The most
emotionally powerful moment in Barack
Obama’s State
of the Union address was
also its most morally dubious. The nation’s commander in chief drew
attention to a wounded warrior while eliding any responsibility for
placing the young man in harm’s way.A record number of Americans – 60
percent – think the government is too powerful, says
Gallup, which also finds a near
record low percentage trusts the government “to do what is
right.” Who can blame us? The government under Republican and
Democratic presidents has spent virtually the entire 21st century
sending young men and women to fight in ill-defined and
unsuccessful elective wars. That’s bad enough, but then to use them
as props in political speeches? That’s positively obscene….[Army Ranger Cory] Remsburg’s sacrifice is plain to see: He has
a long, visible scar on his head and, the president
explained, he “is still blind in one eye” and “still struggles on
his left side.” Regardless of political affiliation and ideological
positioning, all Americans can appreciate Remsburg’s willingness to
serve while questioning whether President Obama is right to use
such a soldier as an applause line in a political speech….What exactly was Remsburg – or any of his fellow soldiers –
fighting for in Afghanistan? The president didn’t offer any
explanation in his State of the Union address and you’d search his
past speeches in vain for a clear and compelling reason, too.
That’s from my newest piece at Time.com’s Ideas sections.
from Hit & Run
via IFTTT