But obviously, Presidential candidates get more scrutiny on such things. Except when the pundits decide that it doesn't fit the comfortable, familiar story line they're feeding their target audience of comfortable, affluent TV viewers. "Pundits dismissed the issue when they mentioned it at all." (Conason) And they're still doing it. How could the punditocracy be wrong about something like this? What do they care about the limbs and bodies left behind in Vietnam while Lt. Bush was skipping his National Guard service like the frivolous rich kid he was?
But Bush himself gave the issue fresh salience in several ways. The shameful (but successful) campaign against Democratic Senator Max Cleland in 2002 was one. As Conason recalls in Big Lies, Chambliss attacked Cleland's patriotism and accused him of "breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution." Chambliss "had avoided service during Vietnam with four student deferments and a 'football injury,' but he explained that his own lack of service was 'absolutely not an issue.'" Former Lt. Bush and his political hatchetman Karl Rove did not object to Chambliss' disgraceful attack on a genuine war hero.
Then last year Bush pranced around in his flight suit on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln for the photographers. He taunted the Iraqi guerrillas that if they wanted to kill our soldiers, "Bring 'em on." It's hard to avoid the thought that Bush's own easy success in ducking the Vietnam era draft and even his National Guard commitment, while Wes Clark was being shot by the enemy and Max Cleland was having his legs and his right arm blown off, contributed to Bush's callous and frivolous behavior on those occasions.
No comments:
Post a Comment