Reflections From a Murky Pond

Because of the latest outrage from the Liberals – the one’s who want the entire Bush administration tried by foreign or extra-national courts for war crimes – over the CIA’s destroying a bunch of interrogation videos the whole issue of President George W. Bush’s handling of the War on Terror in a post 9/11 world is back – yet again – in the limelight.

As expected, people’s responses to the situation break along ideological lines. The Liberals are calling for blood and vengeance and the Conservative are claiming that there was no wrongdoing at all. So, the hatred and polarity of the two sides increases to little purpose and the moderates are forced to choose a side or be reviled by both.

As is also expected – at least by my few regular readers 😉 – my opinion is somewhat skewed from the normative values of Liberal, Conservative or Moderate.

Did the Bush administration violate US law during the War on Terror? In the case of the warrantless wire-taps, I would say “Yes.” In their handling of the various illegal combatants and terrorists, I would say “No.” Bush’s people were very careful to stay outside  – as opposed to either within or in violation – of the letter of the law in those matters.

Did the Bush Administration violate the US Constitution? My answer is forced to be “Maybe.” The sworn duty of the President to defend the American people in times of strife may or may not trump the other rules set forth in that document. It could certainly be argued that it trumps other lesser laws. Indeed, it could reasonably be argued that President Bush was required to act as he did by our Constitution itself.

Please remember that our Constitution was written in a totally different age and doesn’t direct address a great deal of the things that happen with disturbing frequency in these sadder days.

A large part of what concerns me is the total vilification of President Bush by the Liberals and their propaganda machine, more commonly referred to as the ‘Main Stream Media.” The only motive ever ascribed to President Bush has been variations on the the theme of abject evil. This seems very wrong to me.

Let’s look at this from a very fundamentally American perspective for a moment. What viable seeming choices did President Bush have in the wake of the Islamist-wreaked terrorism of 9/11? What is a POTUS expected to do when presented with an extreme circumstance that pits our own Declaration of Independence against itself.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What is the President of the United States, sworn to defend our people, to do when the precepts of Life and Liberty are in conflict? When he is faced with the proven risk to an unknown number American lives, is it intrinsically evil to abrogate the Liberty in some measure of a few?

Understand – I am not saying that President Bush made the right decisions in every case, but is it right to decide that he made those decision do to some evil motive?

Something are just too ironically funny to ignore. One of them is when important public and political figures are unable to attend a Global Warmists’ rally because of a blizzard.

From CNS News:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had to cancel an appearance Monday at a global warming rally in Washington, D.C., that was hit by a snowstorm because her flight was delayed, her office told CNSNews.com.

Brianna Cayo-Cotter, the spokesman for the Energy Action Coalition that held the rally, told a group of reporters that she had been in contact with Pelosi and that her flight had been delayed because of inclement weather.

A blizzard Sunday night and early Monday morning blanketed the nation’s capital with snow, causing events to be canceled and delayed across the city.

House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who was scheduled to speak at the global warming event, also canceled his appearance because of the inclement weather, a spokesman from his committee’s office told CNSNews.com on Monday.

That’s just too funny. Anyone with any wit – even the Anthropogenic Global Warming Advocates, though they’re mostly a self-important and humorless group – has to see the humor in both Nancy Pelosi and Edward Markey not being able to attend a Global Warming rally due to inclement weather.

Sadly, what is very much less funny is the fact that the Communications Director for the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming later claimed – in direct contravention of the previously publicly reported facts – that Chairman Ed Markey, could not attend the global warming rally because of a “scheduling conflict.”

In case you ever wondered why the Temperance Movements of the 19th century largely failed to curtail or reduce the amount of alcohol that men consumed, historians have recently uncovered and published on of the primary reasons for the movements’ repeated failures during that time.

Lips That Touch Liquor Shall Not Touch Ours

I’m guessing that these women were their own worst enemies when it came to convincing men to not drink liquor. I know that just looking at the photo makes me want to have a drink or two – or more. 😉

With the Liberals’ multiple massive spending initiatives it is more than likely that the US is going to experience a long bout of crippling inflation. This will greatly devalue the US dollar, possibly past the point where our currency is any more respected that the Italian Lira used to be.

Fortunately there are alternatives, “funny money” from xkcd being the best I’ve heard of so far.

So how many LOLz do you have in your hard drive? Such questions could become important in our new age of digital currency.

Across the seas of history despotism has risen time and time again. Tyrants have ruled many lands in many times, more often than not to the great detriment of their peoples. But it is not the selfish and evil despot that does the greatest harm; it is the tyrant who enforces his rule for what he sees as the good of his people that does the longest lasting and most grievous harm, and is the one most to be feared.

The groundwork of mischief is this. A man fancies that he knows what is best for other men; that he is better acquainted with their sources of happiness than they can be; that he has more appropriate knowledge, and having more power, that he can turn his knowledge to good account on their behalf. He has formed his own estimate of good he is thoroughly persuaded that such and such a thing is good, and being good, he will compel others to receive and to adopt it, because it is good, and because he knows, from experience, it is so.

Yet despotism never takes a worse shape than when it comes in the guise of benevolence; and is never more dangerous than when it acts under the impression that it represents beneficence.

— Jeremy Bentham
Deontology; or, The Science of Morality

Benevolence may be nothing but the pale and impotent shadow of virtue when it does not lead to pragmatic beneficence, but this benevolence can also lead to the worst sort of tyranny when one man or an oligarchy decides that they know what is best for society.

One can look back and see that some of this happened under the Bush administration. A certain pragmatic despotism was enacted for the sake of what they thought was the greater good of America.

One must also look forward though. The Liberals are now in power and they have a long history of personally invasive legislation, all or most of which is meant to be for our own good. It would be best if America kept itself wary, lest these Liberals enact a “nanny state” who despotism will wear a kindly face, but whose iron fist will strike as hard as any other tyrant’s.