Bush's Meandering Moral Compass

COMMENTARY - Los Angeles Times
Bush's Meandering Moral Compass
By Peter Singer
March 25, 2004
In the presidential election that brought George W. Bush to power, the moral character of the candidates was a significant factor with some voters. Among those who rated honesty as an important factor influencing their choice of candidate, 80% said they voted for Bush. These voters were disgusted with Bill Clinton, not only for his sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky but for lying about it. They wanted someone to bring sound ethical values to the White House and believed that Bush was the man to do it. What have the last three years told us about Bush's ethics?

The discrepancies between Bush's prewar claims about weapons of mass destruction and the postwar reality have convinced many that they know the answer to this question. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt about the intelligence on Iraq and look to other issues. Do Bush's statements and actions reflect a coherent, defensible ethic?

First, what does Bush think about the proper reach of the federal government? In his preelection memoir, "A Charge to Keep," he was eloquent about his support for states' rights, individual freedom and small government. He contrasted that with "a philosophy that seeks solutions from distant bureaucracies" and added, "I am a conservative because I believe government closest to the people governs best."

Again and again during the campaign he hammered that theme. On the "Larry King Show," in response to a question about a hypothetical state vote on gay marriage, he replied: "The states can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this states' issue."

Yet in office, Bush has done just the opposite of what he said he would do. The Patriot Act has given the federal government unprecedented powers over American citizens. Arguably, that legislation may be justified by the need to combat terrorism. But no such justification exists for Bush's support for a constitutional amendment to rule out gay marriage. Here, his stated reason for this proposal is to curb "judicial activism." And what about attempts by his attorney general to overturn Oregon's law permitting physician-assisted suicide and to fight against state decisions allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes? These changes were brought in at the ballot box, by the state's voters.

When the surplus evaporated and turned into a huge deficit, however, Bush did not reverse his arguments. Instead, he simply switched ground, defending a further tax cut on a completely new basis: that it would benefit the economy. But now a tax cut was not letting the American people spend their own money; it was letting this generation of Americans spend the money of future generations.

When he focuses on human embryos, he speaks of his obligation to foster and encourage respect for life, but when respect for human life gets in the way of his wish to strike back at those he considers enemies of the United States, he is willing to bring about the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings. These are not the actions of a person of principle.

In an interview with journalist Bob Woodward, Bush repeatedly referred to his "instincts" or "instinctive reactions" and said: "I'm not a textbook player. I'm a gut player." That may be true. The problem is that Bush's moral instincts seem to allow him to sway in whatever direction seems most convenient.

Oh, come on!

Presidents have been making war since John Hancock presided over the Continental Congress, and rulers have been doing so since the dawn of our species, if not before. Fighting a war is not some bizarre new invention of Bush's. Any president who sends troops to any but the tiniest war, will produce death tolls comparable to or greater than the ones you quote. Just because a president commits troops to a war, does not mean that he doesn't respect the sanctity of life. If you make that judgement against Bush, you need to make it against other rulers who have committed troops to war.

The difference with Bush taking this country into war with Iraq and other wars that past presidents have taken us into is the fact that the war in Iraq was predicated on lies and bad intelligence. In the history of the United States, we have never gone to war under false pretense as we have in Iraq.

It is my opinion, that GW Bush should have war crimes charges brought against him.

Bush doesn't respect the sanctity of life. His cavalier attitude and jokes made in poor taste last night at the dinner in Washington is an example of that. I can and will make a judgement against Bush because has earned it.

I am not particularly aware that the military tactics used in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are any more cavalier concerning the lives of bystanders than the tactics used in other wars that have been fought during the last century or two.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am not particularly aware that the military tactics used in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are any more cavalier concerning the lives of bystanders than the tactics used in other wars that have been fought during the last century or two.

On the contrary: the "smart technology" deployed in both theater's are allowing less collateral damage than ever before.

I would state without hesitation that the tactics we used in Iraq are more considerate of innocent human life than any invading Army of the past.

Please challenge this statement only if you can provide some evidence of an invasion with more concern for civilians.

I would state without hesitation that the tactics we used in Iraq are more considerate of innocent human life than any invading Army of the past.

Quote:

I would state without hesitation that the tactics we used in Iraq are more considerate of innocent human life than any invading Army of the past.

I would bet that the civilans who were killed in each (failed) attmept to kill Hussein by precision guided munitions would beg to differ, as would the chidren who are still being killed and maimed by cluster bomblets.
NB: I am not saying the Iraq conflict is worse, just not any different!

WWII was planned with reconstruction of the axis nations in mind (Yalta Conference). In addition, post war activities by the allies showed tremendous concern for the civillian populations. When one considres the activities of allied forces in recently liberated France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, etc.. my point is even forther emphasized.

Your ignorance of the historical record is not my problem.

I would bet that the civilans who were killed in each (failed) attmept to kill Hussein by precision guided munitions would beg to differ, as would the chidren who are still being killed and maimed by cluster bomblets.

NB: I am not saying the Iraq conflict is worse, just not any different!

When one considers the considers the activities of US forces in recently liberated Iraq, your point becomes... what point?

I would state without hesitation that the tactics we used in Iraq are more considerate of innocent human life than any invading Army of the past.

Your lack of ignorance of the historical record demonstrates more clearly your overly biased, purposeful avoidance of obvious fact. You know better; yet argue anyway.

Contrarily, your admission that we did use "precision guided munitions", rather than carpet bombing the entire area, proves my point even further.

Which means of course; your distractions have done absolutely nothing to falsify my statements.

hobitbob wrote:

Quote:

I would state without hesitation that the tactics we used in Iraq are more considerate of innocent human life than any invading Army of the past.

I would bet that the civilans who were killed in each (failed) attmept to kill Hussein by precision guided munitions would beg to differ, as would the chidren who are still being killed and maimed by cluster bomblets.
NB: I am not saying the Iraq conflict is worse, just not any different!

They probably would, but then again, we are talking about percentages, probabilities, kill rates, etc., not anecdotes about individuals. I agree that every human life is very, very important, but on an analytical level, you seem to be asserting that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have employed tactical approaches which produce bystander casualties in some sense greater than in WW2. You have utterly failed to provide any numbers, percentages, other quantitative data, or analysis to support this. Comments about stand-up comedy are mere distractions that do not assist in demonstrating that the numbers were in some sense worse in these two recent conflicts. Don't make the assertion if you can't back it up.