NationStates Jolt Archive

This is one of the greatest op-eds ever. This is exactly what I was thinking.

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.

Every time you hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney lash out against Mr. Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, “They must think I’m stupid.” Because they surely do.

They think that they can get you to overlook all of the Bush team’s real and deadly insults to the U.S. military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Mr. Kerry’s mangled gibe at the president.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the U.S. military than to send it into combat in Iraq without enough men — to launch an invasion of a foreign country not by the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, but by the Rumsfeld Doctrine of just enough troops to lose? What could be a bigger insult than that?

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than sending them off to war without the proper equipment, so that some soldiers in the field were left to buy their own body armor and to retrofit their own jeeps with scrap metal so that roadside bombs in Iraq would only maim them for life and not kill them? And what could be more injurious and insulting than Don Rumsfeld’s response to criticism that he sent our troops off in haste and unprepared: Hey, you go to war with the army you’ve got — get over it.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than to send them off to war in Iraq without any coherent postwar plan for political reconstruction there, so that the U.S. military has had to assume not only security responsibilities for all of Iraq but the political rebuilding as well? The Bush team has created a veritable library of military histories — from “Cobra II” to “Fiasco” to “State of Denial” — all of which contain the same damning conclusion offered by the very soldiers and officers who fought this war: This administration never had a plan for the morning after, and we’ve been making it up — and paying the price — ever since.

And what could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in Iraq than to send them off to war and then go out and finance the very people they’re fighting against with our gluttonous consumption of oil? Sure, George Bush told us we’re addicted to oil, but he has not done one single significant thing — demanded higher mileage standards from Detroit, imposed a gasoline tax or even used the bully pulpit of the White House to drive conservation — to end that addiction. So we continue to finance the U.S. military with our tax dollars, while we finance Iran, Syria, Wahhabi mosques and Al Qaeda madrassas with our energy purchases.

Everyone says that Karl Rove is a genius. Yeah, right. So are cigarette companies. They get you to buy cigarettes even though we know they cause cancer. That is the kind of genius Karl Rove is. He is not a man who has designed a strategy to reunite our country around an agenda of renewal for the 21st century — to bring out the best in us. His “genius” is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country.

And Karl Rove has succeeded at that in the past because he was sure that he could sell just enough Bush cigarettes, even though people knew they caused cancer. Please, please, for our country’s health, prove him wrong this time.

Let Karl know that you’re not stupid. Let him know that you know that the most patriotic thing to do in this election is to vote against an administration that has — through sheer incompetence — brought us to a point in Iraq that was not inevitable but is now unwinnable.

Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq — and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate — it means our country has become a banana republic. It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account.

It means we’re as stupid as Karl thinks we are.

I, for one, don’t think we’re that stupid. Next Tuesday we’ll see.

nice.

who wrote it?

nice.

who wrote it?

Ooops...

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 3, 2006

Let me get this straight: Kerry is the one who insinuates that only those who are stupid enough not to go to college will become soldiers, yet Bush is the one questioning the intelligence of our armed forces?

Let me get this straight: Kerry is the one who insinuates that only those who are stupid enough not to go to college will become soldiers, yet Bush is the one questioning the intelligence of our armed forces?

Oh, the irony! :)

Let me get this straight: Kerry is the one who insinuates that only those who are stupid enough not to go to college will become soldiers, yet Bush is the one questioning the intelligence of our armed forces?LOL
Have you read anything lately?
If we made this big of a deal everytime Bush misspoke, we'd have time to discuss nothing else.
Kerry misspoke while trying to insult Bush, not the troops. Get on board.

a pox on both your houses!

Let me get this straight: Kerry is the one who insinuates that only those who are stupid enough not to go to college will become soldiers, yet Bush is the one questioning the intelligence of our armed forces?

No matter how you look at Kerry's remark (op.1: Bush is an idiot and got us stuck there or op.2: students with grades too low to get college scholarships often turn to the military in order to have the chance to attend college), It's still not as insulting as Bush's idiotic lack of planning and lack of support in the armed forces.

Insulting? No: Lying to the people, sending in too little troops and not giving them adequate equipment, not having a plan (and thus shifting twice as much work to the already overstretched troops), and then painting a rosy picture of their progress even as they lie dying with their mission uncompleted... That's worse than insulting. :upyours:

Kerry misspoke while trying to insult Bush, not the troops.

Unfortunately, that argument is ruined by the fact that Kerry defended his speech in the face of overwhelming criticism while Bush readily admits that he lacks an adequate grasp of the English language and grammar in particular. One can easily see that Kerry meant what he said by his refusal to immediately retract his insulting comments.

One can easily see that Kerry meant what he said by his refusal to immediately retract his insulting comments.

Yes, he meant what he said, in the way he meant it.

He did not mean what he said in the way other people interpreted it.

Let me get this straight: Kerry is the one who insinuates that only those who are stupid enough not to go to college will become soldiers, yet Bush is the one questioning the intelligence of our armed forces?

No. The point to teh article is that Bush's incompetence has gotten over 3,000 of our troops killed and countless more maimed in a venture that didn't have to be a loser but that is because of the amazing incompetence and arrogance with which this war was fought and that Rove is hoping you are stupid enough to concentrate on a botched joke rather than the real issue in this election which is, of course, the war in Iraq and the historic stupidity with which it was handled.

Got it now? ;)

Unfortunately, that argument is ruined by the fact that Kerry defended his speech in the face of overwhelming criticism while Bush readily admits that he lacks an adequate grasp of the English language and grammar in particular. One can easily see that Kerry meant what he said by his refusal to immediately retract his insulting comments.

I'm going to ask that people in this thread ignore any discussion on Kerry's remarks and focus on the war in Iraq as the article asks us to do. :)

The fact that Bush chose to send in our soldiers without adequate supplies or manpower should be evidence enough that Bush & Co. doesn't give a damn about our troops. I applaud the author of the article.

Unfortunately, that argument is ruined by the fact that Kerry defended his speech in the face of overwhelming criticism while Bush readily admits that he lacks an adequate grasp of the English language and grammar in particular. One can easily see that Kerry meant what he said by his refusal to immediately retract his insulting comments.

That's the stupidest thing I have heard in this entire debate.

Anyway, this whole argument is a moot point because the troops are stupid. Why else would they join up to fight in a long, difficult war when they know they stand an excellent chance of being severely wounded? Yes, they are patriotic and altruistic, but, when it comes down to it, they are also completely irrational. Any nation banks on the stupidity of its troops, as does Bush. It's nothing new.

Speaking as a non-American, I'd say that this article is intended to work in a very similar way it criticises Rove for working in. Friedman says that "[Rove's] “genius” is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country". What he is doing is not on the same scale at all - he is putting a very legitimate political issue under the spotlight - but he is trying to force people to focus on just one issue, the situation in Iraq.

An election should not be decided on just one issue. Americans should not necessarily vote against a Republican candidate simply because s/he supports the war in Iraq and the Democrat or other main opposition candidate opposes it.

Kerry's "irrelevant aside" is nowhere near on the same scale as the almighty cock-up that has been the coalition's invasion of Iraq. But by focusing solely on Iraq and not touching on any other issue, Friedman is as bad as Rove in manipulating the electorate.

Anyway, this whole argument is a moot point because the troops are stupid. Why else would they join up to fight in a long, difficult war when they know they stand an excellent chance of being severely wounded? Yes, they are patriotic and altruistic, but, when it comes down to it, they are also completely irrational. Any nation banks on the stupidity of its troops, as does Bush. It's nothing new.

Actually many people join the armed forces because they believe it is their patriotic duty. Regardless, Bush et. al. have betrayed our troops and our nation by dragging them and our country into a war he was not competent enough to wage. His arrogance has cost our country and the world greatly. The mistakes Rumsfeld has made and Bush has allowed to happen with his blind loyalty are historic in nature and may very well damage our country and the world in ways that we may never recover from. This war isn't Vietnam. It's much, much worse.

Actually many people join the armed forces because they believe it is their patriotic duty.

Yes, I have stated that. However, the marginal costs of joining the army and being deployed to Iraq greatly outweigh the marginal benefits of such an action. Thus, it is an irrational path to take. That also makes it stupid.

Actually many people join the armed forces because they believe it is their patriotic duty. Regardless, Bush et. al. have betrayed our troops and our nation by dragging them and our country into a war he was not competent enough to wage. His arrogance has cost our country and the world greatly. The mistakes Rumsfeld has made and Bush has allowed to happen with his blind loyalty are historic in nature and may very well damage our country and the world in ways that we may never recover from. This war isn't Vietnam. It's much, much worse.

That's nice, but what MTAE is trying to say is that he really wants to hijack this thread by making outlandish statements. Please stop tormenting him by staying on topic and logical! :)

Speaking as a non-American, I'd say that this article is intended to work in a very similar way it criticises Rove for working in. Friedman says that "[Rove's] “genius” is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country". What he is doing is not on the same scale at all - he is putting a very legitimate political issue under the spotlight - but he is trying to force people to focus on just one issue, the situation in Iraq.

An election should not be decided on just one issue. Americans should not necessarily vote against a Republican candidate simply because s/he supports the war in Iraq and the Democrat or other main opposition candidate opposes it.

Kerry's "irrelevant aside" is nowhere near on the same scale as the almighty cock-up that has been the coalition's invasion of Iraq. But by focusing solely on Iraq and not touching on any other issue, Friedman is as bad as Rove in manipulating the electorate.

There are plenty of other issues to worry about in this election it's true, but sometimes one issue is of such paramount importance as to dwarf all the others. That aside, Friedman writes plenty about all kinds of issues. In this particular article he is attacking a republican strategy to distract people from the war in Iraq so that's what he concentrates on.

Yes, I have stated that. However, the marginal costs of joining the army and being deployed to Iraq greatly outweigh the marginal benefits of such an action. Thus, it is an irrational path to take. That also makes it stupid.

Yeah. Any side issue or comment you can make to avoid discussing Bush's competence and the conditions in Iraq as a result of them. I understand. Were I a Bush cheerleader for so long I might do the same thing accept that I actually wrote an article to the LA Times in support of this president that was published in the days leading up to the war.


It's okay to admit you were wrong in your support of this president. In fact, I think you'll find it liberating.


Or you can go on dodging the central issue of our time. Up to you. :)

Or you can go on dodging the central issue of our time. Up to you. :)

Going to war was the correct decision, and it will reap incredible rewards in the future, once the country has been stabilized. Just you wait and see. :)

a pox on both your houses!

No, I'm not seeing that one. One house at a time, more like. Let's start with the elephants. They like being first.

There are plenty of other issues to worry about in this election it's true, but sometimes one issue is of such paramount importance as to dwarf all the others.
Maybe, but right now the situation in Iraq is fucked up. If the Republicans maintain control of both houses, I don't imagine they'll fuck it up too muc more. However, if the Democrats gain control of either or both houses, the Republicans won't be able to fuck it up any more. So it's really not so big an issue.

The Iraq war was a massive issue in the last UK general election, but fortunately people didn't just focus on that. If they had, Labour could quite conceivably have lost their majority. My point is that the Iraq issue isn't actually such a massive issue. It's important, and may well be the single most important issue, but I don't believe it's of such 'paramount importance' that it 'dwarf[s] all others'.

Maybe the feeling is different in America, though the British have always opposed the war far more than Americans have.

Going to war was the correct decision, and it will reap incredible rewards in the future, once the country has been stabilized. Just you wait and see. :)

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!


*sucks in his breath*


Bwaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

*wipes away a tear*

I'm sorry...

I thought you were serious.

Oh, man... you kill me.

Anyhoo, what do you think of the decision to send in a mere 150,000 troops for teh occupation when Colin Powell and many of the top brass at the Pentagon, people who had fought a war previously and won in teh Gulf, told Rumsfeld that they'd need at 300,000? You think that was a good decision?

Maybe, but right now the situation in Iraq is fucked up. If the Republicans maintain control of both houses, I don't imagine they'll fuck it up too muc more. However, if the Democrats gain control of either or both houses, the Republicans won't be able to fuck it up any more. So it's really not so big an issue.

The Iraq war was a massive issue in the last UK general election, but fortunately people didn't just focus on that. If they had, Labour could quite conceivably have lost their majority. My point is that the Iraq issue isn't actually such a massive issue. It's important, and may well be the single most important issue, but I don't believe it's of such 'paramount importance' that it 'dwarf[s] all others'.

Maybe the feeling is different in America, though the British have always opposed the war far more than Americans have.

We need a comprehensive program for dealing with the mess this administration has made in Iraq. It has become plainly obvious that this administration is far too stupid to come up with one of their own. The only way I can see that we can get one soon is to get a hostile Congress that will force change in the administration. If the Dems win Rumsfeld will be called to testify before Congress weekly. He will be held to account and his incompetence will no longer be something the administration can dodge. Hopefully they can force his resignation and hopefully they can force Bush to accept a more competent Secretary of Defense. I don't believe there is really anything more important than that right now. If the Republicans maintain control we will have two more years of this and the damage these arrogant idiots may cause can be catastrophic.

Yeah. That's what I thought. MTAE - Please don't vote.

Okay, question of rhetorical likings.

Did the troops volunteer for the army or not?

Because that does seem a vital point.

-=Cybornia=-

Okay, question of rhetorical likings.

Did the troops volunteer for the army or not?

Because that does seem a vital point.

-=Cybornia=-

Yes and they have the right to expect better from the administration who sends them to war.

Going to war was the correct decision, and it will reap incredible rewards in the future, once the country has been stabilized. Just you wait and see. :)

Incredible benefits for whom, MTOE? And at what price? You seem all too willing to ignore the fact that the justifications offered by the Bush Administration for this war have proven to be grossly untrue. You're setting aside the fact that the promise of a quick resolution and "open-arms" greeting has, again, proven to be grossly untrue.

Whether you attribute this to the blatant intentional lies alleged by Bush detractors or the "best of intentions" explanation offered by Bush supporters ignores the fact that it amounts to clear and undeniable incompetence under either scenario. If there's a reason to vote against Bush and Company, that's the reason.

And Americans are finally coming around to understanding this. Your march to the polls to vote for the Neo-Cons on November 7th will be a lonely trip indeed. I'd wish you good luck, but I love my country too much for that.

See you at the polls.

You think that was a good decision?

In retrospect, no. We did not anticipate that the Iraqis would start butchering each other in cold blood and that they would plunge the country in a civil war. We gave them every opportunity to succeed, but they did not take it. However, the decision was made to minimize the cost to the US, and it was a good one at the time. If the Iraqis had acted rationally, it would have been a good one today, too. This is a funny picture regarding Kerry's supposed "gaffe."

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=20389

In retrospect, no. We did not anticipate that the Iraqis would start butchering each other in cold blood and that they would plunge the country in a civil war. We gave them every opportunity to succeed, but they did not take it. However, the decision was made to minimize the cost to the US, and it was a good one at the time. If the Iraqis had acted rationally, it would have been a good one today, too. This is a funny picture regarding Kerry's supposed "gaffe."

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=20389

...uh, no. They acted in a predictable, human fashion, one which we all knew would occur. We didn't plan for anything, let alone the things that would make sense to plan for, such as sectarian violence.

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=20389

Heh. That image was made simply for humor value. Recent article in the paper(Important to local papers, as those are Minnesota National Guardsmen, btw) revealed that the soldiers only did it for humor. They really didn't believe that Kerry meant what he said, in other words. They took a bad joke, and turned into something funny.

But meh, things like this tend to be blown way out of the realm of the original intention. And MTAE, there were plenty of people who knew what was going to happen. Any body who has ever studied the region at all could easily have guessed it. Bush's ignoring of this shows real incompetence. In war, you should prepare for the worst and hope for the best. That way, if the worst does happen, you are not caught with your pants down. Bush has shown his incompetence with this, as many others mishandlings which could have been easily forseen and guarded against.

In retrospect, no. We did not anticipate that the Iraqis would start butchering each other in cold blood and that they would plunge the country in a civil war. We gave them every opportunity to succeed, but they did not take it. However, the decision was made to minimize the cost to the US, and it was a good one at the time. If the Iraqis had acted rationally, it would have been a good one today, too. This is a funny picture regarding Kerry's supposed "gaffe."

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=20389

They were told over and over by their own advisors. That's, in fact, why Colin Powell told Rumsfeld they'd need 300,000 troops. This was not only forseeable, Rumsfeld was told this would happen by military personel that he then fired and did what he wanted to do - which of course resulted in the destruction of Iraq's civil infrastructure.

Secon question. In retrospect, do you think it was a good idea to disolve the civil structure of Iraq's government? By that I mean the part that says, "Go clean this street and fix this pot hole. Okay ma'am here's you new ID card. The meeting of the city council is now adjourned." That part of teh government. Rumsfeld was warned that if he did that there would be no way to administer Iraq and that the military would then have to do it. What do you think? Good idea? :)

Anyway, this whole argument is a moot point because the troops are stupid. Why else would they join up to fight in a long, difficult war when they know they stand an excellent chance of being severely wounded? Yes, they are patriotic and altruistic, but, when it comes down to it, they are also completely irrational. Any nation banks on the stupidity of its troops, as does Bush. It's nothing new.

I have a friend in Iraq at this moment and he is a better man than you will ever be!
You are a sniveling little cowardly troll that contradicts himself from one moment to the next in a vain attempt to draw attention to yourself.
You are obviously a very lonely and insecure person that can offer nothing of substance to a debate and must stoop to trolling.

One minute you praise the soldiers as being liberators bringing freedom and the next you say that they are stupid for having more guts than you ever will have.

Stop cheerleading for the mess that is the war in Iraq and join up to fight if you believe it is such a worthy cause.

Oh and in my friends name and the name of all of our military personnel I salute you :upyours:

One minute you praise the soldiers as being liberators bringing freedom and the next you say that they are stupid for having more guts than you ever will have.

Since when are being stupid and being brave mutually exclusive? In fact, the two often go hand in hand. Despite being stupid, our troops are performing an excellent and necessary function in Iraq. They are the ones who are bringing freedom, prosperity, and stability to Iraq. They are performing an incredibly noble mission and great cost to themselves. Because of this, they are altruistic, courageous, extroverted, and...idiotic.

Since when are being stupid and being brave mutually exclusive? In fact, the two often go hand in hand. Despite being stupid, our troops are performing an excellent and necessary function in Iraq. They are the ones who are bringing freedom, prosperity, and stability to Iraq. They are performing an incredibly noble mission and great cost to themselves. Because of this, they are altruistic, courageous, extroverted, and...idiotic.
technically not altruistic, in the real sense of the word. and not necessarily extroverted, until a landmine turns them inside out.

In this one case, I'm going to agree with MTAE that I don't think Kerry did make a gaffe, he got carried away at the graduation. BUT, soldiers can't all be idiots, because more than a few of them are in the army so they CAN pay to go to college. Currently, the majority of the armed forces are also made up of second-generation immigrants, who want to prove their loyalty to their new country, which is not exclusive of intelligence. that is not to say the army isn't full of morons, and possibly has a higher percentage of such than other fields. it's just trollish to say they all are.

for instance, read this (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-brooks3nov03,0,3042644.column?track=mostviewed-storylevel)

Unfortunately, that argument is ruined by the fact that Kerry defended his speech in the face of overwhelming criticism while Bush readily admits that he lacks an adequate grasp of the English language and grammar in particular. One can easily see that Kerry meant what he said by his refusal to immediately retract his insulting comments.

Now if we can only get him to admit that he botched the war, the economy, and his life he'll be well on his road to recovery.

The problem is, he opted for religious conversion instead of Alcoholics Anonymous. AA makes you take some responsibility for your actions. His religion tells him that he can just start over. Problem is, if you start over but you're still the same old dumbass, you'll screw up just as badly all over again.

Since when are being stupid and being brave mutually exclusive? In fact, the two often go hand in hand. Despite being stupid, our troops are performing an excellent and necessary function in Iraq. They are the ones who are bringing freedom, prosperity, and stability to Iraq. They are performing an incredibly noble mission and great cost to themselves. Because of this, they are altruistic, courageous, extroverted, and...idiotic.

Rather like voting republican. You are creating a national situation that is harmful to you, which might be considered brave, but you do so because you're not intelligent enough to vote for more liberal politicians. Stupidity leads to Republicanism.

Bush never insulted the troops, he stands with them. Kerry on the other hand voted against body armor for them. How insulting is that? Thats basically saying I hope to get shot, and I'm not giving to protection because I want you to die. I think you need to look at whos insulting who. Just look at their records.

Kerry botches a joke and actually says those who don't go to college get stuck in Iraq. No matter what he meant to say, that's what he said.

Next Bush bashes Kerry for calling those who go to Iraq (the soldiers) stupid.

Now everyone's pissed because Kerry meant to say that when you don't go to college, you get the country stuck in Iraq?

Did anyone ever notice Both Kerry and Bush WENT TO THE SAME BLOODY COLLEGE!!!!!!!

even if Kerry had said his joke "properly" it would still have been inaccurate.

No one denies Bush is a retarded shmuck, every politician is, that's why they get our vote! We apparently like retards.

Every time a politician says something stupid, the other side takes advantage of it. Do you mean to tell me that democrats have not taken advantage of the fact that Bush can't get through a single speech without saying pronouncing something wrong...hmm. Sounds a little one sided