Unethical Quote of the Week: Vladamir Putin

“It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

—-Former KGB officer and Russian leader Vladamir Putin, lecturing President Obama and the U.S. public on right, wrong, and human potential, in a New York Times op-ed that neatly exploits the stumbling White House diplomacy efforts regarding Syria. And yes, it made my head explode.

Oh-oh...this was bad one...

Oh-oh…this was bad one…

John McCain’s tweet in response to Putin’s cheeky op-ed was on target: “Putin’s NYT op-ed is an insult to the intelligence of every American.” [Aside: Of course, so was President Obama’s speech. As always these events give us a chance to gauge which journalists warrant ever regarding seriously again. On one side there are the likes of the Daily Beast’s toadying Michael Tomasky, who pronounced the President’s speech “great.” On the other is the Washington Post’s generally left-leaning Dana Milbank, who decided to be honest, pointing out how the President’s speech arising out of his contradictory and incoherent statement about Syria was…contradictory and incoherent: “The president, in the space of his 16-minute address, was often at odds with himself. He spent the first 12 minutes arguing for the merits of striking Syria — and then delivered the news that he was putting military action on hold. He promised that it would be “a limited strike” without troops on the ground or a long air campaign, yet he argued that it was the sort of blow that “no other nation can deliver.” He argued that “we should not be the world’s policeman” while also saying that because of our “belief in freedom and dignity for all people,” we cannot “look the other way.” He asserted that what Bashar al-Assad did is “a danger to our security” while also saying that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.” In other words, “great.”] It was more than an insult, however. Putin’s screed was ethics poison: dishonest, manipulative, and malign. Continue reading

The Ethics Of Amateur World Leadership

Student Driver

The only rational way for any American to respond to the absurd and unprecedented bungling by President Obama and his tight circle of incompetents is sheer terror. If this was the level of care, seriousness, responsibility and professionalism employed by—oh, pick one; let’s say President Kennedy and his all-star advisors during the desperate efforts to avert nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we might all be cockroaches today. That this particular series of inept maneuvers, verbal gaffes and brain-numbing rationalizations may not be the one that sinks the United States like Titanic Jr  should not be the cause of cheering by anyone. We are stuck with this, because the news media of the United States conspired with well-meaning ideologues to place the fate of the nation in the hands of an arrogant amateur without even the ability to realize how little he knows what he is doing. Now we are awaiting what must be the most surreal Presidential speech in U.S. history—or at least we can hope it is—by a leader who has only one skill, and is once again relying on it to bail him out of a mess of his own making. Continue reading

Ethics Quote of the Month: The Washington Post Editors

“On Thursday, while in Pakistan, Secretary of State John F. Kerry was asked in an interview how the United States — a champion of democracy around the world — can justify supporting Egypt’s military crackdown. Mr. Kerry’s reply was inexplicable. He said, “The military was asked to intervene by millions and millions of people, all of whom were afraid of a descendance into chaos, into violence. And the military did not take over, to the best of our judgment so far. To run the country, there’s a civilian government. In effect, they were restoring democracy.” It is one thing to be cautious and avoid using the word “coup,” which could trigger a cutoff of Egypt’s $1.5 billion annual U.S. aid package. But it is quite another to assert that Egypt’s military is “restoring democracy” when it has just removed an elected president from power.”

—–The Editorial Board of The Washington Post last week, expressing consternation at Sec. of State John Kerry’s double-talk regarding Egypt

Democracy is restored in Cairo!

Democracy is restored in Cairo!

Yes, the “quite another” thing that the Post dare not name is called “lying your fool head off.” Perhaps you prefer, “acting as if everyone in the world is an idiot.” Or better yet, “destroying any last shred of credibility the Obama Administration may have.” John Kerry, of course, as anyone who followed his 2004 presidential campaign with his hand-picked President-in-Waiting, John Edwards knows, already has none.

The Secretary of State of the United States of America, with a straight face and carrying the authority of the Obama Administration, actually said that a military coup—which is, you know, and everybody knows, is what this was—“restored democracy”!  Never mind that history has witnessed many, many military coups—a couple in Egypt, in fact—and they virtually never “restore democracy,”  nor was there a smidgen of a chance that this one would. Continue reading

Evil Empire Ethics: Stand Up For The Crooks By Sacrificing The Children

Putin's pawns

Putin’s pawns

Stalin would be proud.

Today Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill barring  Americans from adopting Russian children. The objective of the bill had absolutely nothing to do with American adoptions, both Russian and American analysts agree. The law is retaliation for various American measures that punished or embarrassed Russia for various human rights violations.  One of these was the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which mandated  financial and visa sanctions on corrupt Russian officials linked to the arrest and imprisonment of Magnitsky, a lawyer who discovered a $230 million tax fraud and was then arrested by the same police officers he had accused of the fraud. He was sentenced to prison and died there in 2009.

The adoption ban is itself a human rights violation. Continue reading

Weekend Ethics Catch-Up

If you took an ethics break this last weekend of February, here’s your Ethics Alarms make-up assignment:

 

Obama’s Latest Apology

Not that it worked, but...

Regardless of where one stands on accusations that President Obama has been too generous with apologies (regrets, acknowledged mistakes, etc.) to foreign nations, there should be no argument over whether his apology to his Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the inadvertent burning of copies of the Quran by American soldiers was appropriate. It was,  it was also responsible and necessary, and it required a measure of political courage for which the President deserves praise, not criticism.

As properly explained by Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation specializing in South and Central Asia (who is obviously not running for the Republican presidential nomination), “It was an important demonstration of respect for the Afghan people and their religious faith.” President Obama was attempting to defuse a potentially explosive situation, protect the fragile situation in Afghanistan and avoid American deaths.

This was responsible diplomacy. The Republicans who are taking cheap shots at President Obama for this should be ashamed of themselves.

Ethics Quiz: Should the State Department Be Buying and Distributing the President’s Books?

It's a State Department...and a nifty literary agent too!

It’s a little early for another Ethics Quiz, but this one is tailor-made.

The Washington Times reported today that The State Department has bought more than $70,000 worth of  books authored by President Obama. Hillary’s folks have been sending out copies as Christmas gifts, and stocking  libraries around the world with “Dreams from My Father.”  For example, the  U.S. Embassy in Egypt spent $28,636 in August 2009 for copies of the best-selling 1995 memoir, six weeks after it had placed another order for the same book for more than $9,000. At the same time, the U.S. Embassy in South Korea spent more than  $6,000 for its copies of “Dreams from My Father.” All of this comes from federal purchasing records.

The Times points out that the previous  State Departments resisted the impulse to buy books by former Presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Are you ready for your Ethics Quiz? It’s a multiple choice:

For the State Department to spend $70,000 on its boss’s book is…. Continue reading

The Korean President’s Dinner: President Obama, I Owe You This One

Funny...you don't LOOK Japanese!

Having joined reflexive Obama-bashers by assuming the worst based on an unjustified reading of a leaked diplomatic cable and subsequently criticizing the White House for something it did not do, allow me to continue my contrition and repentance by flagging another example of the same phenomenon, also involving Asian diplomacy and equally unfair, being trumpeted by some of the same sources that led me astray.

The headlines: “ANOTHER WHITE HOUSE STAFF SCREWUP”  (Instapundit) …“Obama Honors South Korean President With Japanese Food” (The National Review)

Where did this come from? USA Today reported the fare for the upcoming  White House dinner honoring South Korean President Lee Myung Bak: Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “Follow Up and Clarification On The Hiroshima Apology Cable: I Was Wrong, I Apologize…and More”

Rick Jones, whose blog is a constant source of information, provocation and thoughtfulness, generously contributes his analysis to the botched Hiroshima apology story in this Comment of the Day.  To summarize: here and elsewhere, a Wikileaks-released diplomatic cable from 2009  prompted a stampede of mostly conservative news sources to report that President Obama had suggested the possibility of apologizing for the atom bombing of Hiroshima in World War II.  I encountered the story, tracked it in several sources that have proven reliable in the past, and commented on it, critically. About 24 hours later, a friend with impeccable diplomatic credentials and inside information properly chastised me for taking the bait, and offered conclusive evidence that the cable had been misinterpreted. You might want to read my post of last night apologizing to readers and the President that also raises the issues that Rick addresses in his Comment of the Day. I have a follow-up comment at the end:

“While I admire your acceptance of responsibility for what appears to have been a misinterpretation, your commentary raises other issues. Continue reading

Follow Up and Clarification On The Hiroshima Apology Cable: I Was Wrong, I Apologize…and More

This is my indignation going up in smoke.

There are certain advantages that come from making an incorrect conclusion and publicizing it: sometimes you learn something valuable.

Here’s what I have learned about the diplomatic cable discussed in my post, “How Do I Write A Measured Ethical Analysis When I Am Shaking With Indignation and Rage?“:

1. The officer was reporting a hypothetical situation that the Japanese government official raised during the planning stage of the Obama’s visit.

2. The White House never proposed an apology. The fear of the Japanese was that if he went to Hiroshima, some groups within the country would expect an apology.

3.This key paragraph contains the officer’s assurance to the American Ambassador that the Japanese government would prevent any call, from the Japanese, for a public Presidential apology.

I have all of this from a reliable, credible diplomatic source who I know personally and who was in Japan at the time the cable was sent. This is no credit to me: I received an e-mail that said, in effect, “You Moron! You have no idea how to read diplomatic cables!!! Here’s what really happened…” Continue reading