The Semi-Pacifism of John Kerry:
A Jus In Bello Defense of Nuclear Weapons

War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face as if you were ashamed of it.

–C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

The criterion for the use of nuclear weapons was established fifty nine years ago when, after months of deliberation, President Harry S. Truman made the fateful decision to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities. For the next eighteen years the Missouri Democrat was criticized for his judgment. But in July 1963 Irv Kupcinet, a columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, wrote favorably about the excruciating decision. Truman, who rarely spoke about the bombing, wrote a letter in response in which he defended his action:

I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war that would have killed a half million youngsters on both sides if those bombs had not been dropped. I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again ‘

Forged Memos and “Karl Rove

In my last post I noted that Bill Burkett, the man suspected of passing forged memos to CBS, was represented by David Van Os, a labor lawyer from San Antonio. In a recent article in the New York Times, Van Os makes some peculiar statements about his client and the alleged documents:

Mr. Burkett declined to return telephone calls to his home near Abilene, Tex. His lawyer, David Van Os, on Tuesday repeatedly refused to say in a telephone interview whether the officer had played a part in supplying the disputed documents to CBS. Mr. Van Os said “the real story is and should be, where was George Bush?” and that Mr. Burkett “is not the proper object of attention.”
Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett “a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony.” He also said, in response to questions, and stressing that he was speaking only hypothetically, “If Bill Burkett were to later discover that something he was a party to were fake or phony, as a man of honor who lives by a code of honor of the military, he would not permit the falsity to continue.” But, the lawyer hastened to add, “This is not intended to be any kind of specific statement.”
Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 – which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” – then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”

The fact that a lawyer would think that there is nothing wrong with passing off ‘

Forged Memos and “Karl Rove

In my last post I noted that Bill Burkett, the man suspected of passing forged memos to CBS, was represented by David Van Os, a labor lawyer from San Antonio. In a recent article in the New York Times, Van Os makes some peculiar statements about his client and the alleged documents:

Mr. Burkett declined to return telephone calls to his home near Abilene, Tex. His lawyer, David Van Os, on Tuesday repeatedly refused to say in a telephone interview whether the officer had played a part in supplying the disputed documents to CBS. Mr. Van Os said “the real story is and should be, where was George Bush?” and that Mr. Burkett “is not the proper object of attention.”
Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett “a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony.” He also said, in response to questions, and stressing that he was speaking only hypothetically, “If Bill Burkett were to later discover that something he was a party to were fake or phony, as a man of honor who lives by a code of honor of the military, he would not permit the falsity to continue.” But, the lawyer hastened to add, “This is not intended to be any kind of specific statement.”
Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 – which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” – then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”

The fact that a lawyer would think that there is nothing wrong with passing off ‘

Forged Memos and “Karl Rove

In my last post I noted that Bill Burkett, the man suspected of passing forged memos to CBS, was represented by David Van Os, a labor lawyer from San Antonio. In a recent article in the New York Times, Van Os makes some peculiar statements about his client and the alleged documents:

Mr. Burkett declined to return telephone calls to his home near Abilene, Tex. His lawyer, David Van Os, on Tuesday repeatedly refused to say in a telephone interview whether the officer had played a part in supplying the disputed documents to CBS. Mr. Van Os said “the real story is and should be, where was George Bush?” and that Mr. Burkett “is not the proper object of attention.”
Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett “a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony.” He also said, in response to questions, and stressing that he was speaking only hypothetically, “If Bill Burkett were to later discover that something he was a party to were fake or phony, as a man of honor who lives by a code of honor of the military, he would not permit the falsity to continue.” But, the lawyer hastened to add, “This is not intended to be any kind of specific statement.”
Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 – which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” – then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”

The fact that a lawyer would think that there is nothing wrong with passing off ‘

Forged Memos and “Karl Rove

In my last post I noted that Bill Burkett, the man suspected of passing forged memos to CBS, was represented by David Van Os, a labor lawyer from San Antonio. In a recent article in the New York Times, Van Os makes some peculiar statements about his client and the alleged documents:

Mr. Burkett declined to return telephone calls to his home near Abilene, Tex. His lawyer, David Van Os, on Tuesday repeatedly refused to say in a telephone interview whether the officer had played a part in supplying the disputed documents to CBS. Mr. Van Os said “the real story is and should be, where was George Bush?” and that Mr. Burkett “is not the proper object of attention.”
Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett “a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony.” He also said, in response to questions, and stressing that he was speaking only hypothetically, “If Bill Burkett were to later discover that something he was a party to were fake or phony, as a man of honor who lives by a code of honor of the military, he would not permit the falsity to continue.” But, the lawyer hastened to add, “This is not intended to be any kind of specific statement.”
Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 – which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” – then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”

The fact that a lawyer would think that there is nothing wrong with passing off ‘