[CLUE-Talk] The military takes a cue from Microsoft

[Jeff Cann]

On Monday 13 October 2003 4:21 pm, Randy Arabie wrote:
> I'll just consider Dubya "innocent until proven guilty."
> How about that? 

Randy I'm not picking on you, but I'm going to use your response to generalize 
this segment of Americans.  Yes, I can be faulted for this generalization, 
but stick with me.  

In a nutshell, some of the folks who support Mr. Bush's decision to liberate 
Iraq:

"We think Mr. Bush is a swell guy, so we will believe whatever he tells us".

Like Randy, other Bush supporters often choose not to provide a reason why 
they support his decisions and actions.  It makes me wonder whether this 
segment of Americans actually have any reasons other than 'unless he screws 
up, we'll take his word for it' (i.e., innocent until proven guilty).  This 
is certainly a valid position.  However, I happen to disagree fundamentally 
with it.

> I suppose some folks don't have a problem doing otherwise.

I thought as a representative democracy, it is the duty of the governed to 
question the authority of our leaders (just like the Founding Fathers 
questioned the authority of their English rulers).  

This is sometimes taken to to mean we mistrust our leaders.  I don't think of 
it in terms of trust, but in terms of facts.  Since the facts of the 
justification of the Iraq war are so controversial, it seems prudent to me to 
fully consider them.  I think a number of Americans did not consider them at 
all, much less 'fully consider' them.

So, what's inherently wrong with questioning your leaders?  Why not make them 
justify their decisions which they are making on your behalf?  We're not just 
observers of the government and our elected officials.  We need to take 
responsibility for their actions because we elected them.  It's our right and 
our duty as American citizens.

Later,
Jeff