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.
8, 2003—Ground Zero Plus 664
How Do You Overdose On Moral
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
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,
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
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
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.
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."
Come on, Kristoff. You sound like Jason
Blair describing Private Jessica's view from the front porch.
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
"...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
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
The attack today, comparing
Bush to Blair, could be written by a one-legged man in an ass-kicking
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.
demeans a President who refused to allow Saddam Hussein to
continue his reign of Terror
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
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?
What is it--some poison
of the human spirit?
And can one truly
overdose on it?
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.
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.
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?
are toilet paper to Kristoff.
only see the waste because he must live in a sewer of discontent.
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
Perhaps, when it
all said and done, Kristoff has overdosed on dung clarity.
hope. He can sign the Pledge of Vigilance and climb out of the
I just won't hold
my breath for that event to happen.
7--Striking Out The Beast Of Terror In Central Park
- 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -