I wish William Buckley were here to discuss this with me. He once wrote during the Reagan Administration, when Congress was running one of its show trials against the CIA that he would have no problem lying under oath if it meant saving the lives of agents in the field. I assumed he figured God would let him off on that one. I also assumed, like Jack Bauer, he was also willing to pay for the crime down here...if caught.
     I missed George Bush's farewell address yesterday but did watch his last press conference and final interview. All in all, he said he was proud of his decisions. His biggest regret was not being forceful enough in pursuing immigration reform.
     I was sorry to hear him say that.

     The title is a question, only a question. But it is a moral question, with no clear answer.
     And it's a question that only George W Bush could answer. Any assumption on my part (or yours) as to what truly was in his heart and mind, especially as to the full and deep meaning of the oath he swore on January 20th, 2001 and 2005 would be wrong to assume.
   But if you want to play along, and substitute what is in your own heart, and impute that to GW, feel free to do so. I have.
   In answer to my title question, I would not have resigned.
   But neither would I have turned the other cheek.

   The President's Oath of Office:
   "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

   That's simple enough, and when you think of the truly unholy men who have placed their hand on the Bible and taken that oath, you can understand why so many view those words cyncially, as just a vain repetition. In fact, I don't think any Democrat since Harry Truman would ever consider what I am about to discuss...or even be allowed to consider the nature of this simple oath without fear of party backlash.
   But I believe George W Bush did.
   I believe George W Bush takes his oaths very seriously. But maybe I am naive.

    My wife and I have a running debate over Bush's conduct vis a vis the Leftists inside the Democrat Party. He simply has refused to engage them toe to toe. In a spirit of bi-partisanship, mind you. Worked in Texas. Wouldn't be seemly, either. Demeans the office.
    I have been more than just a little harsh about this charitable sense of comity, and the timidity of his party in countering the rising anger, the rising dishonesty, even criminality, among the Left. They clearly are and always have been overt threats to the Constitution of the United States.
    Rush Limbaugh says it's just not in Bush's nature to engage in political brawling. Excuse me? This ain't touch football.
    When George W Bush entered office in 2001 the Constitution was the one thing no one seemed to worry about. It was fine, and leftism was in general retreat, thanks to Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh, as much as anyone alse. Today, actually in less than one hundred hours, it will officially be taken off life-support, Bush having already signed the do-not-resuscitate form.
    On this site I have referenced more than once John M'Cain's purported honor, and Bush's religious convictions as "vanities", and defined them thus when it had become clear that those deeply felt personal beliefs paved the way for harm to be done to the people of the United States and the Constitution. They were either vanities, or frauds. (In M'Cain's case, maybe both.)
    Finding ourselves today firmly in the grasp of a socialist-style government that has always viewed the Constitution as an impediment is no accident, and it is no mere hiccup.
    So, just what was Bush thinking?
    My wife says she believes GW wished to follow Scriptures to "turn the other cheek", as laid out in Matthew 5:38-42. I suspect there are other applicable scriptures as well, for we are also told to love our enemies, and forgive them. I found a nice series of essays by James Arlandson at The American Thinker on the subject dating back to 2005-2006. But they do nothing to tell us what George W Bush actually believed, and when he believed it.
    My counter-argument to my wife centers on two acts by Christ that certainly seem to contradict the tone He seems to be trying to establish in Matthew. First was his angry "storming" of the Temple when he saw it being defiled by money-lenders and such.  (John 2: 13-25). He even used a whip.
    Second, and more important to me is found at Luke 4: 5-8, where Jesus told Satan to "...Get thee behind Me"...spitting in Satan's eye, as it were. No turn-the-other cheek, there, either.
    And clearly, there was no cheek-turning to terrorists after 9-11.

    Now, I'm not here, as Arlandson attempted, to "legally" parse the language of the Scriptures. Bush clearly DID NOT turn the other cheek on behalf of his the nation,when it was attacked on 9-11. But America, not the Constitution, was attacked that day.
    So, why has he turned the other cheek when the US Constitution, to its very core, has been assaulted with a repetition as steady as machine gun fire for eight years?
    Is there something he didn't see? Understand? Realize? Did he really believe the Leftists were just good ol' boy Americans with a different point of view?
    I have lost more than one friend since 2003 defending the fact that George W Bush is not stupid. He clearly isn't stupid. But is he that naive? That shallow?

    (Now many of you who have given this some thought as you go along with my discussion may want to question how much Bush's immigration position is contrary to the Constitution. I won't argue that here, since again, I don''t know his heart.  I will only concede that regardless of what is in his heart, the people who would actually carry it out will (as we will soon see), by design or by simple execution, will destroy the sovereignty of the United States, placing the Constitution in graver jeopardy, as just one of many cards to be laid on the table when Canada and Mexico finally sit down to discuss "issues of mutual interest" some day in the future. Does this fall into the "naive" category, too.)

    Were it me, I would have recognized early on the conflict between my own pacific personal Christian beliefs and my oath to defend the Constitution. Being in the middle of a war I couldn't let go of, but with a Veep who would carry it out as forcefully as I would, the day after being sworn in in 2005, I would have gone to my closet and had a good talk with God.
    I would have had to decide which came first, my oath to the Constitution or my personal convictions, (or promises to Laura). I could lay aside my personal convictions and defend with vigor the Constitution against those enemies, while at the same time doing battle with the external terror enemies of our country, who (Shazzam!) had made common cause with same the Leftist in my own back yard. Like Buckley, I would figure God would let me off lightly on the "turn the other cheek" rap.
    But if I could not bring myself to do this...with many it's a matter pf personal style as conviction...I would have handed the ball off to Dick Cheney, with the full knowledge that Dick would do what in good conscience I could not...spit in Harry Reid's eye.
    Maybe George Bush never even saw this moral dilemma this way. Maybe he never came to that crossroads. I can't say.
    But he should have. Then it would be us, instead of him, who wouldn't have any regrets in 2009.
Vassar Bushmills