Nothing really matters, anyone can see

I'd like to think I take something of a maximalist position on ethics issues. I believe that sins of omission are equal to sins of commission, and that we face many more ethical choices than we care to think about on a regular basis. What we buy, what we do with our time, these choices have ethical components. One problem with this philosophy is that it makes it exceedingly difficult to live up to one's ethical obligations; I am only a fraction of the person I could be, and that takes some getting used to. Still, I'd like to think it helps to focus attention on things that actually matter, as opposed to things that only seem to matter. Three news stories from today highlight this.

Sins of Omission

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have fled the country, and it can be debated whether or not they are the lucky or unlucky ones. Still, I think it should go without saying (it doesn't, but it should), that we have a responsibility to them, because we were the ones who blew the place up. This would be true even if it wasn't a war of choice, which it was. It should surprise no one at this point that we are going to fail at that basic moral obligation. From the New York Times:

With thousands of Iraqis desperately fleeing this country every day, advocates for refugees, and even some American officials, say there is an urgent need to allow more Iraqi refugees into the United States.

Until recently the Bush administration had planned to resettle just 500 Iraqis this year, a mere fraction of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who are now believed to be fleeing their country each month...

Some critics say the Bush administration has been reluctant to create a significant refugee program because to do so would be tantamount to conceding failure in Iraq.

Holy crap this is a poor excuse. In order to save face now (let's face it, saving face in the long run would require a plan, and we don't actually have one of those, nor a prayer for that matter), hundreds of thousands of people find themselves in danger. It's been suggested that some of them may be terrorists in waiting, but this is a lame excuse for avoiding responsibility, and it is insane to think that wannabe terrorists can't find other ways into the country. Furthermore, no Iraqi has ever been involved in an act of terror on US soil, if I remember correctly, so it's not like they even have a history of it. No, even if it means some risk for us, that risk has to be considered an acceptable one, for one cannot just ignore the damage we've done to thousands. It's about time we grow up enough as a nation to realize this uncomfortable fact.

Sins of Commission

I realize that journalists have a duty to get information out, but sometimes they really just serve as the weapons that the powerful use against their opponents, or in this case, former employees. Bush, having screwed up the war, is looking for a fall guy. Who better than a soldier to fall on the sword. From the NYTimes and the poison pen of Sanger, Gordon, and Burns:

Over the past 12 months, as optimism collided with reality, Mr. Bush increasingly found himself uneasy with General Casey’s strategy. And now, as the image of Saddam Hussein at the gallows recedes, Mr. Bush seems all but certain not only to reverse the strategy that General Casey championed, but also to accelerate the general’s departure from Iraq, according to senior military officials.

General Casey repeatedly argued that his plan offered the best prospect for reducing the perception that the United States remained an occupier — and it was a path he thought matched Mr. Bush’s wishes. Earlier in the year, it had.

But as Baghdad spun further out of control, some of the president’s advisers now say, Mr. Bush grew concerned that General Casey, among others, had become more fixated on withdrawal than victory.

This is what's known in the biz as a "hit piece". Notice no one criticizes Casey on the record; this is a purely professional takedown for political gain, not anything personal. Josh Marshall at TPM gets it right:

In so many words, Casey's policy (which, reading between the lines, it's pretty clear Casey thought was Bush's desired policy) was maintain current troop levels and 'standing down as the Iraqis stand up'. You may have thought that was the Bush policy. But apparently not. "Over the past 12 months," the Times now tells us, "as optimism collided with reality, Mr. Bush increasingly found himself uneasy with General Casey’s strategy."

There's a simple way to figure out if this is fair or not. What have Bush and Casey said in the past? Well, Casey's currently arguing against an escalation while anonymous officials say he's arguing for one, but the liar in chief is our President himself, praising Casey on September 15 (2 months before the election):

And I'm going to tell you I've got great confidence in General John Abizaid and General George Casey. These are extraordinary men who understand the difficulties of the task, and understand there is a delicate relationship between self-sufficiency on the Iraqis' part, and U.S. presence.

Nice of the NYTimes reporters not to mention this little detail. That's what you get from the finest journamalists in the country (and no, that's not a misspelling).

Spotting the bigger picture

Democrats taking over the majority in Congress face something of a dilemma, as noted by Steve Benen, guest hosting at Political Animal:

There's obviously a bit of a conflict. House Dems promised to use certain procedural rules, and they promised to pass certain bills. In the very short term, they can't do both, so they decided to pass the policy agenda first. I can't say I blame them.

Here, the procedural rules in question are those that allow the minority party in Congress the power to actually amend bills and have some tiny bit of input into the process. The bills in question are the legislation the Democrats promised to enact, things like raising the minimum wage, establishing new ethics rules, and allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies. Here's the quick question: which is more important? I would have to say that as Congress' job is to pass legislation, the agenda comes first, even if feelings are hurt (Benen concludes this as well). Raising the wage for hundreds of thousands comes before the hurt feelings of 200 Republicans in the minority. Eventually, there will have to be compromises, and I hope this happens sooner rather than later. Still, there is a time to establish policies, and that time is know. All other concerns are secondary, and decorum doesn't matter a bit, especially given that two years from now the month of January 2007 will be largely forgotten in the grand scheme, except for people making something marginally closer to a living wage and seniors not paying the same exorbitant drug prices as Medicare costs continue to skyrocket (more on that in a later post). It's important to be nice in this world, but your duty is to help as many as possible. That's ethical principles for you, sometimes they can make your life difficult (especially if you're a Republican), but you gotta do what you gotta do. Sometimes, baby, you've gotta be cruel to be kind...