Clintonesque?

[j]

I've heard this term used before, but check out this article by Ralph Bristow. The poor guy has had the ultimate insult thrown his (and many others) way...read on:

Clintonesque?

I've been called a lot of names before, but to the best of my knowledge "Clintonesque" is not among them - until now. Who would accuse your humble correspondent of such deceit? Former Congressman Bob Barr, who helped mismanage the Clinton impeachment.

Or, so says WorldNetDaily, which reported today, "Supporters of a U.S. officer who believes his extremely aggressive interrogation tactics helped foil a deadly attack by Saddam loyalists are using 'Clintonesque' arguments to defend him, asserts a manager of President Clinton's impeachment in 1998. Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia told WorldNetDaily he believes Lt. Col. Allen West's actions should not be considered 'heroic,' a description offered freely by the officer's many military and citizen backers."

The WND article did not explain Mr. Barr's "Clintonesque" charge, so I will attempt a definition.

Many of former President Bill Clinton's defenders ignored and/or excused his alleged crimes because they appreciated his political efforts on their behalf. In other words, if a man robs a bank, gives some of the money to you, and you defend or forgive his crime, you would be "Clintonesque." The key here is that a "Clintonesque" defense is driven by personal greed or self-interest. It is not forgiving a crime because you think the crime was justified. You simply take no stand on, or ignore the crime, because you like the other things the criminal does.

If my definition is correct, and I think it is, the defense of Colonel West is not "Clintonesque."

Based on what I think I know from the Washington Times reporting on this issue, I unabashedly absolve Colonel West from the crime he allegedly committed, that is, to use illegal interrogation tactics to extract information from a detainee. But my motives for this absolution have nothing to do with my own self-interest. They have to do with my understanding of a soldier's duty, high among which is to protect his unit. Sometimes, a soldier's duties conflict with each other. When the duty to obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice conflicts with the duty to protect the lives of one's men, something has to give. I submit to this jury that when those two duties collide, a soldier's higher calling is to protect his men.

For Mr. Barr to assign the word "Clintonesque" to my defense is insulting. It demonstrates a wanton disregard for the difference between selfless and selfish motives.

Barr says West's actions were not "heroic." I never said they were. Does one have to act heroic to act appropriately? Is heroism the only defense when two duties collide?

Colonel West's preliminary hearing is expected to conclude today. The army will then decide whether to proceed with a court martial. In an e-mail to WND, Colonel West said, "I made a decision, and it has consequences and I accept that." He stated further, "However, I can look at myself in the mirror and know that my men are well."

Clintonesque? I don't think so.

[CaptinCrunch]

When the duty to obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice conflicts with the duty to protect the lives of one's men, something has to give. I submit to this jury that when those two duties collide, a soldier's higher calling is to protect his men.

The Good of the many out weights the good of the one.