Posted on 11/26/2001 2:26:23 PM PST by Jean S
It's no secret that the media elite can't stand the fact that President Bush has turned in a stellar performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and has the sky-high approval ratings to show for it.
And while most reporters have put their presidential barbs on hold for the time being, every now and then some of the old anti-Bush venom slips out.
One such frustrated Bush-hater is Newsday editorial writer Bob Keeler, who, apparently unable to stomach the fact that the Afghan war is actually going well, unburdened himself over the weekend of this particularly nasty diatribe:
"The sight of President Bush in a 101st Airborne Division jacket this week, surrounded by troops, really irked me. There he was, the Chicken-Hawk-in-Chief, wearing the Screaming Eagle patch of a division that fought and died in Vietnam. I wonder how many troops standing with him felt the irony.....
Apparently not many - given the wild cheers and standing ovations that usually greet Bush these days whenever he gets near a military base. Still, Keeler complained:
"(During Vietnam) Bush chose to defend his home state in the Texas Air National Guard. Vice President Dick Cheney did no military service at all. This is useful history to remember now, when Bush and Cheney, long past draft age themselves, are mouthing macho rhetoric in the struggle against terrorism."
The Newsday writer invoked his own Vietnam service to justify his Bush resentment, which begs the question: How did he manage to keep all that vituperation under wraps for eight years while a bona-fide Vietnam-era draft dodger repeatedly sent U.S. armed forces into harms way with little or no justification?
Flashback to the Clinton "presidency" and I felt something quite different. I could have forgiven him for being a draft dodger. I could have cared less if he inhaled. I could have forgiven him for just about any past indiscretions if there was evidence that he was a changed man. What I saw instead was an arrogant, lying, thieving, womanizing, treasonous extortionist that literally squandered the public wealth on his own extravagances then dared us to criticize him. Every time he spoke there was a tone in his voice that said, "I can do whatever the hell I want and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it and if you don't like it, tough!" And when I would see that man appear at some photo-op, front and center, with our troops, such as they were under him, I wanted to gag. Does anyone ever recall an enthusiastic welcome of Clinton on a military base. I don't.
THAT WOULD BE AUSTHOLE!!
Of course, so are most of us draft-aged people.
Didn't know that. Thanks for the info Steven.
layman replied: Excellent question. How did you do it, Limbacher? I mean, you were probably right up there on the front lines with Algore ... giving and taking hot lead, hell-bent for leather ... taking hills with a knife in your teeth and a gernade in each hand. What was it like, Limbacher? Please tell all. I have a real thirst for knowledge.
L.N. Smithee says: You have a thirst for a smackdown, and here it comes.
Can't you read? Your quasi-clever response has nothing to do with Carl's question. Besides, whoever is elected President of the United States is charged with the leadership of American military force worldwide. That entitles every POTUS to wear the jacket -- even Clinton.
The title Constitutional title "Commander-in-Chief" means that for better or worse, he is the person chosen by the electorate to either deploy troops, refuse to do so, or, if the worst happens, to push the big red button. Think he shouldn't be able to without combat experience? Tough schtuff -- he was elected!
Are you Bob Keeler? You seem to have the same disorder he does: Hip-shooting brain.
I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm simply asking a question. If you know the answer, please source your information.
It is called hypocrisy. But it is not the "Liberal's" favorite tactic. That honor is reserved for the "Big Lie."
Modern "Liberalism," as a form of Fabian Socialism, has always depended upon the Big Lie in its assault on the realities of this world. (See The Lies Of Socialism, for a treatise on just how pervasive that aspect is throughout the movement.
This writer probably approved of Clinton's efforts to promote Socialism--as in Haiti, for example--and would never have thought of trying to embarrass his esteemed leader!
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
That was an attack, not a question. Don't be cute.
And did you ever see the officer at his helicopter salute his BACK when he passed by - like they do to President Bush? The answer is no. Check it out next time you see Bush enter or exit the helo. You can't miss it, and I choke up every time I see it.
Are you saying that GWB dodged the draft? I just love your 2+2=9 mentality, because that is what you are inferring.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Poor Bobby. Poor elite media. Just can't handle the changing winds that are a'blowin'.
You might want to be careful with the intimation behind statements such as this: Bush and others like him took the least honorable: not opposing the war, but not serving either. Bush chose to defend his home state in the Texas Air National Guard.
It seems you are implying that serving in the National Guard isn't really military service. Hmmm...I wonder how many folks in the National Guard would agree with you.
As for the honorable part, where were you and your commentary when the most despicable Perpetrator in Chief was in the Oval Office for the previous 8 years? Or are you implying that Clinton's draft-dodging was because of his "conscience?"
Get a grip. The country is in love with "W" and his team. At last, honor means something. National pride is making a comeback. And you liberal whiners just have to sit there and take it.
It is unbelievable that libs have always taken their freedoms for granted since the dawn of human civilisation.
Think "Rain Man."
The Peter Jemnings and Dan Rathers of the media world are just puppets on a string...people who traded their personal honor over to the puppeteers running them...(the prime stockholders controlling and owning the various media outlets).
The owners convey their own twisted, anti-American, socialistic beliefs through the puppets they dangle. The payback for these media floatsom has always been huge salaries, a sense of power over the masses, and the pathetic stroking of their need for celebrity so obvious and abhorent to most reasonable people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.