| 
    
      | 
        
          | Article Overview:   
          Moral Clarity!  What is it?   A Times editorialist says 
          it's bad when you overdose on it.  He says President Bush has too 
          much "moral clarity."   I'm not sure that's possible.   
          See if you can figure it out. |  
       
       VigilanceVoice  
  www.VigilanceVoice.com
 Tuesday--July 
      8, 2003—Ground Zero Plus 664
 ___________________________________________________________
 How Do You Overdose On Moral 
      Clarity?
 ___________________________________________________________
 by
 Cliff McKenzie
 Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News
 
        
        
          |   GROUND ZER0, New York, N.Y.--July 8, 
          2003--  New York Times columnist, Nick Kristoff, claims that 
          President Bush has overdosed on "moral clarity." 
            
                        |   |  
              |    
              Nicholas D. Kristoff, columnist for the New York Times reflects 
              liberal bias |       His column, as most in the 
          New York Times, reflects the liberal bias of a newspaper that seeks to 
          establish balance, but leans so far one way that its readership must 
          hold up their shields to ward off the dung slung constantly at the 
          Administration, especially when it comes to President Bush.It wasn't surprising to me that this morning's 
          editorial slammed brass-knuckled accusations once more the viscera of 
          Bush's moral breadbasket.
 Editorial writers are surgeons.
 They like to cut things.
 They like to make things bleed.
 
            
              |  |  
              | My mission in 
              journalism school was to be a bulldog |      When I was in journalism school, 
          our professor reminded us to be bulldogs.   Our mission was 
          to take one side of an issue, clutch it in our jaws, shake and rip it 
          apart until the arms and legs of the subject flew into the wind, 
          literally dismembered from the issue's torso.  "That's when you know you've written a good editorial," 
          he proclaimed, "when the page is splattered with blood."
 Nefariously, Kristoff posited Bush against 
          Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair.   He likened Bush to a 
          gun slinging cowboy ideologist, and Blair as an adroit visionary.
 In his piece, 
          
          Kristoff 
          made the claim that Bush has overdosed on "moral clarity," and that 
          his intoxication with his own ideology, especially about the Iraq war, 
          makes him a "buffoon" in the eyes of others.  (Rather than say 
          those words himself, he quotes another as saying them.   
          This is called "oblique character assassination")
 I have no quarrel with lambasting those you don't 
          like on the editorial page.    That's what it's for.  
          The publisher of a paper has a right to expose his or her feelings 
          through hit-men and hit-women editorialists who make it their daily 
          job to assassinate the character of others while never coming under 
          audit themselves.
 Such people kill with immunity and impunity.  
          And, they are rewarded handsomely with both money and fame, and, 
          sometimes even fortune.
 I find it ironic, however, for Kristoff, or any 
          other editorialist, to accuse another of "overdosing on moral clarity" 
          or being a "political gunslinger," when the role of an editorial 
          writer is to be just that which they decry.
 That's why I used his column today as toilet 
          paper.
 He did his job.  He got to me.   
          His words wormed their way under my skin, and crawled through me like 
          one of those cheap horror flicks where you can see the creatures 
          wriggling just under the skin, heading toward your brain to bore holes 
          and then exit out your mouth, nose, eyes and ears, etc.
 
            
              |  |  
              | Kristoff's 
              message:  "If we trust Blair, we don't trust Bush" |        The stimulus of 
          Kristoff's attack, not that he needs one when it comes to filleting 
          President Bush or the Republican administration, was comparing Bush to 
          Blair.  The title of his column, "In Blair We Trust," sums up the 
          message.   For those not quick of the wit this early in the 
          morning, "if we trust Blair, we don't trust Bush."Kristoff is a slick assassin, as most good 
          character crunchers are.   He throws in little personal 
          mines to blow up any image of Bush as a true moral crusader, trying to 
          void the world of despots while the rest of the universe sits on its 
          hands and does nothing.   Get this little time bomb slipped 
          in to Kristoff's comments to chew at the marrow of any confidence you 
          might have in Bush as a "moral man."
 "Mr. Bush is not the dummy his critics perceive. My 
          take is that he's very bright in a street-smarts way: he's witty and 
          has a great memory for faces, and his old girlfriends speak more 
          highly of him than many women do of their husbands."
 Witty!
 Come on, Kristoff.  You sound like Jason 
          Blair describing Private Jessica's view from the front porch.
 Witty!
 President Bush is about as far from Witty as you 
          are from dialing up Rush Limbaugh.
 Memory for faces!
 Ouch.   What a kudos for a President.   
          "Yeah, he may have an overdose of moral clarity, but he's both witty 
          and has a memory for faces."
 Gag on that.
 But the real booby trap, deftly placed to 
          tripwire the reader's even faint thought that President Bush has a 
          moral authority to rush outside America's borders to take the Beast of 
          Terror on face-to-face is the scurrilous innuendo about "old 
          girlfriends."
 "...his old girlfriends speak more highly 
          of him than many women do of their husbands."
 
            
              |  |  
              |   
              Kristoff's words would make more sense if he were writing about 
              The Terminator  |         Now, if 
          Kristoff was taking pot shots at Arnold "I'll-Be-Back" Swartzenegger, 
          maybe that comment might have some play.  But implying that 
          President Bush has some "sex appeal," that he might possibly be just 
          another Bill Clinton riding an elephant rather than an ass--huh-uh, 
          Nick old buddy.   Way out there.  Your corked your bat 
          on that one.Cheap shots aside, I just don't get it.
 The world if full of ripe, bursting to be 
          told Vigilant issues, subjects an editorial writer can paint with 
          endless passion, but instead, like rats chewing on the dead carcasses 
          of yesterday's news victims, the writer, such as Kristoff, likes to 
          kick and stomp and shoot holes in dead bodies.
 In Vietnam we had those kinds.
 They would come upon a dead body 
          someone else had shot and start firing.   These were our 
          "crazy" people.   Up front were our brave and courageous, 
          our points and scouts who risked their lives in the unknown, went 
          hand-to-hand with the enemy, and then in the rear of the column, the 
          less courageous, the less brave, would open up on the dead and then 
          claim a "kill."
 In their twisted minds they were 
          heroes, and probably went home telling everyone at the beer bar, 
          "Yeah, I killed twenty Cong myself."  Little did their listeners 
          know their bullets were buried in  corpses.
 Kristoff's attack on Bush is 
          like shooting holes in a corpse.
 How many times can one kill the 
          enemy?
 The attack today, comparing 
          Bush to Blair, could be written by a one-legged man in an ass-kicking 
          contest.
 And, it's value to the 
          world is nil, unless you're a Bush-hater, a Terrorist Against Bush, 
          who blinds himself to all things in the world except finding some new, 
          ugly, twisted and horrible thing to demean a President who refused to 
          let the tyranny of Saddam Hussein run its full course.
 
            
              |  |  
              | Kristoff 
              demeans a President who refused to allow Saddam Hussein to 
              continue his reign of Terror |           I 
          would have loved to hear Kristoff write about the magic of a single  
          two-year-old child surviving a Sudanese airplane crash that killed 116 
          people but left the child alive.   What destiny awaits that 
          child?   Why did the universe spare the child, while all 
          others aboard were killed in the holocaust?An editorial writer could 
          paint a rosy picture of the future for a child like that, saved from 
          the jaws of the Beast of Terror by the Sentinels of Vigilance, for 
          what purpose?
 Then there is the 
          "gunslinger Bush" intervening in Liberia.   What is this guy 
          doing?    Why is he trying to quash Terrorism in the 
          Dark Continent?    Has he overdosed again on moral 
          clarity, believing that America's might just possibly can send a 
          signal to all the world's Terrorists that we are the Sentinels of 
          Vigilance, that we are willing to throw all our power and might at 
          those who would rape, murder and violate the freedom of the innocent?
 Moral clarity?
 What is it--some poison 
          of the human spirit?
 And can one truly 
          overdose on it?
 
            
              |  |  
              | Moral clarity 
              is the fuel of Vigilance |           
          Kristoff would like us to think that Tony Blair is a much better 
          leader than President Bush, and that we should give no credit to our 
          Chief Executive Officer as we might have FDR or John Kennedy, symbols 
          to guys like Kristoff of the "better half" of political leadership.Nations chose between two 
          objectives--selfishness and selflessness.
 Recently, France and 
          Germany, among others, chose to be selfish.   They ignored 
          all the evidence in Iraq that would justify a toppling of a regime 
          that everyone knew was not just a manufacturer of Weapons of Mass 
          Destruction (WMD), but also willing to use them on their own people as 
          well as others.   This same nation paid $25,000 to every 
          suicide bomber, fomenting Terrorism outside its borders.
            
          America stepped up to the plate and took a hammer and smashed the free 
          rule of Terrorism worldwide.Up-and-coming 
          Terrorists looking to Saddam Hussein as a role model, now see the 
          rubble not the palaces.
 How many Terrorist 
          cells in America and around the globe lost members when they realized 
          at least one guy "who had overdosed on moral clarity" would 
          hunt them down and destroy their hopes of a world that stuck its head 
          in the sand?
 It's too bad that 
          Kristoff is so blinded by his prejudice and bigotry that he can't see 
          that moral clarity, in small or large or even excessive doses, is the 
          fuel of Vigilance.
 Terrorism is about 
          creating Fear, Intimidation and Complacency in the minds of the 
          innocent.  Vigilance is about replacing Fear with Courage, 
          Intimidation with Conviction, and Complacency with Right Actions for 
          the Children's Children's Children.
 
            
              |  |  
              | America 
              stepped up to the plate to smash Terrorism's rule |            
          Can it be wrong for the children of the world to see that America will 
          fight against tyrants?  Can it be wrong for the children of the 
          world to see a nation being more selfless than selfish, and rather 
          than sit back and wait for a global consensus to human abuse, step in 
          and risk its reputation as a "good-old-boy" to stand virtually alone 
          in the battle against the Beast of Terror?These issues 
          are toilet paper to Kristoff.
 He can 
          only see the waste because he must live in a sewer of discontent.
 Moral clarity 
          might be something he should examine as a tool to express what 
          Americans think of our actions in Iraq and the world.
 Despite the attacks 
          of dung-slingers like Kristoff against alleged gunslingers like 
          President Bush, Americans support our role as "the nation of moral 
          clarity."
 Perhaps, when it 
          all said and done, Kristoff has overdosed on dung clarity.
 However, there's 
          hope.  He can sign the Pledge of Vigilance and climb out of the 
          sewer.
 I just won't hold 
          my breath for that event to happen.
 
 
 
 
  July 
                      7--Striking Out The Beast Of Terror In Central Park  ©2001 
                      - 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -  
                      a ((HYYPE)) 
                      design
       |  
          |  |   
         |  |