Open letter to the White House - Decision-Making
Dear Mr. President:
I'm a little confused these days. You have made pronouncements on several issues in the past week, pronouncements based on clearly stated principles upon which you purport to stand. At the same time, within recent memory, you have made decisions based on principles directly contrary to those you now adhere to so faithfully. Could you please inform us exactly what it is you believe?
In the matter of Terri Schiavo, for instance, you signed legislation overpowering the jurisdiction of the Florida state courts, saying "In cases like this one,where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo, who live at the mercy of others." Very well, we understand the principle. What I don't understand is where the principle came from or how long it has been operative. It certainly wasn't operative three years ago, where your presumption regarding Iraq was decidedly in favor of death for American soldiers and many thousands of Iraqi citizens. The circumstances were very similar indeed - there were "serious questions and substantial doubts" regarding your professed reasons for going to war, and you must have known that once we invaded Iraq, many millions of Iraqis would be living "at the mercy of others," whether American troops, Shiite insurgents, Islamic fundamentalists or any of a number of others. Clearly, then, you have now made a decision based on a principle - the presumption in favor of life - which you obviously did not adhere to in the past. Can we expect you to adhere to this principle in the future? If so, what are your plans for promoting the presumption in favor of life in Iraq? Your policies are now helping to kill people there every day, so under this new principle you must certainly be getting ready to change them. Unless, of course, you don't really believe in this new principle.
Similarly, a few days ago, you announced your belief that developments toward democracy in the Middle East are a direct result of America's intervention in Iraq, that "The victory of freedom in Iraq is...inspiring democratic reformers from Beirut to Tehran. Today, women can vote in Afghanistan, Palestinians are breaking the old patterns of violence, and hundreds of thousands of Lebanese are rising up to demand their sovereignty and democratic rights." Never mind that most of these developments were either in process long before American troops showed up in Iraq or were touched off by incidents that had nothing to do with our invasion. Never mind that the Palestinian election arose because Yasser Arafat died, which had nothing to do with the American invasion; never mind that the Lebanese uprising was brought on by the assassination of a Lebanese statesman, which had nothing to do with the American invasion; never mind that "hundreds of thousands of Lebanese" are also rising up to demand that their "sovereignty and democratic rights" be ignored in favor of Syrian control; never mind that it's taken three years for Afghanistan to get around to giving women the vote, or that the women's vote in Afghanistan is as ineffective as the men's vote, both due to the chaos left in the wake of the American invasion. Never mind all that, the principle behind your pronouncement is clear; if something happens after an action of yours, in approximately the same place and using some of the same terminology, the responsibility is to be given to you. It's another change of direction, though. Only a few days ago you invoked an entirely different principle regarding advocacy videos disguised as straight news, clearly intended to fool viewers into thinking that they presented facts rather than opinion. These advocacy pieces came out of your office and used terminology from your pronouncements, so we might expect you to take responsibility for them as you did for democratic developments in the Middle East. Instead, you announced that the responsibility for informing the public as to the source of those advocacy pieces rests with local television, not with you. So I must ask - do you now plan to adhere to the new principle of taking responsibility for developments around you, as you did regarding the Middle East? Or do you plan to adhere to this principle only when things are going well?
I would not be so concerned, Mr. President, if it weren't for the fact that you ran for re-election on a platform of standing your ground and operating with moral clarity. You accused your opponent of flip-flopping for far lesser shifts in emphasis than the ones you are exhibiting now. Indeed, your flopping around on the bases for your decisions would seem little short of psychopathic in any average citizen. Perhaps you expect us to cut you some slack given the enormity of your job, but isn't that why you keep people like Jeff Gannon around? Do you really expect the American people to forgive your moral relativism because you are the President of the United States? Are you quite well, sir?
I'm a little confused these days. You have made pronouncements on several issues in the past week, pronouncements based on clearly stated principles upon which you purport to stand. At the same time, within recent memory, you have made decisions based on principles directly contrary to those you now adhere to so faithfully. Could you please inform us exactly what it is you believe?
In the matter of Terri Schiavo, for instance, you signed legislation overpowering the jurisdiction of the Florida state courts, saying "In cases like this one,where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo, who live at the mercy of others." Very well, we understand the principle. What I don't understand is where the principle came from or how long it has been operative. It certainly wasn't operative three years ago, where your presumption regarding Iraq was decidedly in favor of death for American soldiers and many thousands of Iraqi citizens. The circumstances were very similar indeed - there were "serious questions and substantial doubts" regarding your professed reasons for going to war, and you must have known that once we invaded Iraq, many millions of Iraqis would be living "at the mercy of others," whether American troops, Shiite insurgents, Islamic fundamentalists or any of a number of others. Clearly, then, you have now made a decision based on a principle - the presumption in favor of life - which you obviously did not adhere to in the past. Can we expect you to adhere to this principle in the future? If so, what are your plans for promoting the presumption in favor of life in Iraq? Your policies are now helping to kill people there every day, so under this new principle you must certainly be getting ready to change them. Unless, of course, you don't really believe in this new principle.
Similarly, a few days ago, you announced your belief that developments toward democracy in the Middle East are a direct result of America's intervention in Iraq, that "The victory of freedom in Iraq is...inspiring democratic reformers from Beirut to Tehran. Today, women can vote in Afghanistan, Palestinians are breaking the old patterns of violence, and hundreds of thousands of Lebanese are rising up to demand their sovereignty and democratic rights." Never mind that most of these developments were either in process long before American troops showed up in Iraq or were touched off by incidents that had nothing to do with our invasion. Never mind that the Palestinian election arose because Yasser Arafat died, which had nothing to do with the American invasion; never mind that the Lebanese uprising was brought on by the assassination of a Lebanese statesman, which had nothing to do with the American invasion; never mind that "hundreds of thousands of Lebanese" are also rising up to demand that their "sovereignty and democratic rights" be ignored in favor of Syrian control; never mind that it's taken three years for Afghanistan to get around to giving women the vote, or that the women's vote in Afghanistan is as ineffective as the men's vote, both due to the chaos left in the wake of the American invasion. Never mind all that, the principle behind your pronouncement is clear; if something happens after an action of yours, in approximately the same place and using some of the same terminology, the responsibility is to be given to you. It's another change of direction, though. Only a few days ago you invoked an entirely different principle regarding advocacy videos disguised as straight news, clearly intended to fool viewers into thinking that they presented facts rather than opinion. These advocacy pieces came out of your office and used terminology from your pronouncements, so we might expect you to take responsibility for them as you did for democratic developments in the Middle East. Instead, you announced that the responsibility for informing the public as to the source of those advocacy pieces rests with local television, not with you. So I must ask - do you now plan to adhere to the new principle of taking responsibility for developments around you, as you did regarding the Middle East? Or do you plan to adhere to this principle only when things are going well?
I would not be so concerned, Mr. President, if it weren't for the fact that you ran for re-election on a platform of standing your ground and operating with moral clarity. You accused your opponent of flip-flopping for far lesser shifts in emphasis than the ones you are exhibiting now. Indeed, your flopping around on the bases for your decisions would seem little short of psychopathic in any average citizen. Perhaps you expect us to cut you some slack given the enormity of your job, but isn't that why you keep people like Jeff Gannon around? Do you really expect the American people to forgive your moral relativism because you are the President of the United States? Are you quite well, sir?
posted by benshlomo at 2:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home