Adeimantus RSS Feed
Subscribe to Adeimantus RSS Feed Add Adeimantus RSS Feed to Your My Yahoo Page
Add Adeimantus RSS Feed to Your MSN Page Subscribe to Adeimantus RSS Feed in NewsGator Online


Conservative Political Commentary

Quote of the Day

Lady Liberty

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

It's not that I enjoy bashing liberals. They just make it so damn easy.
posted by Tom

Anybody catch Ralph Nader on O'Reilly the other night?

He was asked about the on going Kerry-Bush-Viet Nam controversy, and in that stentorian manner of his that makes John Kerry's personality seem exciting, he told O'Reilly it was a fact that John Kerry went to Viet Nam and George Bush didn't.

Yeah. And ....?

Apparently there is some profound meaning in this fact that Nader believes everyone should intuitively grasp. Surely, any thinking person would realize there's something deeply, deeply wrong with George W. Bush once he acknowledges the fact Bush did not go to Viet Nam and Kerry did.

Nader went on to sneer about Bush the 'chickenhawk', obviously referring to the president's 'tough talk' on terrorism and his deployment of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq when he himself stayed out of harm's way some 35 years before he even thought of becoming president. Here Nader is implicitly telling the audience that combat veterans like John Kerry exclusively possess the moral authority to serve as commander in chief and wage war. As a matter of fact, veterans like Kerry are the only ones possessing the moral authority to even discuss war or contemplate sending the armed forces of the US into battle.

Funny thing, though, Ralphie hasn't supported any military action taken by the United States ever since he turned his lies about the automobile industry into a career of lies about everything in American society that turns a profit (the only moral profits are those going into his own pockets). Nader's one of those left-wing purists when it comes to armed conflicts: All war is immoral and waged only to further corporate interests. It didn't matter to him that the first Gulf War was waged by a combat veteran (albeit of WWII, not Viet Nam), George Bush, Sr. That was spilling blood for oil, if you remember.

So, if we understand Nader correctly, a chickenhawk like George W. Bush lacks the moral authority of a combat veteran like John Kerry to serve as commander in chief and to send troops into combat. Except in Nader's universe, using the American military to protect American interests is pretty much always using it to protect corporate interests and is therefore pretty much always immoral. It would seem, then, that Presidents who are combat veterans possess the moral authority to do what Nader deems immoral. Such men earn his condemnation and contempt. They are worthy of it, you could say.

Of course, a combat veteran president who ordered the US military to attack Ford or General Motors or Pfizer or Astra Zeneca or Bristol Myers would make Nader as happy as the proverbial pig in shit. Under such circumstances, he, Michael Moore, Bill Maher and the rest of the liberal moron brigade would be waving flags and praising the troops.

Anyhoo, as he does after verbalizing his statist bumper stickerisms about corporate America, the environment, etc., Nader was ready to move onto the next subject after informing O'Reilly of the Kerry/Nam - Bush/No Nam fact, smugly confident that he had identified the vast chasm of character that lies between the two candidates. When O'Reilly asked a couple of feeble follow-ups, Nader looked perplexed, as he always does when other people don't grasp the meaning of his knee-jerk, simplistic facts immediately.

Now, if the toughest interrogator Nader will ever face is an ex-high school teacher whose claim to journalistic fame prior to Fox was having hosted the tabloid show Inside Story, he's truly a blessed politician. He'll never have to worry about someone asking him to explain the significance of the fact John Kerry went to Viet Nam and Bush didn't. Then again, Nader would be shocked to find out any explanation was needed. Everyone just knows there's something about the Viet Nam conflict that makes one special simply by having been involved in it. For four months.

Which got me to thinking ...

William Calley went to Viet Nam and Bush didn't. He was there longer than Kerry. Maybe liberals should have nominated him for president. Think about all of the hassles they would have avoided. Unlike Kerry, everyone knows for sure what Calley did in Viet Nam to earn his reputation. Wouldn't have had to worry about any challenges to that record. No, sir. And if liberals really, really loved Kerry because of his service in Southeast Asia, they could have pressured his brother to choose him as a running mate. And Nader would have been able to kill two birds with one stone on O'Reilly, telling him, "It's a fact Calley and Kerry went to Viet Nam, Bill. Bush and Cheney didn't."

And rest assured, O'Reilly would have asked a couple of stupid follow up questions, then moved on.

posted by Tom | 9/09/2004 01:21:00 PM
Email this link to a friend

Post a Comment

Blogger Frater Bovious said...

It is amazing how the need "to win" overrides everything else, including any kind of self consistent position. All this attention on whether or not Kerry is more patriotic than Bush, or who really did what when and where during Viet Nam is really bizarre in the face of the total non-issue Clinton's behavior was during the same time frame.

What was Clinton's service record during Viet Nam? Huh? You mean, he DIDN'T EVEN JOIN ANYTHING? And he spent it in Europe? But, that did not matter back then. Not one bit.

So, why does it matter now? Answer: it doesn't. It's just seen as the path to victory. Meanwhile, what of actual issues? fb

10:15 AM, September 11, 2004  
Blogger riceburner147 said...

Tom: completely off subject. Didja ever play Kings Quest III, IV or V. Awesome.

1:53 PM, September 11, 2004  
Blogger Tom said...


I knew a lot of folks who did. I could never get into the fantasy role playing games, though. Don't get me wrong, though, I really got into some of the 'modern' stuff, like Myst and Titanic.

4:29 PM, September 13, 2004  

Links to this post:

<< Home