At Last, a Fiskable DO Column!

Man, it's been way too long since I did this. The Daily Orange editorials have actually made sense most days. Today, however, they've provided one worthy of a bit more attention, so let's take a look:

Arrogance and irresponsibility

The image refuses to fade. May 2, 2003: President George W. Bush lands on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, instantly greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of sailors eagerly anticipating his already rumored message. Shortly after noon, he delivers. "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." The victorious commander-in-chief beams to thousands of clapping hands.

Last time I checked, occupying the enemy's capital city counted as a victory. I'm not sure where this is supposed to be going...

In response, Democratic presidential hopeful and decorated Vietnam War veteran John Kerry has concluded nearly all of his recent stump speeches with the promise that he "will show the president that I know something about aircraft carriers for real."

Since when is knowledge of aircraft carriers a prerequisite for being a successful politician?

And the Boston Globe and Associated Press have recently reported that military records from 1972, when the future president was scheduled to report for National Guard duty in Alabama, include no mention of Bush.

That's right. The DO is jumping on the AWOL story, despite the fact that it's already been debunked. And they call conservatives ideologues...

To be sure, the president served in the Guard during the early 70s, flying F-102 fighters on important test missions. Nevertheless, questions arise: did the future president, as a member of a powerful and well-connected family, use his father's ties to evade combat in Southeast Asia?

Considering members of his unit were in Vietnam at the time, I doubt it.

And, even after securing a safe position state-side, did the young Bush skirt his duties?

The fact that they're still asking this question says a lot about their need for "proof."

Yet a simpler question also appears: why should we care? Americans on the left and right seem to agree that the Vietnam War was waged for politics, not principle, and that the results were entirely negative. If Bush avoided fighting through any means, was that necessarily a bad thing?

Well, he didn't "avoid fighting by any means," so that point doesn't really matter. Do you think he was learning to fly crop dusters?

Maybe not; but it suggests a disturbing trend. The president's apparent ambivalence over matters relating to military service in the 1970s mirrors the sophomoric arrogance that has characterized his approach to foreign policy during his term.

"Sophomoric arrogance." I believe that, in English, that phrase translates to "making decisions and sticking with them." That liberal language is tricky.

I don't know about the rest of you, but "sophomoric arrogance" gives me a mental image of Bush sitting in the Oval Office throwing darts at a map to decide which country we're going to bomb. I wonder if that's what the left sees.

Similar to the way in which he "played" the Army thirty years ago...

How is the Air National Guard related to the Army, exactly?

...Bush is now prosecuting a prolonged struggle in Iraq with no measurable concern for responsibility, respect, or duty.

Oh, man, I should've put a drink alert on that one. Let's see what qualifies as irresponsible:

He began the war with what now appears to be errant intelligence.

Of course, he knew it was errant at the time, right? It was just the rest of the civilized world (and Saddam Hussein) who thought Iraq had WMD.

And he has paid only lip-service to the international community's demands for greater cooperation...

That's because the "international community" doesn't want to cooperate. It wants to coerce.

...offering the embarrassingly tiny "coalition of the willing" as a token of his alleged support for multilateralism.

Did Maureen Dowd co-author this thing? Oh, well. I guess that when you think about it, the coalition is pretty embarrassing. I mean, who's ever heard of insignificant little countries like Spain and Great Britain? What a joke!

If a younger Bush could only be counted upon to ignore responsibility and seek the road of no accountability, this Bush appears equally averse to maturity.

I just realized that he never actually explained why Bush is "immature." It seems to me that denying any evidence that refutes your position is kind of immature. Come to think of it, so is hypocrisy.

In a more peaceful time, the issue might not matter. But 500 American kids have died and thousands more injured while a thoughtless cavalier sits at the wheel.

Of course. That makes a lot of sense, because any mature, intelligent person would disregard hundreds of reports that a hostile country known to fund terrorism has chemical weapons.

Only a "thoughtless cavalier" would actually ACT on intelligence that could prevent another 9/11 and would still liberate millions of oppressed people. How immature!

Do facts still exist? It seems like they don't make a difference anymore.

Posted by CD on February 11, 2004 05:19 PM
Category: