IMPEACH BUSH

From time to time we will run excerpts from columnist Dick Polman's blog, "Dick Polman's American Debate." Watch this page for Polman high points - and check out the blog.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with bringing religion into the public square, and in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, you have 10 white guys vying for the votes of conservative Christians. The problem is, many Americans take a dim view of politicians who wear their piety on their sleeves - especially when these politicians selectively apply their moral values in ways that are less than saintly.

Consider, for instance, the discussion in the June 5 New Hampshire GOP debates about the role of gays in the military. We may all be God's creatures, but apparently some creatures are less equal than others, even at a time when presumably everyone is needed to fight the terrorists.

On June 5, host Wolf Blitzer asked: "Mayor Giuliani, recently we've learned that several talented, trained linguists - Arabic speakers, Farsi speakers, Urdu speakers, trained by the U.S. government to learn those languages to help us in the war on terrorism - were dismissed from the military because they announced they were gays or lesbians. Is that, in your mind, appropriate?"

And Giuliani replied that the dismissals were appropriate and that he would not change the current rules. He said, "This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this. . . . At a time of war, you don't make fundamental changes like this."

Hang on . . . isn't "a time of war" precisely the right time to allow all of God's creatures to pitch in, especially (in Giuliani's formulation) when Western Christian values are being threatened by global jihadists? Reports indicate that as many as 10,000 service members, including hundreds of language specialists, have already been dismissed by the military because they were openly gay. Is it really Christian, or even pragmatically wise, to undercut the war on terror in this fashion?

Yes, everybody on stage said.

There are "bigger issues" than rallying all hands to fight the war on terror? Never mind, let's move on.

Other moral values include recognizing the difference between right and wrong; recognizing that lying is wrong; respecting the rule of law. But somehow, those values were in abeyance that night when Republican candidates were asked their opinion about the convicted felon who was formerly employed as Dick Cheney's top guy.

On June 5, Scooter Libby was tagged with a 30-month stint in the slammer. The federal judge, who had been appointed to his job by President Bush, said there was "overwhelming evidence" of Libby's guilt on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice - but somehow that didn't mean much to the Republican candidates.

With the exception of fringe candidate Tom Tancredo, they didn't recommend that Bush pardon Libby, but they were outraged nonetheless at the way Libby has been treated.

So here's the Republican bible on selective morality: If a high official of a Republican administration lies under oath and obstructs justice to impede a national security investigation, that's perfectly fine. But if a Democratic president lies under oath to impede a sex investigation (even when there was no underlying crime, since the sex with Monica Lewinsky was consensual, and not illegal), those are sufficient grounds for throwing the president out of office - because, after all, perjury for any reason is not only wrong, but it is also a violation of "the rule of law."

Indeed, the candidates lavished more Christian charity on Scooter Libby than on Bush. At one point, several (but, regrettably, not all of them) were asked: "How would you use George W. Bush in your administration?"

The replies were priceless. Tommy Thompson tried a quip: "I certainly would not send him to the United Nations." This didn't go over too well with the Republicans in the audience; some laughed awkwardly, while others gagged, sounding like the mob guy Silvio strangled the other night on The Sopranos. Apparently, it was bad form to acknowledge the damage that Bush has done to our international standing.

We'll have another eight or nine months of these kinds of debates, until the primary season is essentially over. But nobody would suggest that God decreed this extended calendar. No, this is entirely man's handiwork.

For Dick Polman's blog, "Dick Polman's American Debate," see http://www.dickpolman.blogspot.com