« Mass High Court Approves of Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Marriage | Home | Making The Case For The Death Penalty »
Ben Stein Nails It
By Matt Margolis | February 6, 2004
It doesn’t take a set of clear eyes to see that the recent rehashing of questions regarding Bush’s military record is no only baseless, but also extremely hypocritical of the Democrats to even be bringing up. Ben Stein’s latest column in The American Spactator captures it perfectly:
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?
He really nailed it. Perhaps instead of winning Ben Stein’s money, the left could just win some of Ben Stein’s wisdom. It could do them some good.
Stein doesn’t stop there. He questions the Democrats’ recently adopted attitude that the only men who have the ability to be good leaders are the ones who have been in combat, while those who haven’t are too weak to lead:
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?
He suggests that if they now want to subscribe to this axiom then Kerry ought to purge his campaign of all his advisors who avoided the service, and all Democrats in Congress who never went to Vietnam ought to be taken out. Perhaps donations from non-Vietnam Veterans should be banned too.
If they’re concerned about consistency…
Ben Stein’s final thought is priceless:
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.
Except the Democrat Party - of course.
Hat tip to Mamamontezz for bringing this article to my attention.
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
February 6th, 2004 at 1:34 am
Ben Stein… My hero. And he brings up a facinating point. Based on this premise, perhaps the Dems need also rid themselves of all the Temporary Canadians in their midst.
February 6th, 2004 at 1:30 pm
Ben Stein Nails It
It doesn’t take a set of clear eyes to see that the recent rehashing of questions regarding Bush’s military record is no only baseless, but also extremely hypocritical of the Democrats to even be bringing up. Ben Stein’s latest column…
February 6th, 2004 at 11:01 pm
War Hero, I Think Not
Does serving in combat make you fit for the highest office in the land? Not according to Matt who quotes Ben Stein. Brings up some good points. Perhaps if serving in combat led to greater and more illustrious service of the country it might, but Kerry …