Incertonia
16-09-2004, 04:35
Let's assume for the sake of this thread that John Kerry wins in November. Please don't rehash any arguments about how he will or won't or who's leading in the polls--we're dealing with the hypothetical here.
In this situation, President Bush will still be the Commander in Chief until Jan 20, when John Kerry takes over. As Commander in Chief, President Bush will still have the power to command the military forces of the United States, even though he will be a lame duck for those two and a half months.
There have been recent reports that President Bush may have personally ordered the attackon Fallujah (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/09/16/iraq_war/index.html) following the killing of four mercenaries and the desecration of their bodies. He was well within his rights to do so, and I would not question that right (the wisdom is another matter for another thread).
But in the article I linked above, there's an interesting quote. Gen. Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it -- after the election.Gen. Hoare is a retired Marine and former head of CentCom, so he's not a quack.
Here's the question--how moral or ethical would such an action be, considering that the man making the decision would bot be around to have to deal with the aftermath? And assuming you support the man making the decision, would you support such an action? How would you feel if the circumstances were reversed?
In this situation, President Bush will still be the Commander in Chief until Jan 20, when John Kerry takes over. As Commander in Chief, President Bush will still have the power to command the military forces of the United States, even though he will be a lame duck for those two and a half months.
There have been recent reports that President Bush may have personally ordered the attackon Fallujah (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/09/16/iraq_war/index.html) following the killing of four mercenaries and the desecration of their bodies. He was well within his rights to do so, and I would not question that right (the wisdom is another matter for another thread).
But in the article I linked above, there's an interesting quote. Gen. Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it -- after the election.Gen. Hoare is a retired Marine and former head of CentCom, so he's not a quack.
Here's the question--how moral or ethical would such an action be, considering that the man making the decision would bot be around to have to deal with the aftermath? And assuming you support the man making the decision, would you support such an action? How would you feel if the circumstances were reversed?