Talk a lot; don’t care about the implications; don’t see; don’t hear

The Washington Times wonders about the moral imperative.

Those now calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq have moral responsibilities. … What they lack is any compelling rationale for the precipice over which they seek to push Iraq. … President Bush yesterday sounded many familiar notes concerning the dangers of withdrawal, notes that are simple but need restating: Withdrawal hands al Qaeda a major victory and imperils us all. “People will begin to wonder about America’s resolve,” Mr. Bush said. … There is a moral obligation to think rationally and morally about the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq. We still do not see it happening.

This need to consider the moral and ethical implications of the action one promotes seems to be a near plague. Dr.Sanity talks about the peace activist who promotes killing as another example.

By her words it is clear that this Nobel Peace Prize winner is not actually opposed to killing at all. Specifically, she wants to kill the President of the United States. She has said so multiple times, and because she is a Nobel Prize winner, people and children cheer her, instead of calling her a hatemonger; or arresting her; or admitting her to a psych ward. … If Williams really were a champion of peace, she would be denouncing the true threats to peace in the world and saving her vitriolic rhetoric to oppose Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist jihadi groups that believe it is OK and even a moral necessity to rid the world of Jews and infidels.

It is not only in advocating reneging on a commitment or advocacy of assassination but also in active avoidance of any exposure to evidence that may potentially cast a negative light on these behaviors. Cal Thomas asks a plaintive question about this sort of avoidance.

All Mr. Bush is saying is give Gen. David Petraeus a chance. … That is a reasonable request; especially since the progress report was originally slated for September. … But the political season has begun and between Democratic politicians who are conducting their own insurgency against a weakened president — a president they have helped weaken by their nonsupport of the war effort …

The adage often used is that words are cheap. That is countered by the one that says words mean things.

It was easy to authorize action in Iraq with a long list of grievances. Actually taking action on that authorization appalled those who now show the value they placed on their own words. Aghast that their words were taken as offered, they now offer more words to counter the earlier words.

Promoting assassination is also easy. It is like the terrorist leaders who urge others to be suicide bombers. Doing it is best left to someone else.

When you find someone who can act that is likely to show the hollowness of your words, then, of course, you have to silence them or take some action to minimize the effect of their action so your words don’t look so silly.

It is like those who make solemn pronouncements about ‘failed’ and ‘miserable’ and ‘incompetent’ and how this administration has achieved nothing. They have to either run fast or start a massive denial or reality campaign to maintain any dignity at all.

Time will tell. We will see the implications of these words if they are indeed turned into action. It would probably be much better if there were proper considerations of the morality and truthfulness of the words before action is taken. That is why Sen. Reid’s evasion of the question as noted by the Washington Times is worth consideration. Just what are the moral consequences of what we propose? We did consider them going into Iraq despite the propaganda campaign to the contrary. Reid and colleagues do not seem to be doing so in promoting abandonment of the effort in Iraq and its people.

Comments are closed.