Under no circumstance would I dare compare my personal
sacrifices or the risks I faced to those faced by anyone in
the military....Oh BTW, your attempt to change the parameters from those in the military serving under an unfit CIC, to swearing an oath to the Constitution, but not the President (and CIC) was so
Kerryesque in its revisionist nuance.
Revisionist nuance? This discussion has been about defining the essence of patriotism. My understanding has always been that patriotism is about defending our country and its foundations. Those foundations endure, at least they do as long as we have patriots to defend them. That's why oaths of office are to the Constitition, not to the president. No revisionism. I made that point early in the discussion (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20634698), just as soon as I realized the essential argument I was getting was that patriotism is variable, a function of one's regard for the administration in office. It has always been my undertanding that patriotism was loyalty to those enduring foundations, not the fleeting stuff of politics. The bit about my service was to provide evidence of that--that the oath we take is commonly (I thought) understood to be to the Constitition, inviolate and enduring regardless of administration, not tempered by politics. It was not a comparison of risks or a comparison of jobs. That is a red herring.
What do you think patriotism is about? If you always gave your best effort, Clinton notwithstanding, then perhaps you recognize that duty to country requires one to fight the Islamicist enemy unvaryingly regardless of administration. If not, why not?
Once again, I do not fault anyone for declining to serve under an unfit CIC, only pointing out that doing so doesn't warrant a medal for patriotism. |
