Mark Steyn: So It Has Come to This – a Choice of Scandals

The Telegraph ^ | February 15, 2004 | Mark Steyn

[quidnunc]

There are two "scandals" in American politics at the moment: the first features George W Bush and whether he was a "deserter", as Michael Moore, Hollywood's celebrated Leftie lardbutt, puts it. This goes back three decades to when Mr Bush was a young pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, the so-called "weekend warriors". By desertion, Moore and co mean that there were a lot of weekends when the warrior didn't show up. Terry McAuliffe, the highest-ranking official of the Democratic Party, prefers the term "AWOL". He doesn't offer any evidence to support the accusation.

But, if you switch on pretty much any cable news station any time of day, you can find them going on about this "scandal". Their general philosophy is encapsulated by the headline on a recent column in Newsday: "Is Bush A 'Deserter'? It Doesn't Hurt To Ask." And they do. In return, John Kerry, the Democratic Presidential front-runner, portentously declines to comment, adding, "It's not my record that's at issue." This is a not so subtle reminder that, when Bush was doing a bit of dilettante piloting over Texas and Alabama, Kerry was getting shot up in Vietnam.

Actually, that is not strictly true. In the period when Bush was in the National Guard, Kerry was an angry Vietnam veteran protesting with Jane Fonda and accusing his comrades of being drug-addled rapists, torturers, mutilators and murderers committing war crimes on a scale surpassing the Japanese and the Nazis. But that's a mere detail. To the media, the contrast is simple: Kerry = war hero; Bush = something smaller, shiftier. Bill Clinton, of course, is smallest and shiftiest of the lot, but, back in '92, John Kerry stood shoulder to shoulder with his fellow Democrat and said, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." Now, apparently, we do. So Kerry has his supporter Max Cleland, former Senator, fellow veteran and triple amputee, all over the talk-shows, explaining that the difference between giving Clinton a pass on draft-dodging and hammering relentlessly on Bush's National Guard record is that in 2004 "it's the national security, stupid. We want a President who can really be Commander-in-Chief". And the fact that Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, has liberated two countries, overthrown the Taliban and slung Saddam in jail counts for less than whether he bunked off for the weekend in 1972.

-snip-

[goldstategop]

The Democrats want to play up the "hero" angle. They might have gotten away with it until the intern issue blew up in their face again, reminding every one the Democrats are horndogs when it comes to sex.

[Common Tator]

There is a lot of strategy going on on both sides

Here is my take on what is going on with nam.

Has anyone in the democcratic party considered

A couple of million of men served in Nam. Many came home to be spit on and trashed. There used to be alot of anger out there among those Viet Nam vets that served their country.

Some of them have been waiting a long time to pay the 1970-72 protesters back. They hate Jane Fonda and John Kerry.

John Kerry had best hope teh following does not catch on.

VietNam Vets... now it's our turn to PROTEST!

[VadeRetro]

Beautiful! Steyn always finds the words.

[driftless]

The obvious hypocrisy by the Dems in promoting Kerry as the war hero compared to the "deserter" Bush is too laughable to take seriously. Except that millions of Dem suckers will take it seriously disregarding their support of Bill (I hate the military) Clinton over war heroes George Bush Sr. and Bob Dole. In short mililtary duty counts when it's your candidate who was the war hero, but it doesn't count at all when your candidate avoided the military at all costs. Naturally libs will have no problem with this strategy. Have I mentioned yet that the Dems are the biggest stinking hypocrites in recorded history?

[1066AD]

Another article in same issue: "This is not going to go away," one American friend of Miss Polier said yesterday. "What actually happened is much nastier than is being reported."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/15/wus15.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/15/ixnewstop.html

[EllaMinnow]

"By contrast, the Kerry narrative is almost impenetrable. If Vietnam bitterly divided a nation, split communities, tore apart families, etc, etc, Sen Kerry somehow managed to wind up on both sides of the fence: in the 1960s, he was John Wayne taking out the gooks in 'Nam; in the 1970s, he was Hanoi Jane Fonda, leading the protest movement; now, after two decades in Congress opposing every new weapons system for America's military, he's campaigning like Bob Hope on a USO tour flanked by wall-to-wall veterans. What story accounts for Senator Flip-Flop these past 40 years?

If character is the issue, Bush can relax. And, if doing your bit for national security is the issue, then John Kerry's been Awol for two decades."


Brilliant!

[MoralSense]

Tator, you are EXACTLY right.

[muawiyah]

Let's take the next step here and simply call Kerry a "Galvanized Viet Cong".

Most of our Souvrn Symps in here ought to know what those guys were, eh?!

[VadeRetro]

Intriguing, but the press criterion for investigating the top Democrat is always, "First prove it to me beyond a reasonable doubt and I'll look into it."

[EllaMinnow]

Most of our Souvrn Symps in here ought to know what those guys were, eh?!

I shore'nuff do!

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Homer is thinking of proposing to Mark Steyn. We could go to San Francisco for the wedding. Mrs. Homer doesn't know about this yet.

[fightu4it]

In an effort to give legs to Kerrys' claims about troops who served in Viet Nam, of which I am one, we will no doubt be inundated with that most facile piece of of crap ever dreamed up out of the drug crazed brain of a Hollywood producer, Apocolyps Now. To date, no one has made a movie that has captured the true picture of the soldier who served in Viet Nam. Brando's movie is a laughable fantasy of someone who most likely never set foot in wartime Viet Nam.

First of all, there is no 'one' story to be told. There are many stories to be told, as is the case in every war. Brando's movie didn't succeed at even the basic level because it departs from the realm of any real experience. It is a political statement crafted to support a certain position on the war. Just as John Kerry's remarks in the early 70s were political statements crafted to support the position he thought most likely to propel him into the position he was seeking at that time in his life.

[gcruse]

Ping

[EllaMinnow]

[ExSafecracker]

AMEN to that!!!

[okie01]

"Have I mentioned yet that the Dems are the biggest stinking hypocrites in recorded history?"

Rochefort once said "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue".

Ergo, there is a presumption that hypocrites know the difference.

Personally, I don't think the libs deserve the title "hypocrites". They've no innate sense of right and wrong and are, therefore, unable to distinguish between the two.

While I'm not at the point of calling them "evil" (yet), it seems to that "amoral S.O.Bs" would be a more accurate designation than "hypocrites"...

[Chu Gary]

"VietNam Vets... now it's our turn to PROTEST!"

I guess I was lucky. I came back to the U.S. twice while deployed to Asia, once for some enhanced training, then when I was coming back after my tour. Never got spit on, no nothing; of course, it was 2/70 and bitterly cold in Chicago and I was wearing a Navy uni - maybe if I'd had on my fatigues or a Marine or Army uni they'd have spit on me. Me, they didn't seem to mind. Left the Philippines where it was 80 - 90 deg F, arrived in Chicago where it was minus 12 and immediately caught the worst cold of my life!

[js1138]

Yessir.

[js1138]

Actuallu if I thought Kerry would be a better president than Bush I'd vote for him, dispite his youthful screwup.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHASNICKER SNORTBARF

A person can be judged by his last thirty years.

And will be.