No Flinching From the Facts [George Will]

The Washington Post ^ | May 11, 2004 | George F. Will

[AntiGuv]

Listen to the language. It is always a leading indicator of moral confusion.

...cut...

The lawyer's client probably will offer -- this should deepen Americans' queasiness -- the Nuremberg defense: I was only obeying orders. If the abuse was the result of orders -- or of the absence of them -- fault must extend up the chain of command.

So, forgive the lawyer's language. But note what it betokens: a flinching from facts. Americans must not flinch from absorbing the photographs of what some Americans did in that prison. And they should not flinch from this fact: That pornography is, almost inevitably, part of what empire looks like. It does not always look like that, and does not only look like that. But empire is always about domination. Domination for self-defense, perhaps. Domination for the good of the dominated, arguably. But domination.

...cut...

The first axiom is: When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate. Leave aside the question of who or what failed before Sept. 11, 2001. But who lost his or her job because the president's 2003 State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud -- the story of Iraq's attempting to buy uranium in Niger? Or because the primary and only sufficient reason for waging preemptive war -- weapons of mass destruction -- was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning, from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable.

...cut...

One question is: Are the nation's efforts in the deepening global war -- the world is more menacing than it was a year ago -- helped or hindered by Rumsfeld's continuation as the appointed American most conspicuously identified with the conduct of the war? This is not a simple call. But being experienced, he will know how to make the call. Being honorable, he will so do.

...cut...

This nation has always needed an ethic about the resignation of public officials. Such an ethic cannot be codified. It must grow in controlling power from precedent to precedent, as an unwritten common law, distilled from the behavior of uncommonly honorable men and women who understand the stakes. A nation, especially one doing the business of empire, needs high officials to be highly attentive to what is done in their departments -- attentive far down the chain of command, as though their very jobs depended on it.

Finally, the second axiom. It is from Charles de Gaulle: The graveyards are full of indispensable men.

[expat_panama]

Click here if you want to read the whole essay without having to tell the Washington Post how much money you make.

[AntiGuv]

Thanks! I'm gonna ask the admin to pull this thread & see about posting the other source.

[AntiGuv]

Oh, wait! That won't help. Jewish World Review must be excerpted as well. Oh well! At least I'll have a better source to link when posting George Will in the future.

[maryz]

Jewish World Review must be excerpted as well.

Yes, but Jewish World Review asked nicely a couple of years ago if we would excerpt and link. They're a pretty shoestring operation, they need the hits, and they have a lot of good stuff. So Freepers were, as far as I know, happy to cooperate.

[AntiGuv]

I'll be more than happy to link Jewish World Review in the future rather than The Washington Post. I didn't know they syndicated George Will's column. Thanks for the added tip!

[over3Owithabrain]

So in a nutshell, is Will calling for Rummy's resignation? And he is using the language of the Left - "spurious" and "fraud" in dismissing Bush's prewar claims.

Will is an effete DC intellectual.

[maryz]

But who lost his or her job because the president's 2003 State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud -- the story of Iraq's attempting to buy uranium in Niger? Or because the primary and only sufficient reason for waging preemptive war -- weapons of mass destruction -- was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning, from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable.

Whose side is he on anyway? I thought new info had come up on the attempt to buy uranium. And the WMD (which seem to be turning up from Syria, to which convoys of trucks had been spotted in the time leading up to the way) were not the primary reason given. And "failure to anticipate" -- well, geez, I guess they forgot to bring the Ouija board.

[metesky]

— the world is more menacing than it was a year ago —

America's leading Torey goes wobbly.

[xzins]

I heard Will put the ball in Rummie's court. He said that Rumsfeld is honorable and will do the correct thing. I agree with that. If Rumsfeld discovers that his resignation is BEST for this nation and his president, then he will and SHOULD do it.

I found it interesting that the flanking individual at yesterday's news conference was Dick Cheney. Cheney has run DoD before. Interestingly, a report on Cheney's heart condition was also released. (He is OK; he can handle it.)

I think the nation would be well served with a Bush/Rice ticket, Cheney at DoD, and other individuals shuffled. I expect Powell to depart after the election. Rumsfeld might be usable elsewhere (state would be outstanding....someone with fire and a presidential MANDATE to clean house over there.)

[pkajj]

A Bush/Rice ticket would go down in flames, as pro-life voters would doubtlessly go shopping for a third party alternative. Her foreign policy credentials aside, Condi Rice is an unapologetic advocate of abortion rights.

[maica]

Will has been against the action in Iraq from the onset.
I don't know what his main, ideological objection was, because I have not listened to him on Steffi's show, since it became Steffi's show, and I stopped reading his articles after I learned his position - too much to read these days to waste time on a naysayer.

[time4good]

"Her foreign policy credentials aside, Condi Rice is an unapologetic advocate of abortion rights.

Where on earth is this reported?? This is the first time I've ever heard of this!! Sources please!

[ozdragon]

If that is the case then those pro-lifers will get what they deserve. Abortion is an issue between a woman and her physician and the government has no business in deciding medical procedures.

[theFIRMbss]

>"Her foreign policy credentials aside, Condi Rice is an unapologetic advocate of abortion rights.
>>Where on earth is this reported?

Condoleezza Rice on Abortion :     No stance on record

[hobbes1]

Condi Rice is an unapologetic advocate of abortion rights

Really?!?!?!?!? That's odd. I always thoughtI understood the meaning of the word advocate......

[GB]

Will has never been a movement conservative at least in Freeper terms, but neither is he a RINO. This basically shows his inside the Beltway pedigree, nothing more or less. It's his .02, I personally don't agree with it but I'm not prepared to toss him over the side because he's done valuable work for our cause before and probably will again.

As long as Rummy has the kind of support from the people that he's getting ... and as I've said in some other threads, screw the libs and the media, let 'em jabber because they'd be doing it about something else if this hadn't happened, all White House actions on this should be directed over their heads to the people ... he isn't going anywhere. Although it wouldn't surprise me a bit if after Bush's re-election and when the war situation stabilizes, he says "Sayonara." It's not exactly like he needs this gig to put bread on the table and once he's completed his mission and done his duty, he'd probably welcome a chance to get rid of the headaches.

[ModelBreaker]

The Washington post thinks I'm a 91 year old woman from Indiana.

[xzins]

I'll have to check on that. I thought she was the same as all the other republicans: rape/incest/life of mother/anti-partial-birth-abortion

[Arthur McGowan]

Abortion is an issue between a woman and her physician and the government has no business in deciding medical procedures.

The decision of a woman to poison her husband is an issue between her and her pharmacist, and the government has no business in deciding chemical procedures.