November 03, 2006

Kerry's "Apology" Was All-Too Insincere

John Kerry's arrogance knows no bounds.


John Kerry has a 35-year history of slandering American soldiers, and when he disparaged the intelligence of the American military earlier this week, he deserved no benefit of the doubt. He'd referred to them as murderers, rapists, and terrorists too many times before.

When he swore he would "apologize to no one" for the comments assaulting their intelligence, he obviously meant it.

Now several days later and a "I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to understand what I meant to say" non-apology, he still has enough arrogance and contempt for the American soldier to feature on his page the headline, "Kerry's Remark: Right either way."

As Bryan notes:

Because even though he has “apologized” several times and in disingenuous ways, at heart he [Kerry] meant what he said. When he finds someone who supports his smear, he links right to them to justify himself. Someone who truly meant to apologize for a remark he doesn’t believe wouldn’t do that.

John Kerry is not the least bit sorry for slandering America's heroes.

He wasn't sorry in 1972, and he's certainly not sorry now.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 3, 2006 08:51 PM | TrackBack

Excerpted and linked

Posted by: Bill Faith at November 3, 2006 10:01 PM

This honestly pisses me off more than the original insult. It's like he's rubbing it in soldiers' noses.

Posted by: Tony B at November 3, 2006 11:16 PM

The Seattle paper begs the question. What public utterance has John Kerry ever made that should convince us he is well-educated? Please advise if you can remember one!!!

Posted by: David G at November 3, 2006 11:51 PM

Posted by: Recruiter at November 4, 2006 12:42 AM

That's nice, Recruiter, but what do the actual records of actual soldiers and marines say in the actual theatre of combat.

And just to pick at nits, are we at war? Are you sure? By what definition?

Posted by: grayson at November 4, 2006 05:56 AM

Not only was what Kerry said an insult, it was just plain unnecessary. Tacky and Stupid.

Liberals have gotten so bitter and nasty that every time one of them opens his or her mouth some kind of insult comes out of it. They don't care if we are at war, they don't even care if we win.

Posted by: Terrye at November 4, 2006 06:35 AM

An editorial, which will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times newspapers on Monday says. "... the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."

I know you're having a good old time bashing Kerry but smell the coffee. This all Republican government is an abject failure, it's time to vote the incompetent bums out and give the Democrats a chance to do better.

Posted by: Ed at November 4, 2006 07:47 AM

He put a supposed apology on his website. He did not apologise in person, so obviously some staffer wrote it with Hanoi John's approval.

There is an old saying that. 'the lips say what is in the heart'

He meant everyword of it, why should anyone take anything he says with any credibility, he has none.

He claims to be a war hero, to whom the North Vietnamese ? Yes, afterall his picture is proudly displayed in Hanoi as a war hero.

What John Kerry said a week ago is the same thing he said, 35 years ago when he lied to congress. How anyone can vote for this traitor is beyond comprehension.

Posted by: Mark at November 4, 2006 11:04 AM

If you work really hard in being a duplicitous, elitist, flip-flopping, subversive, can make fun of people who actually did BETTER than you did....whether they are in the military...or are Republican opponents

...[Kerry] got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses...

The grade transcript, which Kerry has always declined to release, was included in his Navy record....

The transcript shows that Kerry's freshman-year average was 71. He scored a 61 in geology, a 63 and 68 in two history classes, and a 69 in political science. His top score was a 79, in another political science course. Another of his strongest efforts, a 77, came in French class.

Under Yale's grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade. In addition to Kerry's four D's in his freshman year, he received one D in his sophomore year.

Posted by: cf bleachers at November 4, 2006 11:10 AM


I want you to give me a website where the Marine Corps times has such editorial. This a bald face lie, those publications are not run by Liberal Elites from the New York Times or the Weenie Deans.

So inform all of us where we all can get a copy of said editorial from these papers.

The Democrats have, NO SPINE, and will take the first opportunity to run from Iraq before the job is done and allow total chaos. Obviously you have no spine either, otherwise you would support your country and not the enemy.

So Ed try supporting the good guys for a change, the United States.

Posted by: Mark at November 4, 2006 11:14 AM

Ed visited the Al Jazeera website for his voting recommendations. Probably even left a comment suggesting increased violence in order to assist ejecting the Bushitler regime (though that phrase probably doesn't play well with Muslims) from office.

Posted by: iconoclast at November 4, 2006 03:09 PM


Ed is correct about the editorial, , but you have to remember that those papers ARE Gannett(USA Today) subsidiaries and while they have covered the military beat, their opinions (unsigned of course) sometimes display that they are in fact civilians infected by beltway myopia.

Posted by: Richard at November 4, 2006 04:03 PM


Thanks for the response, I knew there was a catch. The usa today can't be trusted to report sports scores let alone anything serious. As I suspected there is a bias here regardless of the title of the newspaper.

Whenever, I see someone say, an unknown source said this, I want to know who the source is, there is a credibility gap for sure.

Posted by: Mark at November 4, 2006 05:13 PM

For what it's worth, the slime has taken the link down from his site. All it displays now are links to the Boston Globe and the NYT.

Posted by: Guy at November 4, 2006 08:08 PM

Well whatever Kerry's intention, it would have to go some to compare with Bush saying that in the history books all the death and destruction in Iraq (including American troops killed) will be "just a comma".

Posted by: Realist at November 4, 2006 11:00 PM

You Americans need to chill and watch this it only 30seconds!

if you want...

Posted by: MC at November 4, 2006 11:02 PM

Hey did you all catch that the Army Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times are all asking Rumsfeld to step down? It sounds like the military brass isn't as stoked about Iraq as you guys are.

Kerry volunteered to ride in a PT boat and gett shot at, whereas your man had his daddy get him into the reserves then flubbed that. Yet you still can't get enough of knocking Kerry's motives in 'Nam, even though he's not running for office.

Why don't you tell us how well the war in Iraq is going, only the MSM refuses to tell us about it? I can't get enough of that one. Your man thought he was *done* three years ago. He'll be Mr. Mission Accomplished until the end of recorded history.

The jig's up boys.

Posted by: Earl at November 5, 2006 02:18 AM

Why should Kerry apologize? This is America! He can say whatever he wants. He will just have to endure the consequences. His comment says more about him than it does about our military or our president.

Posted by: Jeff at November 5, 2006 08:43 AM

Earl, those four newspaper are Gannet-owned subsidiaries. They are civilain newspapers owned by corporations, and I think I heard that they share journalists with USA Today, but I can't independently confirm that.

The point is that they have absolutely nothing to do with the military brass, or official or even semi-official military publications.

You should get mad that Gannett is underhanded enough to fool voters (and in your case they obviously were sucessful) just days before a national election. Their sole intent was to make it apparent that the military wrote these opinions, when assuredly they did not. They conned you, and the sad think is, you'll tolerate being lied to because it is what you want to hear.

Both Instapundit and Gateway Pundit have links and facts that throughly demolished the editorials before they 've even officially been published.

Quite frankly, this kind of stuff is electioneering by the media, and perhaps they shold consider this kind of stuff the next time they consider campaign reform.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 5, 2006 09:05 AM


Those papers are, as mentioned many times, NOT affiliated with our Armed Forces. The sad part is our troops have to read this crap, written by un-named writers and shirks and have nothing to compare it with, especially the truth.

The American people are getting only the bad part of what is really going on over there. The media is partisan to the democrats and the enemy. It is a sad note when forces in our own country are working against our own country just becasuse they hate the president and want to bring him down.

Agree or not that we should be in Iraq, it is our country you are sabbotaging by the daily sniping about the war effort. Even the enemy, the Islamo-fascists, has come out and said they want the democrats to win. Why do you think that is ?

Ask yourself this if Bush and Rumsfeld are running such a rotten campaign why wouldn't the enemy want them to stay ?

We read everyday in the press that we can't win over there, we hear from Durbin, Kennedy , his clone, Kerry, et al, that everything done to date is wrong,,, Why don't these Military Experts come up with a better plan ?

The dem plan is to Cut, Run and Hide and pertend everything is still pre-September 11, 2001.

You dems better wake up, we pull out of Iraq the next battlefield will be in our own back yard, like New York City.

Posted by: Mark at November 5, 2006 09:54 AM


"Halp us Jon Carry- We R Stuck Hear N Washington"

Posted by: Fred at November 5, 2006 10:50 AM

CY and Mark,

You didn't read my whole post. I said, "Why don't you tell us how well the war in Iraq is going, only the MSM refuses to tell us about it? I can't get enough of that one." Thanks for obliging me. The Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, Air Force Times, etc have nothing to do with the millitary. Got it. They are parts of the MSM cabal. The largest corporations on Earth have a plot to tear down capitalism and gut our armed forces. Got it.

Time to stop dreaming, boys. The jig's up.

Posted by: Earl at November 5, 2006 01:48 PM


Why, Earl, every GI I have talked to is amazed at how poorly the war is reported, They can't believe the press is reporting the same war they just left. Gee Earl could it be the press has an ulterior motive, Nahh, not the commies at the New York Times, or CNN, why doesn't CNN show its own Journalists gettting picked off by a sniper, or flaunt the beheadings of its journalists. No it would rather show an American soldier getting hit, thats fair and balanced. You have just showed your true colors.

So you figure that out you seem to be good at mis-interpreting this country.

As far as the 'times's' are concerned they are not affiliated with the United States Armed Forces, Gannet is a big leftist-liberal news service.

The the bigger point is, you have one aim and that is to get out of Iraq, then what, what is your plan ? like all the weenies on the left you have none, except cut and run just like Clinton did in Somalia, where do you think Osama got the Idea that America did not have the stomach for a war, just give US a bloddy nose and we will cut and run.

Your ilk and the kennedys and kerrys screwed us in Vietnam it aint gonna happen again. We will win this thing with or without you. you make the call you are either with us or against us. It is that simple.

Posted by: Mark at November 5, 2006 02:31 PM


Sure, the press has an ulterior motive. ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, CNN, FOX, etc all have clear ties to the communist party. They want to throw of the yoke of capitalism. CNN loves it when American soldiers die.

Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Corps Times interview generals and admirals and stuff, but they really have little to do with the armed services. They too are Trotskyite front organizations looking to undermine our efforts in Iraq because they love to see American blood flow.

I love it when you all say, "Nyah nyah nyah, what's you liberals' plan if your so smart?" The honest truth is that there aren't any good alternatives. There's certainly no good reason to see any more of our finest die. For what? There never has been a democracy formed by the barrel of a gun, right? That's liberal craptrap.

Wake up, Mark. The dream's over. The jig's up.

Posted by: Earl at November 5, 2006 07:23 PM

You confirm our suspicions again, Earl. You are clueless.

Posted by: Retired Spy at November 5, 2006 07:43 PM


Demos do not like the military. But meanwhile, they vote against the Patriot Act. They vote against listening to jihadi phone calls. They vote against trying jihadis in military courts. They call our troops the equivalent of Hitler. They equate Abu Ghraib to the Soviet gulag. They consistently run down our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who else, Earl, would do this to their own country, but someone who wants to destroy it.

Think back, Earl, to September 11, 2001, we were attacked on our own soil, to the extent that Pearl Harbor looked mild in comparison. 3000 Americans were murdered, slaughtered for doing nothing more than being in the wrong place at the right time. They have no plan except to 'book' out of Iraq, to run and hide and appease the terrorists. Appeasement has never won anything and never will.

Can you imagine if todays democrats would have been in charge during the second world war, You want to talk casualties, in 72 hours on Tarawa, the Marines took 4500 casualties, 1500 dead they killed almost 6000 Japs and that wasn't even a three day campaign, you want to talk intense, waste of life, lack of planning, they miscalculated the tides, the Higgins boats were hanging up on the Coral reefs and couldn't go any farther, the Marines had to wade in waist deep half never made it. They were cut down wading across 500 yards of coral, some went off the ramps and went too deep and never came up. Was their sacrifice worth it ? You damn well better believe it. And so is the sacrifice we are making in Iraq, because if we don't make this sacrifice those sons of bitches will be here in the good ole US of A. And then we will see how fast YOU, change your mind.

Then, maybe then you will wake up.

Use your head for something other than a 'hat-rack', you already admitted you have no plan at least you are upfront about that, the dem candidates have not the guts to at least be honest about that.

Posted by: Mark at November 5, 2006 08:12 PM

To this newspaper reporter long, long ago, what's happening in the news media chills and disturbs. Years ago, I predicted that the press would worsen, but I did not anticipate so profound a corruption, or so great a distance between the media and a large part of the public.

Assume that Kerry's staff is correct and Kerry dropped the word "us." So the target if his insult wasn't the military, it was the President. But neither the alleged prepared text nor those actually spoken apply to the President, or if one thinks they do, then they apply with equal or greater force to Kerry, as cf bleachers demonstrates.

In either case, Kerry was wrong, not right. Someone who claims to want to debate "real policy" ought not engage in crass personal insults. Someone who insults people in the military, allegedly inadvertently, in time of war, no less, ought to claim rapidly that his tongue had slipped; he had not meant to say what he had said, and he apologized for saying something so contrary to what he believed, or words to that effect. But he failed to apologize in any effective way. His weak, perhaps forced, apology was not made in a public forum; instead, he used his public forum to insult his Other, Republicans. One of his many press defenders wrote that Kerry is "obviously not anti-military." Given what Kerry has said on past occasions, that is not this writer's impression. I think he said what he really thought; he said what many on the left think, as readers of nutroot comments can attest.

People were outraged. Journalists? Perhaps, but only because their drive to push donkeys into office was distracted: one TV correspondent said she hoped that the fuss would disappear in a day. The press preferred to push aside distractions like the gaffe, the protest, and the misguided, wild swings at Kerry's Other, as the press ignored the Swift Boat charges. (My newspaper in Massachusetts never printed any report on the Swifties’s charges.)

Am I the only one to be greatly disturbed that the press is now unreliable in reporting facts fairly and truthfully on substantive matters at issue in America, but wholly reliable in favoring certain people and causes? Or that The New York Times, which regularly wins journalism awards, may be the worst offender re: truth and fairness in the press?

Posted by: Alfred J. Lemire at November 6, 2006 12:47 AM

"There never has been a democracy formed by the barrel of a gun, right? That's liberal craptrap."

Posted by Earl at November 5, 2006 07:23 PM

Democracy is formed and ran by the Vote. The Iraqi's have voted (better turn-out than us in the U.S. by population).

Our guns are there to protect against those that want to rid the average Iraqi the vote.

Whom is it better to have, those that try to change your vote (or not even let you vote) at the point of a gun, or those protecting your right to do so?

I know my choice.

Posted by: Retired Navy at November 6, 2006 06:28 AM


"Demos do not like the military."


"But meanwhile, they vote against the Patriot Act."

Some of us cherish the Bill of Rights, some don't.

"They vote against listening to jihadi phone calls."

Nobody voted against that, you're listening to propaganda. Dems voted against UNWARRANTED wiretaps. If Bush wants to tap calls, let him get a warrant. As I said, some of us like the Bill of Rights.

"They vote against trying jihadis in military courts."

We like the Bill of Rights. Why don't you?

"They call our troops the equivalent of Hitler."


"They equate Abu Ghraib to the Soviet gulag."

You saw the pictures, big guy. That's torture, plain and simple. Some of us want to continue to be a beacon to the world, not to let sadists run free.

"They consistently run down our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Iraq is a disaster and had nothing to do with 911. Afghanistan should have been our focus. We should have gotten Bin Laden there. W and his crew couldn't have done much worse.

The jig's up, Mark.

Posted by: Earl at November 7, 2006 07:17 PM

Retired Spy,

I said, there's never been a democracry formed at the barrel of a gun. You seem to want to refute this, but got lost along the way. Don't give up though, you're doing great! You sounded clever with your 'whom', but you shouldn't have capitalized 'vote' and the plural of Iraqi is Iraqis, not Iraqi's. We're rooting for you!

Posted by: Earl at November 7, 2006 07:21 PM