Posted on 11/01/2006 2:17:12 PM PST by Nachum
I think Kerry is lying about it being a botched joke.
The best evidence of this would be the various iterations of explanations that came out of the Kerry Kamp after Kerry's soldier-hate-speech was made public.
Also, the "botched Bush joke" doesn't neatly fit the context of the statement, the words preceding the statement, and the words, laughter, and smirk that followed the statement.
Since, Kerry's apology is premised on the "botched joke," this means that the apology is entirely insincere.
So do I.
I would have had a lot more respect if Kerry said either 1.) "That was an incredibly stupid thing I said, offensive and inexcusable," or 2.) "Yeah, I said it. Too many kids have to choose the military because they have no other option out of poverty. Got a problem with that?"
Either would have been preferable to this pandering.
Having recently retired from the Army, I know that our troops are not children of poverty. They're children of the middle class. My experience says that their education level would have been as high or higher than that of the students to whom Kerry was speaking at a Calif. Community College.
Certainly true. Many people join the military to pay for college. It therefore logically follows that they'd be better educated than the general population.
The truth is that the military offers a better college scholarship plan than does ANY other scholarship program except for those that give a full, free ride....and those are few and far between.
That's why it is a ticket out of poverty. That's not a bad thing, in and of itself - the problem is, there are so few other options.
I cannot disagree with you more. Discipline is the key to success in any field. The Military teaches discipline, but it also requires that those who enter into service have the necessary discipline to become soldiers. If you do not already have the tools to dig yourself out of poverty before you go in, you will not make it out of boot camp.
So the fact is that those who go into the military already have other options. Those who go into the military are already the kind of people who can easily make it in the Civilian world. Those who go in do not need the military to make them successful. They are willing to work hard and to become disciplined professionals.
I know you are planning a military career as an officer. I trust it is not because you have no other options. So don't lay that excuse at the feet of the enlisted men. They have other options too. They are by and large joining for the same reasons you are.
Something that should be considered about the quality of Army enlistees is that the Army's enlistees, while of very high quality, are not as high as those of the Marines, Navy, and Air Force.
I'm betting that the education and intellectual quality of the Air Force is highest. I'm an Army retiree, so I hate to compliment the AF any more than is absolutely necessary. :>)
There have been no unwilling recruits in the military since the end of the draft......about 1975? ALL of them have considered tehir options and chosen the military.
In my case, as a young kid in 1970, I truly was faced with enlisting or potentially being drafted. I enlisted, but I also was a middle class kid without a bank account for school. Honestly, though, I knew that I was in "heavy party mode" and that choosing school at that time would have been an extreme waste of time and money.
Four years later, when I did enter school with the GI bill and a lot of life experience, I had settled down and did extremely well.
The military offers young males something that college really doesn't....a chance to grow up, get disciplined, and get educated all, at the same time.
Editors pen:
Kerry makes indirect coward's (via web site) half-as*ed, convoluted, pseudo apology that was, in reality, another back handed slap to everyone: sorry if you dummies all "misinterpreted" my joke...
Hey, sKerry, you made mention of facing things like a "real man" - You don't know the meaning - but how could you?
Considering. The program for which I am applying is incredibly competitive.
I trust it is not because you have no other options. So don't lay that excuse at the feet of the enlisted men. They have other options too. They are by and large joining for the same reasons you are.
Many are; however, some do not. I've seen how recruiters work. I've seen the very good - like the guy helping me trying to get into the program for which I am applying - and the very bad (like the Army guy who tried to "guarantee" me if I enlisted, I'd get into the officer program I wanted.). I fear that there have been too many - even if they are the very small minority - who were manipulated, cajoled, and deceived into enlisting.
Xzins will probably agree that, while most recruiters are pretty solid, there have been some very shady ones. Coupled with desperation (most Junior ROTC programs are in the inner cities - sites of incredible poverty), that's a recipe for disaster in isolated instances.
I'm trying to think of other options, Jude, and my thoughts have instead gone to "why" some are offered scholarships in the first place. Why do some have to "pay" to attend higher education? Why do some programs pay for the attendee?
First, the norm is to offer 13 years of free public education. (Many parents, of course, privately educate even at this level.) That 13 years is designed to undergird the citizen with sufficient education to be sucessful in our culture.
Second, a higher education is designed to prepare a citizen to qualify for employment at some professional levels or to prepare them for further, specific education for other professional areas. (Law, med, etc. schools) The cost of this additional education has always been viewed as the responsibility of the student.
Why? Why is this not a public expense rather than a private expense? Perhaps because it is based on specific, personal decisions rather than on a general education that everyone should acquire.
Why should scholarships go only to those who've proven their scholastic ability? I'd say because the universities receive some benefit from having the best students associated with their programs. (The same reason they try to get the best football players.) It's good PR.
Why should scholarships NOT go to those who perform poorly? First, because it probably indicates a lack of desire, and second, it might indicate a lack of ability or preparation.
Why would anyone else want to offer money to students who might have questionable desire, ability, or preparation?
They wouldn't unless they had some other item of value that they wanted from those individuals.
The military wants trainable citizens for the defense of the nation. They recognize that some of these kids might be the victims of poor preparation and not always those who underachieve because of desire or ability. They are willing to take the risk AND offer a lot of education money because they are looking for quality soldiers.
Why would anyone else take that risk? What benefit would make it worth their expense?
LOL
or
"I'm not sure that what you think you heard was what I didn't mean to say out loud on camera...I forgot I wasn't at home with my fellow demSocialists. (Tahressa, you put too much gin in those damn raisins.)"
That's where the apology ends and the lies begin.
CPT MortMan says: BITE ME, JON CARRY!
Jude, I will agree that some recruiters are shady. And even the ones that are not shady are not necessarily as expert as they present themselves to be. The best advice to give any potential enlisted recruit is that he get any promise: (and I'm very serious) (1) In writing and SPECIFICALLY stated with ZERO alternatives mentioned, (2) signed, (3) dated, (4) notarized, and (5) in multiple copies.
I don't think most JROTC programs are in inner cities. I think most of them are in cities and states that have military bases nearby. I'm open to correction on that, though.
Unfortunately, in most states, they only go to the absolute best. Those who have shown good scholastic ability are still generally forced to take on substantial loans. Grants are becoming a thing of the past.
Personally, my proposal would be substantially identical to Georgia's program. If you graduate high school with a B average, and maintain a B average, they will pay for you to go to a State university. This is a good program and, actually, Zell Miller's baby.
I don't know that the "b" average program is in the best interest of the state.
It is not helpful to provide adults with a benefit that they don't have to pay for. Making them pay with some kind of required service is a far better policy.
I would favor a huge expansion of the Border & Coast Guards as an alternative to Active or Reserve Military service and a 2 year requirement of Border or Coastal service in payment of such a benefit.
It is wrong to give it for nothing. (I would consider repayment through service in certified inner city or other poverty areas....some kind of CCC program with a 2 year full time requirement.)
Increased tax receipts due to increased earning power are all the repayments needed.
I totally disagree.
It will devolve into just the 14th - 16th grade of public education, and the standards will be abysmal.
If their isn't a cost, then there isn't a valuing of it. Also, to "give" something to someone is to injure that man's initiative and honor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.