ABU vs. CBS

It occurred to me the other day that there was some kind of parallel echoing in my mind between the Rather situation and...something. I couldn't put my finger on it for a few days but this week, driving home late one night, I finally figured it out. You can use the Abu Ghraib (pronounced, "Ah-boo Grehb") prison "scandal" as the perfect comparison to the Rather scandal. (Strange, too, given that the same producer, Mary Mapes, broke both stories)
Think about it: in both instances, we have a scenario where there was wrongdoing by the few that seems to reflect on the whole. In the one instance it was a relative handful of prison guards whose notorious behavior reflected on the entire U.S. Army. In the CBS case, it was the behavior of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes that reflected on the entirety of the CBS organization. Or did it?

And that's the point. The Left hardly digested the first sentence of the Abu Ghraib story before screaming demands for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. "This goes all the way up the chain," Hillary Clinton said at one point, fully intending not only Rumsfeld, but possibly the President himself. Not just one person suggested that such a happening could not have occurred in Iraq without the full consent and knowledge of those all the way at the top. Memos were adduced to "prove" that Rumsfeld himself had authorized the use of extreme measures. Debate raged on both sides. At issue was the assertion by critics that because of the doing of those at the bottom, those at the top needed to go.

Fast-forward to Rathergate. Suddenly, the Left's new-found federalism fled. Dan Rather may have used the memos in his broadcast, but surely we couldn't hold him responsible for their authenticity? Fully vetting the authenticity of the documents was some other person way down the food chain. We certainly couldn't think of asking CBS head, Andrew Heyward, to step down. Mary Mapes may have called top Kerry campaign strategist Joe Lockhart advising him to call Bill Burkett and get the goods on Bush but you can't seriously think that the Kerry Campaign was involved? Indeed, even though it was uncovered today that Kerry himself was informed of the phone call and most likely the memos, one couldn't possibly make the connection from waaaaay down there with Lockhart/Mapes aaaaall the way up to John Kerry! You just can't get there from here!

So when others on the Right began screaming for the resignation of Rather it was no surprise that they found themselves quite alone. The Left, who were earlier proponents of the theory of the "chain of responsibility", suddenly became unable to see the chain, let alone follow it up to the top. I guess it would be asking too much to ask for Kerry's resignation from the campaign trail?

Isn't it funny?

One of the common criticisms leveled at George W. Bush is that he is too much of a "unilateralist." The prima facie evidence of this odious crime provided is usually the war in Iraq. Over and over we are told how the President doesn't work with the "world community" and rejects the sum-is-greater-than-the-collective-parts wisdom of the gathered globe. Over and over we are warned by those on the Left how the President's "go-it-alone" approach to diplomacy is uninformed, ignorant, and dangerous. After all, doesn't he understand that the world is a connected place? Hasn't he ever just wanted to give the world a coke and smile??
Underlying this charge is the assumption that the world is such a connected place that a movement out-of-hand by one member has drastic implications for the other members. Or, to put it another way, that the world has common interests, common goals and are bound by common constraints, moral and otherwise, that preclude acting solely in one's own interest.
So what to make of the same people who inconsistently and incoherently maintain that the war on terror is localized ONLY to the person of Osama Bin Laden and to the single locale of Afghanistan? Any suggestion that in the same interrelated way of the U.N., terrorists, specifically Islamic terrorists, and "rogue states" opposed to the West, might have common cause in their hatred towards the U.S., and might actually collude together to do us harm is immediately scorned and derided. You're laughed at as naive and unstable. What fellowship hath Baghdad and Kabul?
The truth of it is, those who say such things are themselves deluded. They are guilty of two egregious errors spring from their flawed worldview and its resulting anthropology: they overestimate the good will in the world among men when they tout the "world community" as a place of inherent love and brotherhood, and they underestimate the evil in the world by isolating acts of evil to one or two "oppressed" characters. Both failings stem from a lack of understanding that Man, although made in the image of God, is nonetheless a sinner at heart whose tendencies, apart from the intervening Grace of God, are always toward sin. Thank God George Bush, a confessed Bible-believer, unilaterally trusts the Word of God over "We are the World."