Morally Very, Very Confused

For those of us who have no trouble seeing with great moral clarity the nature of the Global War on Terror, here's a wake-up: Some are very, very confused.

I won't even bother telling you who this writer is; you've never heard of him unless you live in OC (then it's a maybe); he's a third-tier opinion writer whose column appears in a throw-away magazine that's fairly popluar here. Under the headline "Gingrich announces World War III," he writes:

Mr. Gingrich's attempt to bolster his World War III hysteria by invoking the memory and lessons of the Allied opposition to Hitler is misplaced, to say the least. While there are certainly historical reference points for the current crisis, World War II isn't on the list. That was a conflict of great moral clarity, of clear good against stark evil. In contrast, in the past six years, Mr. Bush's policy failures and administrative incompetence have led to into a swamp of moral ambiguity and hypocrisy.

So the vicious moral clarity of Sept. 11 is on the same level as policy disagreements over the execution of our response? And is there moral parity between Sunni and imported al Qaeda terrorists routinely blowing up civilians and their places of worship in Iraq while we hold ourselves back at our soldiers' risk, hunting down terrorists while protecting civilians?

Even if you tag Bush with "moral ambiguity and hypocrisy" that is a far lesser crime than wonton, bloody, soulless terror.

Our moral cross-dresser sums up:

For an applicable historical primer,Gingrich would do better to visit more recent history, in the 1960s and 1970s, when we were fighting in a place called Vietnam.

That would be the war where the Dems led the cut and run movement leading to our first defeat and to the decades of chaos followed.

Related Tags: Global war on terror, Gingrich, World War III, Terrorism, Chris Mears, Morality, Bush