Kerry issues apology

Exactly what do you mean by "his statement wasn't far from the truth"?

I think what he means, snood, is that you seldom, if ever, see the child of a rich or privileged person in the military, nor will you find many Harvard or Yale students.

The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of soldiers in today's army that are in solely because they were unable to find work or unable to pay the high cost of attending college and decided the military might be their best option to advance themselves.

Nothing wrong with that, by any means, but more and more in this country, the poor are ending up dying for the rich.

Can you deny that?

Gus- The poor are not dying for the rich. The soldiers, who joined the service, are dying for something that they believed was right, whether some others believe in the war or not. They enlisted of their own volition.
The job of the military is to produce warriors, and unfortunately, people die in war.

The issue was quite different during Vietnam, when people were conscripted, against their will.

I believe that Kerry simply meant Mr. G.W.Bush.

Believe what you may.

I'm with Gus on this.

They're all AWOL

Furor over Kerry distracts us from the real class divide: Children of the elite are almost never on the front lines





By FRANK A. SCHAEFFER

Now that John Kerry has apologized, the uproar over his stupid comment that doing well in school can keep people from getting "stuck in Iraq" may or may not die down.

But it will be a tragedy if, after days of political push-and-pull over questions of elitism and military service, we fail to see the creeping class crisis that's been lurking just beneath the surface of this debate: The rich and powerful - Democrats and Republicans alike - just don't send their children to war anymore. And the price we pay for them sitting on the sidelines is far greater than either party is willing to admit.

Look around. Yes, John McCain and Virginia senatorial candidate James Webb have sons in uniform - but almost nobody else leading the debate on Iraq has skin in the game. That includes Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont and Dick Cheney.

As someone who writes about the military family and as the father of a Marine who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, I've heard from countless families these past five years. And nearly to a person, they are sick of it. It's not that they resent shouldering the bulk of the burden - they know that comes with the territory - but they are tired of leaders who fail even to ask for others to step up.

Just how deep is the divide? The number of congressmen and congresswomen who are veterans themselves is about one-third of what it was a generation ago, and almost none have children in uniform. In the 1950s, about half the graduating classes of the Ivy Leagues served - while today less than one-third of 1% do. Military recruitment programs are virtually invisible on elite college campuses.

As a result, to military families, our upper classes look more and more like Persian potentates commanding slaves, not democratic leaders sharing the fate of those they lead.

It doesn't have to be this way. During World War II, both British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had sons in uniform. In her diary, Eleanor Roosevelt wrote that FDR "would have liked to have taken [his] sons' places."

Do we need to reinstitute the draft? Perhaps, though the mere suggestion is politically radioactive - and that ought to tell us something. At the very least, we need a new form of mandatory national service in which everyone, rich or poor, educated or not, takes part.

Nobody is suggesting we should defer to the opinions of politicians just because they have children overseas - or because, in very rare cases, they have served in Iraq themselves. Nor would I perpetuate the myth that leaders can "send" their children into war against their will.

The point is that, just as we cannot expect our public schools to magically improve when everyone in power has an escape hatch, we cannot expect our military strategy to be smart, effective and responsive when men and women in uniform are always political pawns - and almost never members of the family.

Schaeffer is author of "Baby Jack" and co-author of "AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes From Military Service - and How It Hurts Our Country."

Originally published on November 2, 2006

He meant Bush, and the cunning Republicans turned the tables on him. Just like a few years ago, when the draft dodgers attacked the veteran Kerry.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061102/D8L4QH580.html

I do not believe Kerry is sincere. His past statements mirror exactly what he said on Tuesday.

By JOHN SOLOMON

(AP) John Kerry, Democratic congressional campaigner in the Fifth District, speaks at a news conference...
Full Image



Google sponsored links
Bush Or Clinton - Who Do You Like Better? Vote Now To See Results!
www.popularq.com

Iraq War - The Truth - What The Bush Administration Won't Tell You About The War in Iraq.
www.GeorgeSoros.com







WASHINGTON (AP) - During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who turned against the war, made the observations in answers to a 1972 candidate questionnaire from a Massachusetts peace group.

After Kerry caused a firestorm this week with what he termed a botched campaign joke that Republicans said insulted current soldiers, The Associated Press was alerted to the historical comments by a former law enforcement official who monitored 1970s anti-war activities

Kerry apologized Wednesday for the 2006 campaign trail gaffe that some took as suggesting U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq were undereducated. He contended the remark was aimed at Bush, not the soldiers.

In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "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.'

I think Kerry is a lair.

woiyo

Who do you think fills the ranks of the regular Army, Navy and marines. Children of privilege?

Stop sniffing this cowards a-hole.

You know and I know this Military of ours has brave people and smart people from all walks of life. Rich, poor and everything in between.

Stop sniffing this cowards a-hole.

You know and I know this Military of ours has brave people and smart people from all walks of life. Rich, poor and everything in between.


Assuming the coward you refer to is Kerry, who actually served in the military in a time of conflict. What would that make Dubya, Chenney, et all..??

Decorated for bravery and getting wounded, too, I believe.

Why do you hate our veterans, woiyo?

The US army has lowered the recruitment requirements, taking in those who would not have qualified a year ago.
This included lowering acceptable IQ scores.

No, just that lying coward Kerry. As a military vet, who is a minority, who is college educated, I resented his comments in 1972 and he has not changed his tone one bit.

Kerry is not an honorable person.

Kerry said this in 1972...remember?

"In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "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.'

"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities," he wrote."

According to this paper by the conservative Heritage Foundation, Kerry in 1972 was only partially correct.

The poor are overrepresented, but not by much.
The blacks are way overrepresented.
The "browns" are not overrepresented in the Armed Forces as a whole. But they are in the Iraki death toll.
The whites are not underrepresented. The Asian-Americans are.

What's most striking is that the rural population is way over-reppresented. More so than blacks.
According to Heritage, this is so because "rural areas generally offer a less flexible, thinner job market. The military extends job opportunities into these areas, with technical training that is usually unavailable otherwise."


Who Bears the Burden?

Re: Kerry issues apology


How magnaminious and generous of him! Kerry apologises for the misinterpretations of other, lesser beings who mistook his meaning. Unfortunately he has not yet offered an explanation of just what was his meaning in this "botched joke" he offered to the students of Pasadena College whom he was addressing. Unfortunately for him these lesser beings have the common sense to understand exactly the meaning of the "botched joke' (and the snide smirk that accompanied it) offered to this particular audience.

Kerry epitomizes the self-appointed elite liberals who presume to know what others should think and what is good for them. His former Democrat supporters are running from him as fast as they can, precisely because he seems unable to keep this, their favorite cat, in the bag. He is a dead letter in American politics, but his supporters will find another figure to replace him.

Don't like inappropriate jokes about the war and snide smirks, huh? Where were you when Bush was making those "can't find the WMD" jokes?

His jokes were funny and appropriate to the forum he was in. Kerry was just being an ass and ended up offending a lot of people.