BEVERLY HILLS — Now, let me get this straight. The Democrats are all down on George W. Bush because he did not fight in combat in Vietnam but was instead in the Air National Guard. This, they say, proves that Senator John Kerry, who did fight in Vietnam, in the Navy, is a superior human being and Bush is a coward, or a “deserter” as one of them said recently.
So, then what is Bill Clinton? He not only did not join the National Guard but actively lied to avoid the draft. Are the Democrats now saying that he was a coward and a deserter? Is everyone who did not fight in Vietnam and was of fighting age a coward and a deserter? Are we now going to have smears of everyone who was not on Kerry’s boat? Are we now a nation in which we have only heroes like Kerry and everyone else is morally worthless? And which Democrat will now stand up and call Dean and Edwards cowards and deserters for their refusal to join up and insist on combat?
Or maybe the premise is slightly different…Maybe the idea is that only a man who has actually fought and killed someone, as Kerry did, is mentally strong enough to be a good leader, and those who did not kill anyone are too weak to lead. So, then let’s get this straight, too. Does this mean that FDR, who never was in combat, was too weak to lead, and that Hitler and Goering, who saw a lot of combat, were morally better leaders? Does this mean that Eisenhower, who saw less combat than, say, MacArthur, was not competent to lead? Does it mean that Reagan was unfit to lead because he had no combat experience?
Have the Democrats now become the party that says that only men in combat can wear the mantle of national leadership? This is a harsh stand, and it surely means that they had better start the purges of all of their top dogs — including major advisers to Kerry, who avoided wartime service. While we’re at it, maybe the Democrats in Congress who did not see fit to fight in Vietnam should be purged, too. And why stop there? Why should Kerry, the warrior, accept donations from wealthy Democrats who avoided combat in Vietnam? Surely their money is tainted by their cowardice.
In fact, now that I think of it, why should men who did not serve in combat even be allowed to vote? Why do they deserve to have rights at all? Really, only the men who were front-line soldiers deserve to be heard from. Now, let’s see, what great German leader had this same idea…umm, now who was it….
Anyway, all hail the Democrats, the party of the warriors, and damnation to those weaklings who never learned to kill. And, hey, who was that Bill Clinton guy anyway? Wasn’t he one of those panty-waisted Republicans?
The whole thing is just too rich for words: the Democrats, the anti-war, anti-military party, now say that only a military man can lead them and the nation and that those not in combat are dirt. No one could make these things up.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online