

This page was last updated on November 4, 2006.

Not funny: Kerry’s botched joke draws an overheated reaction; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; November 2, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Generals get accused of fighting the last war but they’re not the only ones: Some Republicans think past political battles provide better ammo than today’s fight. Witness the phony furor over John Kerry’s botched joke.”

[RWC] I don’t accept it was a “botched joke.” As you’ll read below, Mr. Kerry has a history in this area.

“During a rally at a college in Pasadena, Calif., Mr. Kerry said: ‘You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.’

“A reporter on the scene said the context of the remark was a series of one-liners about President Bush. A Kerry spokeswoman indicated the senator had departed from his prepared text, which was: ‘Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.’”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. It’s OK to call our commander in chief stupid during time of war?

While they constantly like to portray President Bush as stupid, we learned a few facts during or shortly after the 2004 election. First, Mr. Bush outscored Mr. Kerry on intelligence tests they took when they served. Second, though neither man got scorching grades at Yale, Mr. Bush’s GPA was slightly higher than Mr. Kerry’s. Third, I suspect you don’t graduate from both Yale and Harvard “if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy.”

Finally, how smart can Mr. Kerry be if he can’t tell the difference between a joke and insulting the men and women we put in harm’s way? No, it was not a joke. As you will read below, Mr. Kerry just told us what he’s been telling us for 35 years.

“In the garbled way it came out, it can be taken both ways -- critical of the troops and of Mr. Bush. Not surprisingly, the administration was delighted to take it the first way.”

[RWC] Only the ears of a liberal could take Mr. Kerry’s comment “both ways.”

“In a rational world, Mr. Kerry might be given the benefit of the doubt. He is, after all, a decorated Vietnam veteran who led U.S. servicemen in combat in a way that few of his pious critics ever did. That didn’t stop Mr. Bush’s supporters from trashing the senator’s wartime record in the 2004 campaign.”

[RWC] Of course, the PG ignores the fact Mr. Kerry has a habit of bashing the military. Let’s review.

In 1971, Mr. Kerry testified before a House or Senate committee that the commission of war crimes was standard operating procedure for our troops in Vietnam.

In 1972 during a run for a House seat, Mr. Kerry said, “I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown. We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply ‘doing its job’”¹ It’s clear the first part of this quote correlates exactly with Mr. Kerry’s latest pronouncement. The second part is consistent with his comments in 1971 and those of 2005 quoted below.

In December 2005, Mr. Kerry said the following during on “Face the Nation.” “[T]here is no reason, Bob [Schieffer], that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of - the historical customs, religious customs.” As he did in 1971 and 1972, Mr. Kerry refers to our soldiers as predators.

“Sen. Kerry’s remarks only reinforced the false image so carefully constructed that he is an effete, elitist character not to be trusted with national security. However you cut it, this joke was stupid and fair game for political comment.”

[RWC] “False image?” How many of us have butlers at our side to prepare us PB&J sandwiches?²

“That said, the obvious glee with which Republicans seized upon it -- from the White House down to Rep. Melissa Hart, whose campaign dubbed Mr. Kerry ‘anti-troop’ -- had a strong element of protesting too much.”

[RWC] I wonder if the PG saw the sign made up by Minnesota National Guard troops serving in Iraq after they heard Mr. Kerry’s view of them. It said, “Halp us Jon Carry – We R stuck hear N Irak.” Also, the “k” in “stuck” was backwards. We’re our troops “protesting too much?”

“For this was a wonderful excuse to change the national conversation. The only problem is that Mr. Kerry is not the leader of the Democratic Party. He is a failed presidential candidate and he is not even on the ballot in Massachusetts this year.”

[RWC] I find it interesting that the PG realizes Mr. Kerry isn’t up for reelection but seem to believe President Bush is.

What is “the national conversation?” If it’s Iraq, how is discussing the qualifications of those who defend us changing the subject? In any case, it was Mr. Kerry who brought up the subject.

“Mr. Kerry was right yesterday to apologize for the misunderstanding, but the real controversy about the troops is the stuff of daily headlines: Why is there no plan to extricate them from the hellhole that is Iraq? On that, as Mr. Kerry should have said, ‘Just ask President Bush.’”

[RWC] Mr. Kerry didn’t apologize. He wrote – he didn’t even have the guts to do anything on camera – only that he was sorry if we misunderstood what he said. In other words, if there was a mistake, you and I made it.

Finally, contrast this response by the PG to its response to comments made by then-Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott at a birthday party in 2002.³ I find it amazing how the PG just happened to know what each man was really thinking.

1. Kerry’s ‘72 Army Comments Mirror Latest; John Solomon; Associated Press; November 2, 2006.

2. Part Butler and Part Buddy, Aide Keeps Kerry Running; Jodi Wilgoren; The New York Times; April 28, 2004.

3. Lessons from Lott / Has the GOP buried Nixon’s Southern strategy?; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; December 23, 2002.