Ethics Quote of the Week: The Washington Post

“Mr. Obama has spoken only once in public about the Libyan crisis. He has yet to condemn Mr. Gaddafi by name. He has not called for an end to the regime. He has expressed concern about protecting U.S. citizens – most of whom were evacuated from Libya on Friday – but has showed no intention of protecting the Libyans whom Mr. Gaddafi is slaughtering. The White House appears content to allow France and other nations to take the lead. But the reality is that as long as the president of the United States remains passive, the help Libyans are begging for will not come.”

—-The Washington Post, in an Editorial entitled “A Passive President”

President Obama is unilaterally abdicating the United States’ critical and honorable role as the world’s advocate for freedom and human rights. As President Obama calculated the political angles, people are dying at the hands of a mad dictator. He has condemned the Governor of Wisconsin with more intensity than he has Libya’s butcher.

There are certain sacred duties of being President Of the United States, and this one doesn’t apparently sit well with Obama’s famous “reserve.” It is the duty to lead the World to oppose evil, and he is ducking it as people die.

Cheers to the Washington Post for noticing, caring, and speaking out.

UPDATE: 2/26/11 The same day the Post ran its editorial, the White House announced that the President told Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel that “when a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now.” I suppose that covers “He has not called for an end to the regime” part of the Post’s indictment, though someone has to explain to me why Obama is condemning the Libyan dictator without mentioning his name ,and weirder still, only doing so by reporting what he has said to the German Chancellor.

11 thoughts on “Ethics Quote of the Week: The Washington Post

    • So pouring a cauldron of rancid urine on hordes of liberals from above—the equivalent, I think, of what Ann does with great frequency and relish, especially in her books–qualifies as right? Ka-Zong?
      (Urine and relish! Mmmmmmmmmmm…)

  1. Not necessarily, Jack! But when she just takes the Left’s own blatant hypocrisies and shoves them back in their faces with a few well deserved jibes, I have no problem with it. At least she does it with humor… and with facts behind her. That’s why she succeeded and Al Franken didn’t. She’s also a lot better looking, BTW. (Cowabunga!)

  2. Well, what does the UN and the rest of the world have to say and who cares about them? Only 3 countries voted against giving Gaddafi control of the UN Human Rights Commission. The HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION! It was hailed as the right and wonderful thing to do at the time. After his son headed this for three years, it had been so discredited that the UN had to disband it only to revive it under its new name,the Human Rights Council. Libya was voted onto the council when it when this happened (in 2010) over our objections. I would say that, given this history, only the US, Canada, and Guatemala have any credibility in denouncing Gaddafi. That is why we needed to do so sooner.

  3. Good points, Michael. When you have countries like Libya and Iran leading ANY UN commission- paid for largely by American dollars- then you hold up the entire organization for the farce that it has become. Why is it that a nation like Guatemala can see this, while all the so-called “developed” countries of Europe- now within missile range of Iran- cannot?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.