LearnedFoot was right: It has been a strangely slow week for blogging. I have had glimmers of posts come to me, and then leave just as quickly. Inspiration can be so fleeting. It's times like this that we at KAR go back to our roots; back to the well that never runs dry. It's time to dissect another letter to the Star Tribune. I didn't have to go far into the letters section this morning to find an ignorance-laden diatribe. And this writer uses one of my favorite movies as a metaphor to illustrate his point, so I am doubly indignant! But I digress:
"Thank you for publishing Maureen Dowd's excellent Feb. 18 commentary ('Bush's own Barberini Faun'), and for continuing to reveal the truth behind the Bush administration's Wizard-of-Oz-like charade.
As an ethics professor at two Minnesota universities, I am continually perplexed by the interest my students express in President Bill Clinton's behavior vs. President Bush's. Students are still mesmerized and appalled by Clinton's Oval Office daliance, yet refuse to see even a hint of an ethical issue in how the Bush administration blows smoke."
David Kaiser, St. Paul, MN.
Well David...remember when Dorothy asked the Scarecrow, "What would you do with a brain if you had one?"? Let's start with this 'daliance' term that lefties are always using to minimize Clinton's reprehensible behavior. Let's pretend that it was not a member of the American media that got wind of the Lewinski affair, but instead an agent of a government unfriendly to the U.S. You see David, when a president decides to conduct himself in the manner which Clinton did, he can open himself to the possibility of blackmail and extortion. And the conditions for keeping it hush, hush would probably be more than mere money. Remember the whole imbroglio regarding Clinton's Chinese espionage problems? Coincidence? Responsible, morally strong leaders don't do 'daliances' David.
And then I just love how this guy is so 'perplexed' that students would be appalled by Clinton's behavior but not Bush's. Yeah, why would intelligent young people be appalled that a president would treat the Oval Office like the grotto in the Playboy mansion, but not be appalled by a president who has liberated two countries and freed 50 million people since 2001? I don't get it! Why would students think it fascinating that a president would lie to a grand jury, but not be repulsed by a president who feels humbled by the support of the American people, and who has returned dignity and honor to the office?