Where’s Your Outrage Now Chuck?

Last fall, when Senator John Kerry was delivering a speech for Phil Angelides in Southern California, the good Senator botched a joke.  He left out the word “us” as in “You get US stuck in Iraq.”  It was a dig at George W. Bush’s intelligence but the omission of the word “us” made it sound like Kerry had just defamed the intellect of all soliders in the military.

And it raised the ire of conservatives everywhere.  Including State Rep. Chuck DeVore.

From the Flash Report, last Halloween, this post from Nicholas Romero:

Stuck in Iraq or foot stuck in mouth?
Speaking yesterday at a rally for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides at Pasadena City College, Sen. John Kerry said, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
“Stuck in Iraq.”
Senator Kerry owes the men and women of the military an immediate apology and Phil Angelides should immediately distance himself from Kerry wrong-headed remarks, but, given Angelides’s call to pull the Guard out of Iraq AND off of the border with Mexico, I sincerely doubt he will.
The fact is that the U.S. military is better educated then the U.S. population as a whole.  As recently as 2004, 95 percent of all military enlisted had a high school diploma with another 5 percent having a GED whereas only 85 percent of the U.S. general population over the age of 25 have a high school diploma or a GED.  Less than 30 percent of the population over the age of 25 has a college degree compared to every officer in the military being required to have a 4-year degree.
I just heard Kerry on television give an angry response to calls for an apology.  Kerry and his elitist political allies are wrong and always have been wrong about the all-volunteer military and the highly patriotic motivations of those who serve.
Yet on CNN this week, House minority leader John Boehner, the weepy Congressman, had this exchange with Wolf Blizter:

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

So Chuck, so glad to know the Republican House Minority leader views the 3,700 soliders lives lost in this war is a “small price.”  That the nearly $3 billion a week is a “small price.”

I’m sure every military family feels that their son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, mother, father is a “small price.”

But there will be no outrage from the Right, because while Boehner is wrong and made a poor choice of words, unlike Kerry, he’s a Republican.  And what does Gila always say?


“It’s Alright if a Republican Does it.”


  7 comments for “Where’s Your Outrage Now Chuck?

  1. September 14, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    Dan, you really don’t GET the military ethos, do you? You have absolutely no clue as to why someone might VOLUNTEER to put their life on the line to protect the lives and liberty of people they’ve never met – even people who disagree with much of what they believe in such as yourself?

    Well, let me explain it to you. The attacks of 9/11 killed about 3,000 women, men, and children, mostly Americans, but many from other nations as well. The origins of the attacks have much to do with the current nature of the Middle East, much of it a feudal-era region rife with oppression and hatred. Most of the soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen I speak to know the stakes. They know that it we transform the region, even a bit, with our blood and treasure, into a region with more democracy and less oppression, more rights for women and less violence towards minorities, that we may be able to prevent future 9/11s, perhaps next with atomic weapons, nerve agents or biowarfare. And, if that can be done, it is indeed a small price in blood to pay compared to the massacres and sorrow that will come.

    If you don’t understand this, then there is little more I can explain to help you.

    As for Sen. Kerry’s comments, you can make all the excuses you want for him, as for me, I saw them for what they were, elitist and condescending remarks about the military as he thought it was in the draft-era days of Vietnam.

    Chuck DeVore
    State Assemblyman, 70th District
    Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Army National Guard

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    September 14, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    Do not lecture me on military ethos Chuck; I grew up in an Air Force town and have enough uncles and cousins who’ve served. And I may have mentioned before, my brother-in-law is based out of the Pentagon with a rank higher than yours. I didn’t serve, but I get military ethos, so don’t go there. They same thing applies to police and firefighters, doesn’t it?

    And let me explain to you that Iraq has nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. Al Qaeda is there now simply because we have invited them. And our presence is creating more terrorists, not fewer. And by the way, some of those oppressio nations in the Middle East are allies of ours, like Saudi Arabia; I believe they own a considerable chunk of this country right now thanks to the prudent fiscal policies of our Republican president. The PRC too.

    See the post on Freedom; Iran is considered more free than Iraq or Afghanistan. You cannot impose western-styled democracy on a country that never asked for it. Glad to see you’re towing the party line on selling the fear about future 9/11s.

    Kerry botched a joke. He stumbled over a line and left out a word. Bush does this sort of thing all the time, with almost no consequences. Is our children learning? I’m the decider. How appropriate his adress to the nation aired before “are you smarter than a 5th grader.”

    Boehner called our troops “a small price.” If I didn’t understand miltary ethos, why would that comment outrage me so? And as far as Kerry goes; at least he went to Viet Nam. If you’re still buying into the whole Swift Boat vets story, its been debunked by Navy records and eyewitnesses;of course it would help if the principals would stick to the same story. Even John McCain thinks Boehner’s comment was off the mark.

    Have a nice night.

  3. Chuck DeVore
    September 15, 2007 at 9:50 am

    And yet Dan, in spite of the examples in your immediate family, you did not serve in the military.

    Are there things worth dying for?

    Let me ask you something, if someone broke into your house with the intent to harm your family, would your death in defense of them be “a small price”?

    I know the answer for myself.

    Most of the volunteers serving overseas in combat zones know the answer too.

    All the best,

    Chuck DeVore
    State Assemblyman, 70th District

  4. Dan Chmielewski
    September 15, 2007 at 11:08 am

    So only those who served are allowed to be outraged by Boehner’s remark?

    Yes, there are things worth dying for.

    Your example is absurd; ifs and buts are candy and nuts. It must be Christmas every day with you.

    This isn’t about questioning the military’s committment Chuck; its about a Republican leader referring to our men and women in uniform at chattle.

  5. September 15, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    I suppose those growing numbers of American military who don’t support the current and failed policies of the US government also “don’t get” the “military ethos.” I suppose those Iraq veterans who oppose this war just don’t get what it’s really about. Authoritarians always end up arguing this way. This is why the founders of the American republic did not want large standing armies such as we have.

  6. Ana Maria
    September 15, 2007 at 7:23 pm

    Dan, don’t bother debating Chuck. He is a laughing-stock in Sacramento and doesn’t care about any of the constituents that don’t agree with him in his district. He is a loser and the reason why term limits are a good thing in the 70th AD. I am sure he will be ripping into me for being a liberal, a woman, a Latina, pro-puppies or some other stupid thing he can make up. He is a self-promoter that should be representing EVERYONE and not just drinking the reep Kool-Aid.

  7. Dan Chmielewski
    September 17, 2007 at 9:42 am

    Ana, I’m not surprised that Chuck chose to defend a leader in his party over the troops. And the “you didn’t serve so can’t criticize” defense, if extended to the rest of the country, means that in Chuck’s view, the opinions of the vast majority of everyday Americans cannot comment on military matters.

    What’s humorous here is I am the one outraged by Rep. Boehner’s “small change” comment about the troops, and the response I get is “you don’t understand military ethos.” Non-sequiter if I ever saw one.

Comments are closed.