Absolute, Absolute Moral Authority

Been listening to Rush, as is Michelle Malkin:

Update 12:06pm Eastern 10/2. Rush comments on Harkin, top of his radio show: “I feel like apologizing to his family” for his behavior on the Senate floor. “Demeaning.” “So beneath the decorum” in the Senate…”They are trying to distract from their dismal approval ratings and failures.”

Meanwhile, The Hill reports on a VoteVets ad attacking Limbaugh. Limbaugh is going on about Media Matters, a group Hillary Clinton claims to have helped start. Given that the war isn't really on the table, keep in mind, all the major Dem Presidential contenders are on record as having troops in Iraq through a potential first term, obviously this is just the battle lines being drawn and the battle space being prepared for Campaign 2008.

Sadly, the Left is using Brian McGough much like they used Cindy Sheehan, before unceremoniously discarding her when they were through. I guess Jon Soltz just ain't resonating, perhaps as he's such an obnoxious ass and obvious Kerry clone.

The VoteVets.org ad features Brian McGough, a veteran who was injured and received the Purple Heart.

“More and more troops and veterans of Iraq believe George Bush’s military policy has been a disaster ... I am one of them,” McGough said. “Rush Limbaugh called vets like me ‘phony soldiers’ for telling the truth about Iraq. Rush, the shrapnel I took to my head was real. My traumatic brain injury was real. And my belief that we are on the wrong course in Iraq is real. Until you have the guts to call me a ‘phony solider’ to my face, stop telling lies about my service.”

The ad is a play on Limbaugh’s on-air Monday challenge to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to repeat what he had said on the Senate floor about the talk show host to his face.

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

In a comment I told here the seven soldiers who wrote the antiwar piece for the NYT that they were "stupid jerks", I understand that now two are dead from a vehicular accident and one more has been wounded. I am sorry for the deaths and wish the wounded soldier well, all those living well. But I still feel they were jerks for colluding with the NYT to help the enemy (probably inadvertently) by contributing to propaganda efforts of the NYT. How many soldiers has the NYT arranged publishing for who are in favor of the war?

The phony soldier "scandal" is phony itself, pure, but ineffective, politics.

[Rush's Right Arm]

Fearless Internets Leader Reihl:

As Republicans, this issue is our biggest electoral asset right now. Graft, whoring and gay sex has not poll tested as well as expected. We must focus the voters' attention on the meanness of the Defeatocrats. Because the MSM will not carry this message for us, we need to form our own media, we need to go old school. We need to bring back Town Criers.

I call on all of you to go to the middle of your town (or Walmart) and cry out to the voters that the Defeatocrats--who are worse than Nazis--have been mean to our deliciously glazed Rush. Let "Waaaaaaaaah!" be our war cry.

Excelsior!

[chris]

Fact: If you are listening to Rush Limbaugh during the day you are either:

a. Unemployed (thankfully)
b. Incarcerated (thankfully)
c. Retired and near death (thankfully)

Best wishes to all you patriotic cons out there. Thank you for catching bin Laden and making the world safer.

[Rush's Right Arm]

Shut up, Troll Chris! Like all Defeatocrats, you rely entirely on personal insults instead of on truth. Truth like the fact that Hitlery Klinton and her Feminazi lesbian gang murdered Vince Foster and sold drugs out of the White House!

You can't handle the truth and so you hurl insults at the graceful and elegant Rush. It makes me so mad that I just want to . . . . Waaaaaaaah!

[rwilymz]

"the shrapnel I took to my head was real. My traumatic brain injury was real."

So ... because **you** got injured the policy is wrong?

When a couple thousand before you got injured it was fine? Or just "less wrong"?

"And my belief that we are on the wrong course in Iraq is real."

Cool. "Belief" becomes "reality" simply by the assertion.

God is real because it has been asserted for millenia. Can't deny all those individuals the reality of their beliefs, can we?

Oh, but here's the wicket: many folks "believe" that it is the right course, and that belief also makes it "real". Alas.

What a connundrum.

[Rush's Right Arm]

Precisely, Warrior Brother Rwilymz! Just because phony soldier McGough believes he took shrapnel to his head does not make it real. Who do you trust, a guy who just admitted to having combat related traumatic head injury or a guy whose head has remained entirely safe from combat. A guy like our very own lavendar scented Rush Limbaugh.

This McGough is simply another phony soldier just like this guy: http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/2007/09/real-deal.html

That's why it makes me so sad and angry when the Defeatocrats are mean to petite and fleet Rush. I just have to . . . . Waaaaaaaaah!

[Fred Beloit]

Don't cry, commenter of many names but few brains. We all understand your bitterness because your beloved leaders have done a 360 on you. We understand the deep envy and spite you are now feeling because you were wrong and we were right do dah. Go ahead vent your evil bile freely. Go ahead, cough it up. (Whoops, not in this direction though please.) There you go, get rid of it. We expectorated, I mean expected it.

[Al in St. Lou]

This reminds me of the Democrat convention where they let a twelve-year-old give a speech. Now they have a brain-damaged veteran on their side! There's something seriously wrong with the way the Dems are marketing themselves, but I ain't complaining.

I won't be surprised if Hillary comes in third place when the votes are counted in November 2008. We're watching the last gasps of our oldest political party.

[Rush's Right Arm]

Shut up, French Troll Fred Beloit! You have given yourself away. All right thinking patriotic Americans have been rooting for the Defeatocrats to do a 180 and thereby turn away from their treason. You, on the other hand, are happy that the Defeatocrats "have done a 360" because that means that they are back where they started from. You obviously hope their treason suceeds, Froggy.

But all of that is beside the point. Will no one here stand up for the lusciously pigeon-toed Rush Limbaugh? Waaaaaaaah!

[chris]

A 360, Fred? No wonder you were a zero at GE. They had you pegged.

[Rush's Right Arm]

You are correct, Brother Warrior Al in St. Lou. Wounded soldiers are hysterically funny if they don't agree with us. It's like that time that Cindy Sheehan's son got killed. I laughed and laughed.

But now is not the time for laughter. It is time for the weeping of copious and mucousy tears, for our glorious leader, the enticingly plump Rush Limbaugh, has been gravely wounded by mean words. Waaaaaaah!

[Fred Beloit]

Well, Boob, you are correct. In my eagerness to pursue our correspondence, I went 180 deg too far. A smidge too far, as Cornelius Ryan might have it.

[Rush's Right Arm]

If you are going to apologize, French Troll Fred Beloit, then at least use my correct name. But, spare me your apologies. I don't need them. What I need is for you to cry with me for the spongy and cream filled Rush Limbaugh, who has had unpardonably mean things said about him by the Nazified Defeatocrats. Cry, French Troll Fred Beloit! You know you want to. Think of Old Yeller. Here it comes . . . here it comes . . . . Waaaaaaaah!

[rwilymz]

"I just have to . . . . Waaaaaaaaah!"

Probably with good reason.

[rwilymz]

"...the spongy and cream filled Rush..."

This made me smile.

[Rush's Right Arm]

Precisely, Warrior Brother Rwilymz! At least someone is willing to stand with me beside our commander, the glory hole of the airwaves, Rush Limbaugh. Let it out, Warrior Brother Rwilymz. Let it all out. Those mean, mean, mean Defeatocrats won't get you here. You're safe. I'm here with you to . . . . Waaaaaaaaah!

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

Perhaps the most pathetic thing is that no one on left seems able to make a salient point but must spew thier hatred like projectile vomit. It is too easy to argue against thier sick insults with our own insults. What I would actually like to see is a serious discussion so I can learn why these leftists "feel" the way they do and why the right continues to support the adminsitration. Guess that's not going to happen so let the insults begin, please make them reasonably intelligent.

[Rush's Right Arm]

Exactamundo, Brother Warrior Wahoo Willie Sez! (Pardon me for speaking Mexican.) The left does projectile vomit their hate bile. This is why we must stand with the nutritious and delicious Rush Limbaugh against the hateful hate of the Goebels-like, pro-terrorist Defeatocrats. He is as defenseless and innocent as a newborn unicorn pony.

It reminds me of the time that the Defeatocrats went after the super freaky Rush just because he gently mocked the Parkinsons symptoms of the known Al Qaeda sympathizer and stem cell eater, Michael J. Fox. They were so mean to Rush. So mean. So . . . . Waaaaaaaaah!

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

yawwwwn. My point exactly.

[jerry]

way to go vote vets!!! keep up the GOOD work!

[jerry]

even Rush's md here in west palm said rush spends mot of his days in a drug induced stupor

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

Yes they should stand-up for what they believe in. Too bad they weren't equally offended y being called murderers, rapists and nazis.

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

Just as I feared. No room for serious discussion.

[Fred Beloit]

Excellent, Wahoo. Why the leftists are biting themselves in the back of the neck in fury, rage and spite:

Item: They know inside that the so-called phony soldier scandal is really no issue at all. They realize it is just lame BS. But right now it is all they've got, and this is driving them starkers.

Item: It is becoming clear the war in Iraq is being won.

Item: Their presidential candidates who have a chance to win the nomination are all cool with staying in Iraq as long as it takes to get the Iraqis ready to control the terrorists. In effect they will stay the course.

Item: Their party is utterly powerless to pass anti-war legislation, tax increases, and new socialist programs. The exception MIGHT be to push help from the poor up into the middle class for children's health care, in effect trying to buy middle class votes.

Anything else?

[Fred Beloit]

"even Rush's md here in west palm said rush spends mot of his days in a drug induced stupor" Gee, that's funny. He is able to go on the radio for three hours a day and verbally kick the living crap out of all the labial intellectuals. Must be very easy to do that, even in a stupor.

Say, isn't that md you mention violating medical ethics and privacy laws?

[Rush's Right Arm]

"Too bad they weren't equally offended [b]y being called murderers, rapists and nazis."

Preach on, Brother Warrior Wahoo Willie Sez! Soldiers are only real to the extent that they precisely reflect our thoughts and feelings. Real soldiers follow orders and since these guys aren't saying what we want, they are by definition phony soldiers. You, me and the playfully chubby cheeked Rush Limbaugh are totally sympatico, my brother from another mother.

This is why we must defend syrupy sweet Rush from the meanness of the Defeatocrats. Say it with me and pray it with me. Waaaaaaaah!

[Fred Beloit]

"If you are going to apologize, French Troll Fred Beloit,..." Writes the Boob as he chews on the nape of his robust neck. Apologize? What gave you that crazy idea.

"But, spare me your apologies. I don't need them." I didn't give you no stinking apologies, English Bob.

GM is a guess, and it is wrong like most of your other surmises.

[Undeniable Liberal]

I really and truly feel sorry for you people. You actually need Rush, Hannity, and Coulter to tell you what to think.
It's more than obvious.
Very sad.

[Jim Treacher]

d. An employee of George Soros (sadly)

[Undeniable Liberal]

Oh, and stop by my blog and read what we have to say and then insult us, if it's ok with your mentors.

[Rush's Right Arm]

You are rooting for the Defeatocrats to win, French Troll Fred Beloit. I have already demonstrated this through my Baby Rush-given powers of deductive reasoning. You do not want us Republicans to use our greatest weapon in the upcoming 2008 elections: pointing out that the reincarnated zombie Nazis that make up the Defeatocrat Party have said hateful mean things about silky smooth and yet somehow still ribbed for your pleasure Rush Limbaugh.

Even though the Congress is at historically low approval ratings, Congressional Democrats still have a 10 point approval advantage over Congressional Republicans. Democrats are now more trusted across the board on every issue, including terrorism. They have an epic fundraising edge for the first time ever. The Republicans who aren't being arrested in mens' restrooms are retiring. But how long will all that last after the voters discover that the Satan-inspired Defeatocrats led by Hitlery Klinton said something mean about yoga flexible Rush? That's right, not long!

Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of . . . . Waaaaaaaah!

[rwilymz]

"no one on left seems able to make a salient point but must spew thier hatred like projectile vomit"

Hatred, nonsense, irrelevant shinola, ... whatever.

They actually teach classes in organized debate stifling, and one tactic is to do what this clown is doing; another tactic is do what the ass-clown at the Kerry Q-n-A did a week or so ago; possibly the most famous tactic is to issue your diatribe and then when response starts simply start screaming some bumper sticker or other until you've simply disrupted the entire affair, whatever it might be, either by your arrest and the disintegration of the formal event thereupon, or by forcing others to simply leave to avoid the annoyance you're creating.

I once witnesssed this on a radio call-in show near the biginning of the Iraq invasion; guy called in to issue a patent diatribe, and when the state department guy started talking, the caller went into "BABY KILLER!! ... BABY KILLER!! ..." mode.

They cut him off. It works in face-to-face encounters best.

"Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of . . . . Waaaaaaaah!"

But that was comical too. At least this wiener is fairly well-read.

[jj]

What are you crying about, fool? Why don't you head on over to the Huffington Post where more delusional leftists think they are tough. You pussies couldn't make a cat meow.

As for supporting the troops, please, your lying is getting to be a bore.

[r4d20]

Let "Waaaaaaaaah!" be our war cry.

I prefer "WAAAARGH!"

Mork and Gork be praised.

[jj]

rwilymz, these people on the Left don't have to be trained to be cry babies, they were born crying, and have yet to quit. It's why they are Leftists in the first place, they never grew a set, and why so many of them are so confused about their sexuality.

[Rush's Right Arm]

Et tu, Warrior Brother Rwilymz? I thought that we were manning the ramparts together. It is you who are trying to stifle debate by shifting away from the topic at hand: the evil, blood drinking, Hitler worshipping, New Coke inventing, terrorist coddling, Barbara Streisand secret clone army developing, troop bashing Defeatocrats' inability to have a civil discussion about which they hate more, America or God.

This is why we need to defend lemon fresh and supersized Rush Limbaugh from their hate speech. Only Rush knows how to have a civil debate with the people who want our children to gay marry Mexican terrorists.

If you are not with me, then you are all Defeatocrat French Trolls. This site is a troll site. I cry for you all. Waaaaaaaah!

[Rush's anal cyst]

Rush really wanted to volunteer for combat in Vietnam as a swift boat commander, er, I mean private first class, but I stopped him. Yes, it was all my fault. Please forgive me Rush.

[rwilymz]

"Oh, and stop by my blog and read what we have to say and then insult us"

There's nothing to insult because there's no content. Simply the standard 4th-grade version slanders of the "wrong" elected officials.

Take a position on something and perhaps there can be a debate to forestall.

"...coddling, Barbara Streisand secret clone army ..."

*>whinny<*

[ec1009]

As a clear headed person who tries to be as intellectually honest as possible, can anyone help me out. Which members of the armed forces am I allowed to criticize?

I know that I can call Gen. Clark any name I want and I think also Zinni and Pace. I can impugn the patriotism of Kerry (John but not Bob)and also Cleland, Murtha and many others.

I know that to mock Petraeus is treason. This goes without saying. I cannot mock Cheney even though he had five deferments, nor can I mock the president who claims to have served in the National Guard but no one remembers him. Does the $5000 reward for proof that he showed up for duty still stand?

All this confuses me. Will someone please enlighten me as to the functioning of wingnut logic.

[ec1009]

Also, criticizing Clinton in a time of war: Kosovo or Somalia = AOK.

Criticizing Bush in a time of war: Afganistan or Iraq and maybe Iran = TREASON!

Is it just IOKIYAAR? Please explain.

[seekeronos]

Wow, this is a regular troll/sockpuppet convention, a real red-letter day for y'all.

But as for the treason/non-treason logic, here goes:

a) you could have been a draft-dodging or medical deferment having young feller in the Vietnam days, and then have come to your senses later in life, having repented of your earlier foolishness.

b) being a scion of a family with multigeneration accumulations of wealth affords one the privilege of using influence and power to avoid having to serve in a war zone, if called to serve at all. That's the way it goes. See also: Golden Rule (He that hath gold, maketh the rules). See also George Soros. See also anyone else with unimaginable heaps of dough$ laying around, and all the influence it can buy. I take the statement of these persons with much less credibility than the words of those who have actually served.

c) Those who have serve and have sold themselves out to the enemy or the enemy's media to agitate against our nation's war goals are defeatists of the worst stripe and should be punished in full measure in accordance with the letter of the law or the UCMJ. Even CMoH winners who are sitting senators should know better to undermine the war effort, unless they want to be forever remembered not for the medal-winning deeds of heroism in battle, but rather, their immoral wickedness in turning their backs on thier brothers and sisters at arms.

[ec1009]

But if you try the guy for treason because he is not the scion of a wealthy family, and you execute him like all traitors should be, what if he would have later repented and ultimately turned out to be your glorious infallible leader? What then? Would you not then have committed an inpardonable sin against your country? Answer me that!

[ec1009]

As to the sock puppet charge, you cought me. "Rush's anal cyst is not my real name. Is your real name "seekyouranus"?

[seekeronos]

"--- As to the sock puppet charge, you cought me. "Rush's anal cyst is not my real name. Is your real name "seekyouranus"? ---"

My, I think I might have struck a nerve... for you made your reply with (in a typically liberal childish fashion with references to/use of excretory humour) with haste and with what you think is a witty riposte. To start, my real name is of no consequence to you.

As for sock puppetry, I've sparingly only used two alter egos here at RWV, (and Dan can verify that by checking the IPs) "Pierson W.W. Dilliwithers-Mathers, Retired Major of the Confederate States Army" and "Shaykh Yerbouti, emir of al-Abama", generally as comic foils to bring out a point. Elsewhere, I have not used alter egos as I do not comment very much on other sites I visit. (Although I did use the Confederate Major on couple of blogs long, long ago, when I first picked up on blogging).

Fred B. on rare occasion brings out "Mrs. Snarky Doucher" for similar effect.

So I'm not altogether innocent of it, but some folks here have taken sock puppetry and elevated it to as close of a high art form as one could take such a thing.

Take "BobinStamford", who has no less than 10 puppets he keeps on standby (probably more, if we cared to look).

Or any of a number of left-wing moonbats that have taken up permanent residence in the rafters here at RWV.

Moving on to your question:

"---

But if you try the guy for treason because he is not the scion of a wealthy family, and you execute him like all traitors should be, what if he would have later repented and ultimately turned out to be your glorious infallible leader? What then? Would you not then have committed an inpardonable sin against your country? Answer me that!

---"

I never said that the way things in America get done are fair or even balanced. The fact is, people with money and prestige have more chips to bargain with, should they desire not to serve their country in the trenches during war.

But, them's the facts of life: even as far back as the Civil War, where the sons of the elite could buy out their conscription. That is a shame on them, I say... but as I said earlier, not all men are cut out to be warriors. Some are better of behind desks or finding another venue for serving their nation. This is a key reason why conscription tends to do greater harm than good, save only for if we ever had to actually repel an invasion onto the CONUS (Continental United States).

So, for those rich enough to have bought themselves out of VN (or any older wars)... that is a shame that they didn't rather prefer to enroll in an officer training program (as offered by any armed service in that era, and until now) and use their influence and money to buy bonds (especially defense related bonds). If they repent later in life (and unfortunately, such a repentance comes more easily after half a lifetime removed from Selective Service eligibility, after they are safely ensconced in the halls of power or the military-industrial complex), then let them use whatever wisdom they have gleaned, and exercise their patriotism from a distance to prosecute the war as wisely and with regard to inflicting the maximum damage upon our enemies whilst protecting our allies and minimizing damage to our forces and material assets.

As for the non-wealthy person (or wealthy person for that matter: the only difference being that s/he can afford an expensive attorney and a better shot of getting off the hook) person who has served in the military, or is currently serving and then repudiates his nation or his nation's right to conduct military operations in the theatre given it by the POTUS (President/Commander-in-Chief)... then yes, I say that man deserves punishment under the UCMJ (AD/RES mililtary) or under the applicable federal Codes.

That includes every repudiating snake-in-the-grass from Jesse "43 Days" MacBeth, to Scott Beauchump, and onward to John "Swiftboat" Kerry, Rep. Jack Murtha, and any other current or former soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who repudiates his service to this nation.

Sadly, a lot of the above named folks in the halls of power have traded upon their heroic deeds to treacherously gainsay our defense and foreign policy at the price of destroying the morale of our fighting men (and women)... all for the sake of winning that next (re)election, to keep their fat fingers in the Pie of Power.

I'll even go as far as to say that my recommendation that treason charges be sought against those certain individuals, or at least charges of seditious speech is not 100% fair, as no man-made law is ever 100% fair. But it would certainly go a long way toward encouraging our troops who _do_ want to fight for our nation's security and interests, without having their morale damaged by defeatist gainsayers who might have even worn a uniform themselves at one time or another.

Loyalty to the Nation is a value that has been very much been on the wane in the post-Vietnam era, almost regarded as a cursed thing, especially by the socialist left.

[rwilymz]

"As a clear headed person who tries to be as intellectually honest as possible, can anyone help me out."

I am a clear-headed person, intellectually honest and all that. What do you, a pucillanimous twit, wish to know?

"Which members of the armed forces am I allowed to criticize?"

Any and all of them. For any and all reasons you wish, contrived or not.

Same as always.

However, if you would wish to be like me, clear-headed and intellectually honest, then you would confine your criticisms to those things which are academically demonstrable and not simply in line with your personal feelings.

"I can impugn the patriotism of Kerry (John but not Bob) and also Cleland, Murtha and many others."

See what I mean about intellectual honesty? Messers Kerry, Cleland and Murtha have abandonded their military training, have contradicted their knowledge of military doctrine and tactics, in order to score political points with the militarily *unknowledgeable* masses. To impugne them for doing this is intellectually supportible.

Ditto Wesley Clark, for his newsprint insubordination while under the command of his Commander in Chief, Bill Clinton; ditto also Bill Clinton for his military orders to Wesley Clark which themselves violated every shred of war doctrine -- even though, as CinC, he is allowed to do that; ditto again Wesley Clark for his statements upon retiring which betrayed less than a buck private's knowledge of that military doctrine handbook that he knew so well just two years before that he would risk court-martial to argue in public against his elected constitutional CinC.

"I know that to mock Petraeus is treason."

You know nothing of the sort. You may *feel* that, but then "feelings" are not the same as knowledge. You may criticize, impugne or -- yes -- even mock Petraeus for anything you want. But the same caveats apply. If you take these actions based upon no knowledge, inaccurate knowledge or cherry-picked knowledge of the subject through which you would criticize him, you will yourself be opened up for return criticism.

"I cannot mock Cheney even though he had five deferments"

You can indeed mock the veep for deferring his way through a war -- same as my older brother and tens of thousands of others for that matter. Mocking him for knowing more about war than you do, though, would be problematic, for it would, as stated above, open yourself up for return indictment.

Similarly, you can mock the former prez for deferring his way, via the Soviet Union, through the same war. And the former veep for having his daddy land him in a cushy combat-free stateside editorship of the Stars-n-Stripes. Did you know that the CCR anti-war classic "Fortunate Son" was written about Senator Al Gore Sr's son, the future Senator Al Gore Jr?

"nor can I mock the president who claims to have served in the National Guard but no one remembers him."

See what I mean about inaccurate knowledge? Records abound. The current prez is just as mockable as the former veep for having strings pulled on his behalf. You may not know this or, if you do, care, but those of us in the military, or ex-in the military and who work for same now consider this type of "who do you know?" kid glove treatment to be cheating. Not really any different from those who stand on the sidelines and criticise what we do, how we do it, or for whom we do it.

"All this confuses me."

No doubt. But give it a little practice, it'll come to you.

First: learn the subject thoroughly.
Second: stick with demonstrable facts.
Third: scrupulously separate your personal feelings from those facts. Intellectual honesty has no place for personal desire.

"Rush's anal cyst is not my real name"

Just your calling, then, eh?

[Fred Beloit]

Poor electro carbon1002 or whatever, you wrote, "I know that to mock Petraeus is treason." But I never saw anybody here do that. The mocking of Petraeus wasn't treasonous, it was simply unfair. It was not only unfair to Patraeus, it was unfair to Reid, Hillery Clinton, and the many other Democratics who voted confidence and support for the General just a few weeks before. That their own supporters called their vote a vote for a betrayer must have been an awful shame to them, and to you, "a clear headed person who tries to be as intellectually honest as possible," as one expert in human nature, you, described you.

[PITA]

Just a quick note, RWILYMZ, but, please, enough with all the arch lecturing and hectoring.

When you sneer down your nose at others (and sneering seems to be your major contribution at this site) about "learning the subject thoroughly" and "sticking with demonstrable facts," you better have your own cards perfectly arranged.

And, in this case, you don't. Your comment that Fortunate Son was about Al Gore didn't sound right, since (vice your comment) Gore did, in fact, serve in Vietnam, though not in a combat leadership position: he was public-information-officer for an engineer brigade in 1970-71. In any event, the young Gore was neither a cheerleader for the Vietnam War (a prerequisite for our Fortunate Son), nor unwilling to go himself (the icing on the cake).

According to various internet references, and interviews with CCR, Fortunate Son was actually written about Dwight Eisenhower at the time of his marriage to Julie Nixon in '69. Now, that makes sense: a member of a right-wing, war-supporting family who felt no obligation to serve in Vietnam.

That's what Fortunate Son is all about.... guys like young Eisenhower, and young G.W. Bush, I would add.

Hey, a quick question, if you don't mind: what is the point of your commentary at this site?

Previously, you indicated that I was a simpleton for having an opinion about what Rush Limbaugh did (or did not) say about anti-Bush troopers in Iraq. You dismissed Rush as a meaningless figure (a mere cheerleader), and those who would muck about in such a meaningless controversy (political blowhards always say nasty stuff about the other team, etc) as having no sense of balance, being uninformed fools, etc. . . . Yet, you feel compelled to offer your opinion about the opinions offered by simpletons about cheerleaders?

Does not compute.

[rwilymz]

"According to various internet references, and interviews with CCR, Fortunate Son was actually written about Dwight Eisenhower at the time of his marriage to Julie Nixon in '69."

And according to others it was written about "the 234 sons of members of Congress who served" during Vietnam by being handed assignments having nothing to do with combat. Which includes ... Guess Who?

"what is the point of your commentary at this site?"

See if there's anything interesting to babble about.

"you indicated that I was a simpleton for having an opinion about what Rush Limbaugh did (or did not) say "

Right again, ain't I?

"you feel compelled to offer your opinion about the opinions offered by simpletons about cheerleaders?"

Indeed.

If the issue is war and foreign policy, the means of discussing it is not to criticize the commentary of war and foreign policy made by those discussing it. It is to discuss it.

[PITA]

RWILYMZ, you throw out the jab that Fortunate Son was written about Al Gore, who you indicated served Stateside during the Vietnam War.

I point out that that you are in error: in fact, Al Gore DID serve in Vietnam (PIO of an engineer brigade, 1970-71), and John Fogerty of CCR is quoted at various places on the internet to the effect that he wrote Fortunate Son about young Dwight Eisenhower at the time of his marriage to Julie Nixon--that is about a draft-age member of a right-wing/war-supporting family who felt no personal need to head off to Vietnam. (See also: G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, ad naseum.)

Your response: " . . . And according to others it [Fortunate Son] was written about 'the 234 sons of members of Congress who served' during Vietnam by being handed assignments having nothing to do with combat. Which includes ... Guess Who? . . . ."

Oh, for pete's sake: you just pulled that out of your ass, man! You made a minor error. Big deal. Just fess up, and join the rest of us mortals. No need to move the goalposts around!

Incidentally, besides wondering what you are even doing at this site (I mean, why does so august and infallible a person deign to deal with all the simpletons playing bumper cars here), I also wonder why you feel the need to cast aspersions (subtle and otherwise) on combat veterans who happen to be Democrats.

Sure, Al Gore wasn't with MACV-SOG, or even leading a rifle platoon or flying a helicopter in Vietnam. . . . but he wasn't a general's aide at corps headquarters, either, or shuffling papers behind a desk at MACV. He was a junior officer with a combat engineer brigade, nothing more, nothing less. He could have had a much tougher job, and he could have had a much easier job. And I'm sure the time he spent at the reopened Khe Sanh Combat Base during Operation Dewey Canyon II/Lam Son 719 was not exactly a cushy interlude.

So, why the (inaccurate) put-down that Gore was the basis for Fortunate Son (unless you were making some kind of roundabout jab at the whole Tipper-and-I-were-the-basis-for-Love-Story misadventure, which would be silly for several reasons, as you should know: Go check out Bob Somersby's pieces on the subject)?

Why the little jab at SSG McGough? Why the airy dismissal (on a previous thread) of the truth of the charge that James Webb is a closet pedophile (the most ridiculous GOP smear of all), and the lack of concern over Ann Coulter's obnoxious assertions regarding Max Cleland's service in Vietnam (you know, her description of a decorated combat officer maimed on a battlefield as a rear-echelon commando maimed during "a routine noncombat mission")?

Why do you comment on issues about which you declare you don't give a damn, and have no relevant facts to offer?

Really, I don't get it. You're no simpleton. You know your way around the English language. But for reasons known but to you and your god, you are content to merely parachute in, pose as bi-partisan (puh-leeze!), defend ridiculous GOP smears of Democratic combat veterans, then pretend to an infallible knowledge of all issues military when not sneering at the rest of us buffoons over your spectacles.

Bizarre!

[PITA]

Here's more of what I mean, RWILYMZ; you write that you sneer at those here with whom you disagree because, "If the issue is war and foreign policy, the means of discussing it is not to criticize the commentary of war and foreign policy made by those discussing it. It is to discuss it."

But that's not what these particular threads are about: they're not about big, mighty things like "war and foreign policy," they're about little things like the accuracy of what is being said by GOP cheerleaders about the military service of certain left-leaning veterans of long-ago Vietnam and current-day Iraq.

So, again: why the freak are you offering your smug two cents about a subject you neither care about, nor know about?