Nov 01 2006

Apology Not Accepted

Published by at 6:42 pm under All General Discussions

Senator Kerry keeps demonstrating how he and his party look down and dismiss the sacrifices of our brave men and women. This issue started because he implied (deliberately or accidentally) that those who fought and died for this country in Iraq were uneducated dupes who should have ‘tried to be smart’. Then he said it was a joke about Bush being dumb and uneducated getting us stuck in Iraq. Implying those who believed as Bush did that Iraq was a worthy cause (which Kerry echoed and a Democrat led Senate confirmed in a huge vote supporting the Iraq war) are just as dumb and as uneducated as the guy who led us into Iraq. Like somehow that made all the difference in terms of making the insult acceptable.

Now Kerry further insults the people of this nation and the brave heroes who have died in this nation’s cause, by not even having the decency to submit a sincere apology. The insincerity of the apology indicates that Kerry really does hold our military in low esteem. First, the window for a sincere apology was yesterday, before polls and political pressure was applied. Second, a sincere apology is given in person, eye to eye. It is not shoved out on a website because the Democrats are afraid Kerry may say something even more revealing. That is also an indication this is not sincere and simply a callous political CYA move. And Third, a sincere apology comes from the heart, not your staff. We have no idea if this is Kerry’s words, let alone his sincere beliefs. It doesn’t sound like him and there is no proof he did not just tell a staffer to write something up and get it out so, as CNN let slip, they can hold this story from bleeding over into a new day. An apology of this magnitude needs to have no caveats, rejoinders, diversions or other clutter. It should be said without ANY reference to Bush or the election – that would show sincerity. None of the comments from the Dems have had that critical feature.

And that is the fourth reason the Democrats are not being sincere at all. Hillary Clinton said defending our war dead from derision and insult was ‘a distraction’. The Democrats and liberal media keep saying this deflects from Bush’s Iraq war record. Excuse me, but we all know what the war record is in Iraq. It is the Democrats and Liberal media who cannot take the time to properly defend our war dead. It is these lefty partisan vultures who cannot take the time and muster the sincerity to make sure it is clear to one and all those who died on foriegn soil believing they were sacrificing for this country are truly honorable people.

No, the apology is not acceptable because it is not real or sincere. It was delayed to check polls overnight. It was made under pressure. It was not made in person. There is no indication it was Kerry’s true feelings at all. And it came with calls to not be distracted from the Democrat message. Kerry never apologized once for his disparaging comments from the Vietnam War, so I doubt his shallow little ego was able to muster one now. And you do not say your sorry because people took your words the wrong way. You say your sorry for using the wrong words. I have a better idea, why not vote the Dems out and see if they are still sorry for what happened, or whether they start blaming the reps and the American people for having the audacity to stand up for their fallen neighbors. No one insults our fallen heroes without hearing from me. I don ‘t care if you are foriegn or domestic, insulting those who gave it all for this country is a declaration of war, in my opinion. Bring on November 7th. Let’s end this ugly party’s credibility in this nation once and for all. The liberals have been belittling the credibilty of our military for so long, it is the least the nation could do but return the favor. Vote “Yes” for our military heroes in November – vote against the Dems.

More at Michelle Malkin’s as many of us are just not buying. Sadly too many are.

36 responses so far

36 Responses to “Apology Not Accepted”

  1. Retired Spook says:

    AJ, in the nearly one year that I’ve been coming here, you’ve written some pretty passionate posts, but this one is right up near the top. As our friends the Brits would say: SPOT ON!!

    I hope this incident energizes several million more voters to get out and vote Republican next Tuesday.

    Dale, I friend of mine e-mailed me the VDH piece this afternoon. It’s also SPOT ON!!

    Lets all go out on Tuesday and kick some Jack[ass].

  2. yipster says:

    Another excellent post AJ! Non-apology not accepted! AJ, the strata is a daily read for me. Appreciate ya!

  3. DubiousD says:

    Another spot-on quote, this one from blogger Baseball Crank:

    “[W]here, I would ask, is the evidence that Kerry is better at admitting mistakes than Bush? This is a guy who brought all sorts of political grief to himself by stubbornly refusing for three decades to admit that he was wrong to repeat false charges, under oath and on national televison, that smeared his comrades in Vietnam as guilty of pervasive war crimes. Has Kerry admitted he was wrong to oppose nearly every aspect of the foreign policy strategy that President Reagan pursused to great effect in the closing and victorious chapter of the Cold War? Has he admitted he was wrong to oppose the use of force to kick Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991? Maybe I missed something, but I don’t even recall him admitting he was wrong for trying to slash the intelligence budget in the mid-1990s following the first World Trade Center bombing. Indeed, one of the most common threads throughout Kerry’s behavior in this campaign has been his unwillingness to take any personal responsibility for mistakes, from blaming his speechwriters for things that come out of Kerry’s own mouth to picayune things like blaming the Secret Service when he falls down on the slopes. As Jonah Goldberg notes, Kerry’s “liberal hawk” backers may argue that the decades of bad judgment in Kerry’s past are rendered inoperative by September 11, but Kerry’s stubborn insistence that he hasn’t changed in response to September 11, and that he had the right answers all along even when he wrote a book in 1997 that barely mentioned Islamic terrorism, gives the lie to the notion that Kerry is a model of self-reflection. Even the man’s own supporters can’t seriously defend the proposition – on which many of them heaped well-deserved scorn during the primary season – that Kerry has been consistent from the start on whether Saddam was a serious threat that justified a military response. Yet there Kerry stands, insisting to all the world what nobody believes, that he hasn’t changed his position. Preferring Kerry to Bush because Bush won’t admit mistakes is like preferring fresh water to salt water because salt water is wet.”

  4. DubiousD says:

    Forgot to mention, the above-quote was a reprint of a Baseball Crank blog post from 2004, hence the phrase “in this campaign”.

  5. Karig says:

    I’m surprised. Where are the little leftist Baghdad Bobs saying “He apologized, so move the @#$! on”?

    For the record, I agree. That little “I’m sorry you didn’t get what I was saying” missive, written and posted by God knows who, doesn’t qualify as an apology, never mind a sincere one. No, a sincere apology would be Kerry saying in person something like “I insulted our military by saying what I did, and I’m sorry.” I don’t expect that Kerry will do that, though. If history is any precedent, Kerry will respond to a question with something defiant, like “I posted my apology already, so back off.”

  6. Ken says:


    “We all know what the war record is in Iraq.” You don’t, or you
    wouldn’t have a years long history of portraying the on-ground
    reality in overly optimistic terminology having scant
    resemblance to the bleak truth.

  7. AJStrata says:


    Unlike you I expected it to be much worse. But then I live in reality while you have some wierd TV Land thing going on. The goal is correct the progress vector is in the right direction. Wishing it would go faster is just naive.

  8. Ken says:

    You expected it to be much worse? Tell you what, AJ, take my word for this….I was not reading either this site, if extant, or any other of your comments in 2003 anywhere in cyberspace or in print.

    So I might be going out on a limb by saying I’ll send you a ten dollar donation if you can provide me one instance of pre-war public
    commentary on your part going against the grain of the neocons who assured us of easy victory.

  9. For Enforcement says:

    Ken, I would say you are in the Land of Oz, except I’m afraid you are to the far left of it.
    Pres Bush himself is on record as saying this would be a long hard war. I realize he’s not a neocon (I guess, I’m not even sure what a neocon is) but he’s the leader of the free world and he said it.

    I wouldn’t expect you to know that as you seem to know little other than Israel is bad and America is worse.

    If you think you know what a neocon is, give us a definition.
    Didn”t see your military resume’ yet either, chickenhawk

  10. Ken says:

    Bush only said “long hard war” after he could no longer disguise the unanticipated insurgency which, as Woodward showed, he ordered his team never to mention existed the first few months it had set in.
    Rummy followed with “long hard slog” contradicting his
    2003 assurances of a months long war.

    Cheney, Wolfowitz,Perle, Feith and Rumsfeld are all on pre-war record predicting a short war and stabilization of Iraq within a span of months. USA Today collected the embarrasing public quotes in a column last year.

  11. For Enforcement says:

    One is a book named neoconned the other a looney left site called neoconned. Neither defines ‘neocon’

    Wikipedia seems to define neocon as a person that was a liberal, democrat or socialist that is new to conservatism.

    If you think that is anything close to what it means, then
    Which of those persons you named above fit that category?
    I don’t think any fit the category as “new” to conservatism. Not withing the last 20 years or so anyhow.

    It is also defined as a derogatory term used by liberals, democrats and socialists, primarily to define the people that no longer believe in hating America as they themselves still do.

    So I guess if I used the term S**thead to describe you, it would be about the equivalent.

  12. Ken says:

    Norman Podhoretz and William Kristol were important founders of the neocon movment. Many were indeed originally Trotskyites
    and the increasing vulnerability of Israel motivated many to switch to a faux conservatism and push America into a slavishly pro-Israel
    Middle East policy..although all had been doves on Vietnam.

  13. Ken says:

    Buchanan provides relevant neocon names here.

  14. For Enforcement says:

    Ken, I started to say you disappoint me that you didn’t do a simple google check on what you said, but then that is actually what I would expect.

    William Kristol, a trotskyite and neocon. First, he’s not old enough. neocons were libs, dems or socialists that became conservatives in the early 60’s. That would have put Kristol in at age 8 or 9.

    Podhoretz, old enough, but no ref on google to him ever having been a fruitcake, I mean lib, dem or socialist prior to early 60’s. Not saying he wasn’t just not found on google.

    Don’t forget the definition:
    Wikipedia seems to define neocon as a person that was a liberal, democrat or socialist that is new to conservatism in the early ’60s.

    Buchanan’s list:
    Richard Perle, only problem here is he was a dem at least until 1980. neocons became neocons in early 60’s, not late 80’s that would put him in the latter day cons. not neo.

    David Brooks, he wasn’t even born til after the neocons were already in existence. So it’s not likely he was a Fruitcake(syn for lib, dem or socialist) prior to that time.

    Ken, you should do a little basic research. Calling a jewish conservative a neocon is like calling them a nasty name, it is like calling Black people the N word, so I think to avoid racism or bigotry, you should avoid it.

    And yes, I’m saying that to be a neocon as you seem to imply it is would mean you became a conservative in the early ’60s at the time of the “movement” joining in later doesn’t count. Doesn’t fit the definition. That would be like saying you were a WWII vet if you joined the Army in 1948 or later. You might be a vet, but not a wwii one. You might be a Conservative, but not a neocon.

    Quit mixing apples and oranges. Just like calling you an American doesn’t make you one.

  15. For Enforcement says:

    By the way Ken, I would expect you to be an admirer of Buchanan, he, formerly of the right, but now far left fringe, like you hates America also. He shows his hatred in opposite ways from you, but it’s there.