Friday, December 02, 2005
What do you call it?
Wilson, Hoover, Carter. All failed because they couldn't distinguish between their personal moral code and the needs of the nation. Granted, there are many other ways to lose a war: Truman and LBJ were feisty and ruthless, not restrained by any Ivy League gentlemanly honor code, yet they still lost Korea and Vietnam for a host of separate reasons. On the other hand, morality can even help. Reagan was ruled by a moral vision, but his morality was unique in that he considered American victory against Communism to be the optimal goal, worth achieving by any and all methods. Reagan's morality was thus perfectly congruent with the job of President.
But when a President declares openly that his morality prevents him from defending the nation, loss is guaranteed.
I've been trying not to put Bush Junior into the Carter category, but yesterday's speech by AG Gonzalez settled the point. Gonzalez was speaking at the CFR, and was being hit with a repeated question by enemy agents (aka "reporters") in the audience. His repeated answer was unequivocal. According to Gonzalez, Bush will not allow any part of his administration to use torture, even in the oft-stated extreme case where only torturing a captured enemy can save the country from total destruction.
Well, what can you say after that? It's not treason, because Bush apparently doesn't intend to be adhering to the enemy. It's not a total surrender, at least not by its explicit wording. I have to call it insubordination for lack of a better word.
The enemy now knows that Bush will defend the ACLU at all costs.
So who's supposed to defend the United States? ¶ 8:08 AM
But when a President declares openly that his morality prevents him from defending the nation, loss is guaranteed.
I've been trying not to put Bush Junior into the Carter category, but yesterday's speech by AG Gonzalez settled the point. Gonzalez was speaking at the CFR, and was being hit with a repeated question by enemy agents (aka "reporters") in the audience. His repeated answer was unequivocal. According to Gonzalez, Bush will not allow any part of his administration to use torture, even in the oft-stated extreme case where only torturing a captured enemy can save the country from total destruction.
Well, what can you say after that? It's not treason, because Bush apparently doesn't intend to be adhering to the enemy. It's not a total surrender, at least not by its explicit wording. I have to call it insubordination for lack of a better word.
The enemy now knows that Bush will defend the ACLU at all costs.
So who's supposed to defend the United States? ¶ 8:08 AM
