On JM Marshall’s first point, I’m not sure. It’s one thing to refuse to fight in a war you believe is deeply misguided – reasonable opinions differ on whether unjust laws should be obeyed.
It’s quite another to believe wholeheartedly in a war - but to dodge it so that somebody else’s precious skin is threatened. In common political discourse these characters --Bush, Cheney and Gingrich are 3 examples-- are called Chicken Hawks. But perhaps “coward” is a better characterization.
Here I must stress that every American deserves freedom of speech-- even cowards.
On Mr. Marshall’s second point, it should be noted that all Presidents make use of proxies: traditionally the Vice President uses direct language and over-broad characterizations while the President remains above the fray.
But when direct language blurs into character assassination and over-broad language become outright falsehood, then a true statesman --or even a halfway decent human being-- should either impose a limit on the dishonesty or stand up and endorse the charges that are being made.
A good place to start when discussing broad, complicated concepts is a Dictionary. (For a more philosophical approach, skim down this page, to see Plato’s take on the subject.)
A coward is, "One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. …proceeding from, or expressive of, base fear or timidity. This contrasts with a dastard who is “…a sneaky, cowardly evildoer”. Usage of the word craven (“Characterized by abject fear; cowardly.”) suggests the proper tone: “Is it fit this soldier keep his oath? Fluellen. He is a craven and a villain else.” --Shakespeare.
Traditional cowards let their sense of fear override their morality. Now at times one can spot some fear in The President’s eyes: the clip above and the disquieting one with The Pet Goat are 2 examples, although Bush’s facial expressions also project a sense of confusion.
But mostly I think W is operating out of political calculation. His gut-level fear manifests itself when he is called into account (by McCain, for example) or perhaps when he is questioning the propriety of his decisions (when he decided to go on with the grade school photo op when the country was under attack). But this fear doesn’t seem to be a distinguishing and dominating characteristic of the sitting President’s behavior, so perhaps the “Coward” tag can and should be improved upon. Still, the distinctions between “Coward”, “Dastard” and “Craven” (for example) are thin.
Clearly, you are both. You have nothing cogent to add to the discussion. so you pick nits rather than expose your own ignorance. Nice try, stoat-boy, we know what you are. Now git.
How would you recommend that I clearly distinguish President GHW Bush, who served in WWII, from his son, the sitting President? I could say George W Bush, I suppose, but I really would like to draw a bright line between the 2 Presidents when discussing cowardice. (Also, I quite frankly don’t think the Jr. suffix is a big deal: my brother has it, for example).
Give it up, guys, friend Milroyj has got you dead to rights! The lowlife creep you are discussing is not, repeat, not named George W. Bush, Jr. There’s no getting around that, that is an irrefutable point. All our cites, facts, and logic are as nothing, dashed into atoms and shards by this single, cogent, and inescapable reality: we have all been outsmarted by milroyj
Some of you probably won’t be able to handle this crushing defeat. Myself, I’m a bit older, I’ve had dreams dashed before (two words: Fran Tarkenton), I’ll probably just drink.
Hey, maybe that’s why no one remembers seeing GeeDubya (Praise the Leader!) during his guard time! When asked about GeeDubya Jr., and they just snickered behind thier hands and said “Never heard of him, not seen at this base!”
I wish to distinguish the son from the father when they have the same given name (minus a single initial admittedly). Please direct me on how I should do so.
(Also: I couldn’t find any reference on google regarding the sitting President’s birth certificate. So milroyj’s claim remains an assertion without evidence. I did find an assertion from a BBC journalist that the sitting President hates the description. But I can’t see how it is inaccurate, at the very least).
The President and his father do not share the same name, so the Jr. thing is inappropriate. Why are you trying to stir shit up where it’s not warranted?
Do you know any politician that has a sense of shame? They’re all shameless, every single one of them. They take money from special interests, they don’t vote based upon what their constituents want, they attack their opponents with relish on everything they can think of, and they write off their little foibles as “youthful indiscretions” or something similar.
As for cowardice, they’re both cowards. They all are. How are the “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” any different than moveon.org? Sorry, both do “unsolicited” attack ads, and both are “disavowed” by the candidates they favor. As if it could be expected that either of them would have them stop. Right. You would have a better chance of getting Rush Limbaugh to admit that he’s a moron.
Rather than having someone else do the attacking, they should just go toe to toe, because frankly speaking there are very few positives for either of them to run on, so if they’re going to attack each other they should just dive right in and get mud on their hands.
Politics is a scummy business. At this level it achieves moral reprehensibility. That’s the way it is, that’s the way it shall be, so why don’t we just drop the pretenses and let them have at it instead of hiding behind their supporters?
