• Home
  • /Blog
  • /Hugh Hewitt Questions Ben Carson If He Was Ruthless Enough to Kill Thousands of Innocent Kids in War
Hugh Hewitt Questions Ben Carson If He Was Ruthless Enough to Kill Thousands of Innocent Kids in War

Hugh Hewitt Questions Ben Carson If He Was Ruthless Enough to Kill Thousands of Innocent Kids in War

December 16, 2015 Watch Full Show

DemocracyNow!

WN: The audience booed when conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt asked evangelical neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson (likely now to be a cabinet member in the Trump administration), December 15, 2015, if he was ruthless enough to kill thousands of innocent kids in war.  Think of it!: Hewitt was rubbing Carson’s nose in it as it were, given his Hippocratic Oath, which originally reads in part: “I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing… Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free“. And possibly given that he is a Christian. Carson’s affirmation below (full transcript) seems a tad non-pro-life.

Not to worry though! One thousand Evangelical leaders endorsed Trump June 22, 2016, “a true believer” by his and their assertions, all avidly “pro-life” – except of course, one must understand a minor point, those who need slaughtering to protect America’s interests around the world. (Incidentally, no one of all the GOP contenders that night, Trump included, disagreed with Carson’s response to this question from Hewett): “So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilians?” Carson responded: “You got it.” And again to underscore, “You got it.” Then later: “… the job of the president of the United States is to protect the people of this country and to do what is necessary in order to get it done.” This, by logical deduction, means massive murdering all over the globe. To be President of the United States is undeniably to become “murderer-in-chief” for the entire world.

Now I’m an evangelical. And Evangelicals are People of the Book. So wait a minute! Didn’t Jesus say something about one’s neighbour, one’s enemies? Something about “loving” them? “Ah”, say a huge majority of American Evangelicals (Canadian and all nationalities included for that matter), “there is an exception clause” to what Jesus taught and exemplified, what John says about God in chapter 3 verse 16, what Jesus seems in the Gospels to say about a kind of litmus test that goes something like: love of neighbour is only as real as its extreme case, love of enemies (Matthew 5:43 – 48 & Luke 6: 27 – 36); and love of enemies in light of the atonement, supremely shows us how to “live a life of love” as in Romans 5:6 – 11, Ephesians 5:1 & 2 – the “better way” of I Corinthians 13; and love of enemies therefore by Gospel logic is the supreme test for love of God.  (Now that’s what my Book says! )

But the American Evangelical exception clause is: “Except America’s enemies” – obviously written all over Evangelical Americans’ Book. Come to think of it I guess:Why shouldn’t American Exceptionalism have its own “exception-clause” Book?

American Evangelical New Testament theologian Richard Hays puts the issue this way, a tad provocatively in his massive study, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics:

One reason that the world finds the New Testament’s message of peacemaking and love of enemies incredible is that the church is so massively faithless. On the ques­tion of violence, the church is deeply compromised and committed to nationalism, violence, and idolatry. (By comparison, our problems with sexual sin are trivial.) This indictment applies alike to liberation theologies that justify violence against oppressors and to establishment Christianity that continues to play chaplain to the military-industrial complex, citing just war theory and advocating the defense of a particular nation as though that were somehow a Christian value (p. 343).

The classic study on peace in the New Testament, that sees peace as the defining centre of the entire New Testament, is that by noted New Testament theologian Willard Swartley: Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics. He writes at the outset:

“[T]his book is focused on a more modest and clearly defined task, namely, to show that the major writings in the NT canon speak to the topic of peace and peacemaking. Further, it intends to show how we are to seek peace, the motivations that guide such actions, and what ‘habits of the heart’ or practices lead to peacemaking… (p. xiii)”

My Book also has this Psalm (15):

Lord, who can be trusted with power,
and who may act in your place?
Those with a passion for justice,
who speak the truth from their hearts;
who have let go of selfish interests
and grown beyond their own lives;
who see the wretched as their family
and the poor as their flesh and blood.
They alone are impartial
and worthy of the people’s trust.
Their compassion lights up the whole earth,
and their kindness endures forever.

(Source: The Psalms (translated by Stephen Mitchell) )

So Dr. Carson, so Republican Party, so Evangelical Christians in America, fire away!  Thank God for you though that you read a different Book!

Please now read the whole transcript:

During Tuesday’s debate, radio host Hugh Hewitt asked Dr. Ben Carson if he was ruthless enough to wage war. “Could you order airstrikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands,” Hewitt asked. Carson, a neurosurgeon, responded in part, “You have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it’s actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by a thousand pricks.” We speak to Zaid Jilani of The Intercept and Bob Herbert, distinguished senior fellow with Demos.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, well, during Tuesday’s Republican debate, Ben Carson was asked if he would be willing to wage war as the commander-in-chief. This clip begins with CNN moderator Hugh Hewitt.

HUGH HEWITT: Dr. Carson, you mentioned in your opening remarks that you’re a pediatric neurologist surgeon—

BEN CARSON:

    Neurosurgeon.

HUGH HEWITT: And—neurosurgeon. And people admire and respect and are inspired by your life story, your kindness, your evangelical core support. We’re talking about ruthless things tonight—carpet bombing, toughness, war. And people wonder, could you do that? Could you order airstrikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander-in-chief?

BEN CARSON:

    Well, interestingly enough, you should see the eyes of some of those children when I say to them, “We’re going to have to open your head up and take out this tumor.” They’re not happy about it, believe me. And they don’t like me very much at that point. But later on, they love me. Sometimes you—I sound like him. Later—you know, later on, you know, they really realize what’s going on. And by the same token, you have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it’s actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by a thousand pricks.

HUGH HEWITT: So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilian[s]. It’s like—

BEN CARSON:

    You got it. You got it.

HUGH HEWITT: That is what war—can you be as ruthless as Churchill was in prosecuting the war against the Nazis?

BEN CARSON:

    “Ruthless” is not necessarily the word I would use, but tough, resolute, understanding what the problems are and understanding that the job of the president of the United States is to protect the people of this country and to do what is necessary in order to get it done.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Ben Carson speaking last night in the debate. Zaid Jilani of The Intercept, you[r] reaction?

ZAID JILANI: You know, I think that there is a sort of perverse, sort of almost bloodsport mentality in these debates, in that they’re talking about terrorism as if you approach it as if you’re trying to tackle an enemy, where you’re going to defeat an army and you’re going to raise a flag, and then it’s going to be over and it’s going to be done. You know, that’s not what terrorism is about. What terrorism is about is the mentality of people, for example, on this Republican stage, who are antagonizing Muslims, who are saying, “Hey, we’ve had—you know, we’ve had 12, 13 years of war in the Middle East. Let’s have some more years of war in the Middle East. Maybe it will work this time.” Right? You know, the Obama administration has launched at least 6,000 airstrikes as part of this war. You know, more than a dozen countries are involved in Syria and Iraq. Obviously, military force is not the only solution to this conflict. And yet these folks on this stage are appealing to voters, 60 percent of whom want to actually ban Muslims from the United States, as Donald Trump was, where they’re trying to appeal by just basically saying that the more we kill, the more we harm, the more strength we use, the stronger we are. I mean, let’s be honest about this. ISIS doesn’t have—doesn’t really have an army. They don’t have a navy. Where’s their artillery? Where’s their air force? They have very little actual military force, and they can do very little actual damage to the United States.

I think one of the most remarkable things about this debate was also what was not said. You know, 45,000 people in this country are dying every year because they can’t get healthcare. We have about a quarter of our children—you know, between a third and a quarter of our children in poverty, depending on what part of the country you’re looking at. We have deindustrialization throughout the country. I mean, I went to graduate school in Syracuse, New York. There’s homes there that look like they’re bombed out, but ISIS didn’t do that, right? You know, NAFTA did that, and deindustrialization did that.

And yet all of these questions are being left out of the debate altogether, so we can talk about this really fringe organization in the Middle East that poses almost no threat to the United States. They do pose some threat, but we have more than enough capability to handle them. And instead, they’re talking about building a bigger army, building a bigger military. We actually had a great piece up at The Intercept where we found audio from various defense executives, where they’re actually saying this war is great for their bottom line, where they actually expect rising profits, where they did very well on the budget. And why is that? Why do we need, you know, the most powerful military in the world focusing on a group of a few thousand people with almost no military technology, who are mostly a threat to people in Iraq and Syria—they are a real threat there—but are barely a threat to the United States? We should be handling this with special operations, with intelligence, and primarily with police. And obviously we should not be antagonizing more Muslims and doing things that would kill tremendous numbers of people, because that’s the number one reason Muslims do get drawn to extremist and thuggish groups like ISIS, is that they see their brothers and sisters being killed in these wars, they see their brothers and sisters being killed by allied regime[s] and client regimes of the United States. And we are not going to be winning the hearts and minds by talking about, you know, decapitating children and blowing people’s arms off and legs off and destroying their homes.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, Bob Herbert, this question of Hugh Hewitt, the right-wing talk show radio host, saying, “Would you be willing to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent children?” Now, interesting he said—interestingly, he said, “because that’s what war is.”

BOB HERBERT: Right. Well, it should have been an embarrassment to CNN to have one of the moderators asking a question like that, to start with. So he should have been disqualified, just as most of these candidates up there should be disqualified from running for president.

But you make a very good point. People do not understand what war is. War is a horrifying set of circumstances. And most Americans do not know what war is. They think it’s like television or a video game or something like that. And it’s rah-rah. You root for the home team, you know, and let’s go in and kick their butts and come home and wave the flag and declare victory. And it’s not like that at all. I cover all these folks, these American GIs who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan paralyzed and without limbs and horribly burned, with mental problems, post-traumatic stress, and then what happened to their families. And that doesn’t even begin to touch what happened to the folks in the countries, the folks who lived in Iraq and who lived in Afghanistan. And now we just want to go and just, you know, reprise it, let’s do it all over again. It is so preposterous. It’s a shame.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Please click on: Ruthless

FollowPin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterFollow on Google+Follow on FacebookEmail this to someoneFollow on LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

eight + sixteen =

Follow

Get the latest posts delivered to your mailbox: