21 March 2007
Is an Apology in Order for Iraq?
Should a Congressman apologize for an honest mistake? Is there such a thing when it comes to national security matters? In the U.S. Constitutional system, the President has all the cards to determine what the facts are as far as the country’s security is concerned. The Congress can only assure the people that the President and his administration have developed and evaluated the information needed to make policy and have competently executed it. If he was deceived, he is duty bound to investigate, remove the instigator of the deception, and correct the policy -- not to apologize.
When it comes to national security issues, the President cannot make an honest mistake. He can only do the right thing or make a willful transgression. It’s a high standard, but the stakes do not allow for any margin of error.
Therefore, Senator Clinton’s stance on the Iraq War has been correct, although she must still carry out the duty to assure that any violation of the peoples’ trust is reproved. Her rival, Senator Obama, was not in a position of oversight when he was deceived, except as a U. S. citizen. Along with Senator Clinton, he surely rebuked the Bush Administration at the 2006 ballot box along with most other voters.
So probably did former Senator Edwards. However, the apology of the Presidential candidate from North Carolina for his vote in the Senate supporting the invasion of Iraq implies that he was motivated by more than the information provided by the Bush Administration. It may not be wise to elect another President who admits that his judgment in matters of national security can be easily swayed by factors other than hard intelligence.
Should a Congressman apologize for an honest mistake? Is there such a thing when it comes to national security matters? In the U.S. Constitutional system, the President has all the cards to determine what the facts are as far as the country’s security is concerned. The Congress can only assure the people that the President and his administration have developed and evaluated the information needed to make policy and have competently executed it. If he was deceived, he is duty bound to investigate, remove the instigator of the deception, and correct the policy -- not to apologize.
When it comes to national security issues, the President cannot make an honest mistake. He can only do the right thing or make a willful transgression. It’s a high standard, but the stakes do not allow for any margin of error.
Therefore, Senator Clinton’s stance on the Iraq War has been correct, although she must still carry out the duty to assure that any violation of the peoples’ trust is reproved. Her rival, Senator Obama, was not in a position of oversight when he was deceived, except as a U. S. citizen. Along with Senator Clinton, he surely rebuked the Bush Administration at the 2006 ballot box along with most other voters.
So probably did former Senator Edwards. However, the apology of the Presidential candidate from North Carolina for his vote in the Senate supporting the invasion of Iraq implies that he was motivated by more than the information provided by the Bush Administration. It may not be wise to elect another President who admits that his judgment in matters of national security can be easily swayed by factors other than hard intelligence.
Comments:
Post a Comment
