Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Say What?
According to Jonah Goldberg's new column, Kerry's conduct during Vietnam deserves scrutiny because (1) he thought the war was a mistake and yet (2) he volunteered to fight in the war. That's right. Apparently, Bush and Cheney deserve more credit because they (1) did not think the war was a mistake and (2) decided to let poorer people fight it for them. And on this, Bush and Cheney cannot be accused of flip-flopping - even today, they continue to allow poor people to die in wars that John Kerry thinks are mistakes.
Also, note the absence of one word from this column: Clinton. That's because under this new standard, Clinton's actions during Vietnam were the bravest and most consistent of any of our Presidential candidates. He was consistently and openly opposed to the war in Vietnam, and took steps to avoid serving there.
I would argue that a person opposed to the war had two honorable choices: (1) submit to the draft or volunteer to serve because, even if a war is wrong, it is still one's duty to the USA to fight when called upon OR (2) refuse to serve because there is a higher moral calling than patriotism which sometimes requires one to ignore the demands of one's country. I think that a person who supported the war (which by all accounts George Bush now says he did) had many honorable choices. One of them was not, however, to use one's father's political connections to land a coveted spot in the National Guard and then fill out the application to the Guard by checking "does not volunteer to serve overseas."
I can't even believe Republicans are actually pushing the issue of Kerry's conduct during Vietnam. I admit, when Kerry first started talking about this, I thought he was sort of making up the attacks just so he had an excuse to talk about his service. I was wrong. George Bush, who at best avoided service by slithering his way into the National Guard, is actually attacking John Kerry's war record. Simply unbelievable.
|
Also, note the absence of one word from this column: Clinton. That's because under this new standard, Clinton's actions during Vietnam were the bravest and most consistent of any of our Presidential candidates. He was consistently and openly opposed to the war in Vietnam, and took steps to avoid serving there.
I would argue that a person opposed to the war had two honorable choices: (1) submit to the draft or volunteer to serve because, even if a war is wrong, it is still one's duty to the USA to fight when called upon OR (2) refuse to serve because there is a higher moral calling than patriotism which sometimes requires one to ignore the demands of one's country. I think that a person who supported the war (which by all accounts George Bush now says he did) had many honorable choices. One of them was not, however, to use one's father's political connections to land a coveted spot in the National Guard and then fill out the application to the Guard by checking "does not volunteer to serve overseas."
I can't even believe Republicans are actually pushing the issue of Kerry's conduct during Vietnam. I admit, when Kerry first started talking about this, I thought he was sort of making up the attacks just so he had an excuse to talk about his service. I was wrong. George Bush, who at best avoided service by slithering his way into the National Guard, is actually attacking John Kerry's war record. Simply unbelievable.
Comments:
Post a Comment
