Here's a particularly nasty editorial

[dwahzon]

from the Williamsport, PA newspaper, the Williamsport Sun-Gazette:

Kerry earned his place

outside the spotlight The campaign season is over, but we cannot let pass Massachusetts Senator and still bitter presidential wanna-be John Kerry’s insult of our troops when he declared on a campus stop that students need to do well, or else “you get stuck in Iraq.” His completely in-character gaffe brought deserved condemnation, including some from leading Democrats.

Kerry disappeared from the campaign trail, so as not to be a “distraction” to Democratic campaigns. But before he left he issued a non-apology apology in which he failed to actually apologize for the insult. He said: “I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.”

He placed fault not upon himself — he who is so much smarter than the merely average voter or GI — but upon the listener. His blunt words were somehow “misinterpreted,” and it wasn’t what he said that was wrong but the fact that others were “offended,” presumably because they “misinterpreted” his insult.

The situation in Iraq certainly could be better. We doubt there’s an American to be found who does not wish for peace in that troubled land and who does not pray that our troops may come home soon. But beyond brickbats, Kerry and his ilk offered no constructive policy alternative before the election and the jury is still out on what they will do about Iraq with their newly-acquired power.

We share in much of the evident voter disgust with Washington’s political sclerosis. But there’s a war on, and troops are facing the extraordinarily difficult task of helping the fledgling Iraqi government get on its feet.

Kerry’s remarks did nothing to support the troops in that cause. And they didn’t help the nation get any closer to viable alternatives to the current strategy in Iraq. All they really did is expose him as a hypocrite regarding a foreign policy decision he voted to support and an unproductive troublemaker.

Democrats were wise to get Kerry out of the spotlight in the final week of the campaign. And while they may be united in their distaste of President Bush and his foreign policy stances in particular, it is our belief that the party can do much better than Kerry when considering alternatives to Bush. No less an authority than Kerry made that obvious.

Section: Editorials Posted: 11/18/2006

Do we know anyone in the general vicinity in PA who might want to respond?

[blm]

1. Send them the Thom Friedman article in FULL - I doubt they would click on

a link.

Also send the Seattle editorial.

[wisteria]

2. I will be replying to this.

What does this tell you? To me it means they are trying to continue the smear for no better reason than they want to discredit a strong voice against this war and this administrtation and perhaps even try to knock him out of the race.

[ProSense]

3. This is just plain stupid!

We share in much of the evident voter disgust with Washington’s political sclerosis. But there’s a war on, and troops are facing the extraordinarily difficult task of helping the fledgling Iraqi government get on its feet.

It's so blatantly obvious that this is all about Iraq. But nothing, Bush's war is has unnecessarily destroyed lives. Write an editorial about that!

[TayTay]

5. Discredit the critics, delegitimize the criticism

Which is not really going to do any good.

John Kerry did not screw up this war. George W Bush did. Nearly every single decision made from Nov 2003 to now has resulted in our troops and our national security being put in greater and greater danger. Sen. Kerry is trying to get our troops out of a situation that risks their lives for no discernable cause or gain and that places their lives in unnecessary jeopardy.

Editorials like this posit that a botched joke is worse than a botched policy on the war. That is, on the face of it and on the merits, idiotic.

It is not John Kerry who is putting the lives of America's troops at risk, it is the Bush war policy that has been an unmitigated failure at every conceivable turn. If I was looking for people wno did not support the troops, I would start with a Commander in Chief who failed to arm them properly, failed to provide competent leadership for them and has no plan for Iraq beyond 'stay-the-course.'

This failure belongs solely to George W. Bush. He is the author of this bitter botched joke of a policy in Iraq and bears the responsibility for it.

[ProSense]

6. Deep denial and spin can no longer mask

the quagmire:

Turning A Corner On Iraq

By Jeremy Greenstock
Saturday, November 18, 2006; Page A21

Avoiding defeat in Iraq is an unavoidably critical national interest -- for the United States as for Britain. If potentially lethal enemies are strengthened and re-motivated, the consequences will haunt us long after the headlines about withdrawal have faded.

Yet the United States and Britain have never attempted a truly comprehensive policy on Iraq. Unless the United States and its principal allies construct an approach that brings all available resources to bear to establish stability, there will be no point in staying in the country when all objective observers see a continuing downward spiral. If we are left with only the current policy, then we might as well cut our losses and withdraw.

We have to help Iraq's politicians put the country's unity above their sectarian priorities. The Iraqi government has to talk to the ugly but essential players who think differently but have a stake in the outcome. Only those with absolutist agendas that cannot encompass the nationhood of Iraq -- the al-Qaeda franchise and other non-Iraqi insurgents, for instance -- should be left out of the process.

The problems of the federal constitution, the distribution of Iraq's resources and the role of the unofficial militias have to be resolved in the direction of preserving the unity of the nation. Political and sectarian leaders need to insist that the state has a monopoly on the use of armed force. If they refuse, and the coalition leaves, they must be made aware that they are themselves unlikely to survive the coming chaos.

The Iraqi army must be asked to take on an increasing amount of the burden, with the coalition taking the calculated chance of equipping it more adequately. The army is the security institution with the highest status in the eyes of the population as a whole and the only one that is not largely corrupted and penetrated. Testing the Iraqi army next year, with the coalition stepping back off the streets and perhaps reducing its numbers, is a gamble that has to be taken. If it fails, and the coalition leaves, a national army will be unlikely to survive.

more...

The writer was Britain's special envoy for Iraq in 2003-04. He is now director of the Ditchley Foundation.

If the U.S. army wasn't stretched too thin and devastated by three years in Iraq
If the Shiite majority hadn't issued an arrest warrant for a top Sunni leader
If the security forces weren't infiltrated by insurgents (the Iraqis who want foreigners out of their country)
If the U.S. could trust the Iraqi army enough to give them the best weapons.
If the sectarian violence would end.

If is a way of prolonging denial. Bush's illegal war is a quagmire!

[wisteria]

7. Do you mind if I use some of your words and thoughts in my letter

you have summerized it all so well?

[ginnyinWI]

17. it's more evidence of media bias.

What you wrote reminded me of JK when he said, "what's worse, making a mistake in the way you talk about a war, or making a mistake in the way you take a country to war?" (something to that effect). The media equated the two!

What's going to turn off those loud voices in the media who continually hold Dems to a different standard? Or I should say, don't hold the Repubs to any standards at all and save all of their fire for the Dems.

[whometense]

4. Here's a great one, to balance it out

from The Philadelphia Tribune:

Kerry’s misstatement bore unpleasant truth
By Bill Fletcher Jr.

...Kerry’s remarks may have, however, been a Freudian slip. In other words, while I believe that he intended to make a wisecrack criticizing President Bush, there may, at the same time, have been something else that he was thinking about, something that I think is quite important.

What Kerry’s remarks actually point to is something that you and I both know to be true: although the military is called “voluntary,” there is a draft. The draft is both an economic draft and a draft for those who are lost between the cracks of society. If one has few economic options; if one has not done well in school; if one is of color; if one is from an economically depressed region, the military can often look like not only the best option, but the only option.

This is not troop-bashing. It is a reality. Too many of our youth, particularly prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq, looked at the military as a means to stabilize their lives and, perhaps, get some skills. For many urban youth, the military looked liked an alternative to either gang life or life in some low wage industry. My high school-aged daughter has many friends that fit into one or another of these categories. I am thinking of one right now and I can hear in his voice the frustration of feeling that he has no alternative but to enter the military and possibly die in Afghanistan or Iraq.

So, where is the controversy? Instead of focusing on Kerry stumbling over his words, there should be a discussion about why there are few alternatives for our youth. In fact, we should use this incident to engage in a broader discussion that covers not only education but also the economy. I wish that Kerry had used this moment to talk about what happens to youth who do not do well in school, or to discuss the fact that with the declining number of high wage jobs in manufacturing for semi-skilled workers, the chances for working class youth to succeed — be they white, Black, brown, yellow, red — is in a continuous decline; actually a tail-spin...

[wisteria]

8. Something about Williamsport,PA- They were Bush country in 04.

This is the rual Harrisburg area. They are as unenlightened as the part of the state I live in. I would expect them to go easy on Bush, but that editorial was nasty and very personal in the way it suggested certain things about Senator kerry. I wrote them and linked to some articles. At the least, they know that some people aren't happy with their personal accusations and called them on their lack of reaseach into the whole flub.

[karynnj]

9. That is one nasty RW POS

What is clear with words like "kerry and his ilk" (speaking of which is that us???) and the few that Kerry has not offered a constructive alternative is that they hated Kerry way before he flubbed the joke.

Just to focus my anger, I responded - though I doubt it will pass any moderation they have. Here's what I wrote.

"To the editor:

Your editorial on John Kerry reflect's your own pre-conceived biases. Senator Kerry's comment was intended to refer to fact that President Bush did not do the appropriate planning before the war. The President chose the invasion date and did not even have a plan to secure KNOWN UN inspector controlled ammo dumps. Those dumps became the source for a good part of the ieds thrown at our soldiers.

John Kerry has a record of working for veterans that goes back to the 1970s. Even in his Senate testimony, he spoke of the unmet needs of the returning vets. He fought for coverage for the affects of agent orange and PTSD. This week, his amendment for $18 million of emergency spending for veterans centers to deal with PTSD was passed. The administration has allowed the VA to be about $60 million underfunded. To hear NH and MA veterans speak of the work done at this center and to hear Senators Cleland and Kerry interact with these vets will challange your expressed view - there is strong mutual respect between Kerry and the vets who have known him for over 2 decades.(http://ksgaccman.harvard.edu/iop/events_forum_video.asp?ID=2973)

You say Senator Kerry and his "ilk" have not come up with any alternatives - but he had a better plan in 2004. At that time the RNC snidely said that that was what Bush was already doing. Kerry's plan that included a regional summit, intensive diplomacy, quickly training Iraqi - using offered assistance from other countries and stating we want no permanent bases - was NOT Bush's plan and still isn't. This week, the defense appropriation bill passed including wording from Kerry's amendment calling for a regional summit. Apparently Republican Senator Warner who backed its inclusion thinks more highly of Senator Kerry than you do.

[ProSense]

10. Excellent letter!

You're right though, this is a RW POS.

Kerry and his ilk offered no constructive policy alternative before the election and the jury is still out on what they will do about Iraq with their newly-acquired power.

Translation: Democrats have no plans!

[ProSense]

11. OT: The media really

sucks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2976698&mesg_id=2976698

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2976877&mesg_id=2976877

[beachmom]

12. I used to like Maureen Dowd, but that was only when she bashed

Bush. Now I realize she mostly just went after Bush's PERSONALITY, and the family's PERSONA. That's so girly gossipy, but really you have to wonder if she believes in anyone or anything, except her own ego/low self esteem.

[ProSense]

13. The media has gone completely over the edge:

Republicans plot to bring down Pelosi ... and Clinton with her

By Hans Nichols and Philip Sherwell in Washington, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:28am GMT 19/11/2006

New Speaker's embarrassing week has made it easier for her opponents to attack

Snip...

Mrs Pelosi, 66, who is married to a multi-millionaire property investor, will become the most powerful woman in American political history when the new House sits for the first time in January.

As speaker, she ranks second-in-line to the presidency after Dick Cheney, the vice-president. Her solidly liberal voting record during her 19 years as a San Francisco congresswoman have made her a long-time target for Republican strategists' attacks.

[MBS]

15. boy, you've nailed her

It's her cynicism, the girlish gossip, and the narcissicism that really get to me

[ProSense]

14. OT: Giuliani hires Swift Liar contributor:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2976466&mesg_id=2976466

[wisteria]

16. if Giuliani gets anywhere near the presidency, I will have to leave this country.

Who the hell told him he has what it takes to become president? I can't stand him on any level.