The comedy stylings of John Kerry have provided something else to play into GOP hands besides congressional pages. They’re teeing off on his statement that lack of education “lands you in Iraq,” claiming that he was trash-talking the troops. Everyone knows that lack of supporting the troops has replaced social security as the third rail of politics. Kerry’s response is that he was making a misfired joke about the administration.
Who to believe? Well, putting aside my personal dislike for Bush and the fact that I voted for Kerry, let’s see what makes more sense: The notion that Kerry, who served in the armed forces, would be dissing the troops, or that Kerry, who despises Bush and Co., would be dissing the administration.
To quote that great pundit, Daffy Duck: Pronoun trouble. Displaying the comedic instincts of a California Redwood, Kerry SHOULD have said “we.” “We wind up in Iraq,” which would have made it at least somewhat clearer. Or if he insisted on “you,” then it becomes, “you wind up landing us in Iraq.” Something like that.
Considering word around the campfire is that “Studio 60” may be shutting down soon, perhaps Kerry can draft Aaron Sorkin to write some jokes for him.
PAD
• 
“I would say that you need to get a place of your own, but that’s not happening for a bag boy with no savings.”
HAH! Show what you know, idiot!
When the Nuclear Holocaust comes ya’ll’ll come running to ME beacuse I’ll have the most groceries, cuz’ I’LL KNOW HOW TO BAG’EM CORRECTLY!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA
And don’t knock living in Mama’s basement…How many of YOU can say that you save 80% of your paycheck every month?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA
On a more personal note:
TO JERRY C:
Fûçk you.
Posted by: Ben Bradley at November 6, 2006 04:53 PM
On a more personal note:
TO JERRY C:
Fûçk you.
Translation: “Jerry C, you win.”
By the way, Jerry C — I’ve named him “Sparky.” I really don’t want to keep this nasty, mangy stray, but if he insists on coming around here I figure we may as well get to name him.
Posted by Craig J. Ries
One factor may be the fact that Kerry’s accounts were given at the time, while the accounts of soldiers were given later, after the preconceived notions of the treatment of Vietnam vets were put into the public mind.
The problem seems to be that there may be more evidence for atrocities than for such treatment of soldiers?
I’d say so.
Those of us in Indian Country in those days (at least the guys i knew) tended to believe that, at least, some Bad Things happened – especially because anyone with the least knowledge of human behaviour is gona recognise that, out of every hundred thousand or so soldiers, there’s going to be a few who are just going to wig out in action, for whatever reason, and do Things They Aren’t Supposed To.
And there were rumours about the “spit on the babykiller” bit.
But i – and so far as i culd tell/can recall – they were never first person stories – “I saw” or “This is what happened to me…”
No, they were always “A buddy of mine went home and…” or “There was this guy in my unit who…”
Basic adage in the Navy – the real difference between a fairy tale and a sea story is that a fairy tale begins “Once upon a time…”
…and a sea story starts out :Now, this is no šhìŧ…”
// Those of us in Indian Country in those days (at least the guys i knew) tended to believe that, at least, some Bad Things happened – especially because anyone with the least knowledge of human behaviour is gona recognise that, out of every hundred thousand or so soldiers, there’s going to be a few who are just going to wig out in action, for whatever reason, and do Things They Aren’t Supposed To.
And there were rumours about the “spit on the babykiller” bit.
But i – and so far as i culd tell/can recall – they were never first person stories – “I saw” or “This is what happened to me…”
No, they were always “A buddy of mine went home and…” or “There was this guy in my unit who…” //
Which of course is the very definition of an Urban Ledgend. BTW, wasn’t there an actual court case in Nam about servicemen commiting atrocities? I recall reading about a court marshal case in college about the destruction of a village that was mostly women and children but I don’t remember any of the details.
// I wouldn’t say “worse” – i would say that the Viet Nam vet is sort of on the back burner, so to speak.
I have been told that a Viet Nam vet who develops diabetes may qualify for 100% disability, since apparently that is now believed to be one of the long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange. //
Which is a great thing, but it took several years and if what I’ve read and seen is correct, several lawsuits for the government to acknowledge that Agent Orange was even a problem. I remember seeing a news report back in the 80’s about vets who had horrible symptons as a result of AO, that the government refused to pay for because they were still maintaining that exposure to AO was safe and not the cause of those ailments. Compared to that kind of treatment being called a “baby killer” by a bunch of jerks would strike me as small potatoes.
Which of course is the very definition of an Urban Ledgend. BTW, wasn’t there an actual court case in Nam about servicemen commiting atrocities? I recall reading about a court marshal case in college about the destruction of a village that was mostly women and children but I don’t remember any of the details.
The My Lai massacre.
Posted by Darren J Hudak
Which is a great thing, but it took several years and if what I’ve read and seen is correct, several lawsuits for the government to acknowledge that Agent Orange was even a problem.
Yes, it did. However, as i recall, it wasn’t the Agent Orange that was the real problem (Agen Orange was basically 2,4,D, an herbicide routinely used in civilian life in those days in smaller concentrations for clearing brush along hifghways and so on) – it was a contaminant in it (dioxin) that they didn’t believe would be a problem and so didn’t rejigger the manufacturng process to eliminate it; later the comapnies manufacturing it – and certain elements in the military – denied that they had any idea that dioxin was that dangerous..
I remember seeing a news report back in the 80’s about vets who had horrible symptons as a result of AO, that the government refused to pay for because they were still maintaining that exposure to AO was safe and not the cause of those ailments.
In the long run, from this end, the fact that it was dioxin, not the basic 2,4,D that caused the majority of the problems is a distinction without a difference,but…
Compared to that kind of treatment being called a “baby killer” by a bunch of jerks would strike me as small potatoes.
Uncle Zoomie – Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, ComNavForV (Commander, Naval Forces, Viet Nam) while i was there, and, later in my enlistment, CNO, lost his son (who served in Viet Nam in the field, not in a “fortunate son” rear billrt) to complications from Agent Orange exposure. (I think his son was a brown-water Navy boat commander.[1])
After Zoomie retired, and after his son knew he was suffering severe effects from Agent Orange, they co-authored a book on Viet Nam and the Agent Orange thing in particular.
And the Admiral said that given what he knew at the time, and the anticipated benefits of its use, he still felt he was right to recommended its use – and his son, who was already dieing from the stuff, signed off on that.
And so did i.
Beacuse the defoliation campaign really did have the potential save a lot of lives.
And the Admiral had to live with his decision… and i would have had to live with mine.
But, given what we knew (and what we didnt know) at the time, it really, apparently, was the best of several possiblle possibilities, all more or less bad.
However, that all said, also there is this:
{That’s from http://www.usvetdsp.com/agentorange.htm, BTW.}
[1]I didn’t say “Swift Boat”: because (a) not all the brownwater boats were tecnically “Swifties” and (b) i don’t want to connect an honouranle officer with Certi Nother Elements in any way…])