There really isn't a "Blame America First" bone in my body. Nor on the bodies of most bleeding heart liberals
Look at Abu-Ghraib or the recent, more serious crime of killing detainees:
- Will liberals, like GOP, side with the soldier's boss ? No, they will side with the subordinates, in this case the grunts
- Will liberals want to "kill all the evil vermin" who murdered prisioners ? No, they will want murderers arrested but they will also want to find out the conditions that make someone a torturer and correct them
- Will liberals give medals and honors to the people who put soldiers at the Abu Ghraib situation ? No, on the contrary, they will blame the commanders for what the grunts did and say that this stupid war drove the soldiers to commit errors of judgement
How can I prove it ? (
answer below)
1 - Siding with the grunts
When employers fight with labor, which side do liberals take ? Always labor, never the boss' therefore we can be sure liberals will side with grunts not the top brass
2 - Crucifying the soldiers who were caught
Karl Rove said recently that after 9/11 liberals "wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." No, liberals supported the Afghanistan war. But they also considered important to find out the conditions that make someone a terrorist so that we can correct them.
If liberals consider looking at the root cause important even for terrorists you can be sure liberals will want to arrest the soldiers who committed a criminal act, but they will also investigate what drove the soldier to act that way. If anything, to take measures to correct the problems so new soldiers aren't out in this dreadful situation where torture seems acceptable
3 - Promoting the boss, burning the soldiers
We have already seen liberals rarely side with "the boss". We have also demonstrated that liberals will want to learn the root causes. And you don't have to add "compassionate" to the word liberal. It is already there. Everyone knows liberals are compassionate, sometimes even exaggeratedly so, such as in the case of Willie Horton. He was a criminal but liberals believe society / economy drove him to crime and a liberal took pity on him and gave Horton another chance.
If liberals can hope for the good even in the heart of the Willie Horton's of life, they will definitely show compassion to repentant soldiers and give them a second chance. But liberals will also act on the cause of the problem: Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Sanches, Bush and all others will be called to take responsibility for their flawed leadership that allowed such things as torture and murder to happen.
So it's proved ?
Q.E.D. as the math teacher says.. Siding with the troops is part of the core beliefs of liberals. Not even (or particularly because of) Abu Ghraib will change this liberal's support for the troops.
And this brings us to the biggest tragedy of the Bush W reign: Unraveling responsibility and integrity traditions in the government and the military. Even if there were always transgressors, the culture and regulations were always reminding them of the importance of integrity and responsibility of leadership.. Now they have Bush's "the buck never came through here" lying as example of conduct becoming to an officer..
Integrity, responsibility and leadership
Unlike Bush's GOP, Democrat leaders ADMIT MISTAKES and don't try to blame it on hapless subordinates.
There was once an honorable military who valued integrity and thaught the importance of it at it's leadership schools... Not anymore. The most disastrous consequence of the Bush's mob reign will be the moral erosion it brought to our country -- law
Then: When a leader starts cutting corners in integrity (intentionally or unintentionally), that action can pervade the entire organization.
Now:Medals to the leaders, crucify the grunts, the few bad apples who tried to follow impossible orders and got burned
Then: 1996, A Democrat in the WH
LEADERSHIP BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE
MAJ LEE E. DEREMER, USAF
Integrity requires the courage of sometimes saying no-or at least apersistent asking "why?"-from all of us to others of us who institute unexamined regulations that often require "no-win" solutions for both the system and personal integrity.
-Richard D. Miller, Chaplain, Colonel, USAF
WHAT IF AN operational leader told you that he had such conflicting demands that he was in a "no-win" dilemma? He could satisfy either demand but not both-and to fail to satisfy either would exact great professional and personal cost.Most people would say something like, "Sure, there's a solution. You just haven't considered all your options. Innovate. Improvise." Whatever the words, the message would be the same: find a solution. We expect that; it's our culture..
Gen John D. Lavelle faced such a dilemma toward the close of the Vietnam War. As the commander of Seventh Air Force, he was responsible for conducting the air war in Southeast Asia. He was relieved of command on 6 April 1972... The problems he faced, the solution he chose, and the ramifications of his choices offer us lessons about decision making..
..General Lavelle would be remembered as someone who disregarded the ROE [rules of engagement], fought his own unauthorized war, and made everyone falsify reports to keep it secret.. Although none of these allegations appear to be true, General Lavelle did make mistakes.. [such as] choosing to work around the ROE to accomplish the mission yet keep his crews safe. That meant bending the unrealistic ROE... General Lavelle's actions also had negative effects that he had no way of foreseeing. Therein lies the danger of working around bad ROE rather than having them changed. His decision to "interpret the ROE liberally" had several ramifications.
It led to continuing decay of the command's integrity, which contributed to the falsification of operational reports, which led to the sergeant's letter to the senator, which led to the IG investigation, which led to Lavelle's being relieved of command, which the Air Force kept secret, which led to a congressional investigation. This phenomenon is now commonly referred to as the "slippery slope effect." That is, When a leader starts cutting corners in integrity (intentionally or unintentionally), that action can pervade the entire organization.
GOP: the party of "The buck never came trough here"
Investigators agree that General Lavelle never forged documents himself, nor gave out orders to do so. Yet, it was still his responsibility that it happened under his command. And he owned up to it, retiring in disgrace.
Sounds just like Bush's take on responsibility for the botched war, for sending too few troops, for spending 2 years without ordering enough armors, for snoozing at the wheeel before 9/11... NOT!