It is easy to see how one can lose their moral compass. I am reminded of the story of a bookkeeper that embezzled millions of dollars, ultimately bankrupting the small firm she worked for. It started innocently enough. Her car broke down, and needing money to pay for the repairs, so she wrote herself an advance on her paycheck. However, when payday came around, how was she going to pay for rent, food, and other necessities? She decided she would delay paying back the borrowed money. The slippery slope began and you can guess where this story went.

At Bush's last press conference he stated, “I disagree with this assessment that, you know, people view America in a dim light.” Yet the facts seem to show the opposite. A Zogby/BBC poll has consistently shown America's standing in the world has undergone a steady decline during the last eight years. Even among Americans Bush's approval rating had been in decline. What happened appears to have been a moral lapse resulting in a breakdown in application of principle.

How did we get here? It started in 2000. One must remember that at the time, America was riding high. Our economy was booming with the dot-com revolution, we were the sole remaining super power, we were debating how to spend our tax surplus, and we were considered the "leader of the free world". We drove a quarter of the world's Gross Domestic Product, and we spent more on our military than the next twenty nations combined (including Russia and China). Furthermore, American and her NATO allies controlled 70% of all military spending. It appeared, by most apparent metrics, that America's system was better than any other. In short, America was the richest, strongest, most innovative nation on Earth.

Around that time, a new movement took hold within the Republican Party: the Neo-Conservatives. They postulated that in spite of our strength, our enemies saw us as weak. There were those in the world that wished to do us harm. In a world with atomic, biological, and chemical weapons, our traditional methods of diplomacy, such as that which brought Libya in from cold, takes too much time - a luxury we might not have. It was felt, the theory went, that too many took our threat to use force as hollow. As proof, even Bin Laden was reported to have said that America's departure in Lebanon, Somalia and elsewhere proves America's weakness. The threat of the use of force is only as good as opponents believe it will be used. George H.W. Bush's failure to finish off Saddam in the Gulf War was seen by many including North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Syria as being a sign of weakness, rather than the restoration of the balance of power in the Middle that is was. These, and other states, were pursing dangerous paths and needed to be stopped. The answer was to create an object lesson of a single state. Iraq and Saddam had been a thorn in America's side since the Gulf War - regularly thumbing his nose at the UN, periodically attack our flights enforcing the no-fly rule, and brutally suppressing Shiite and Kurdish uprisings. Long before 9-11, it was felt this would be the perfect target.

At this point in time, many readers may agree with the basic premise and theory. After all, America had risen to the top, and it deserved it just position as the world's only superpower. Other nations should provide America it's due - should they not? This is where things began to go wrong.

The Neo-conservatives saw their opportunity following the attacks of 9-11. In Bush's council of war immediately following the attacks, although all parties agreed the attacks were most likely the work of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, Neo-conservatives such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz made the argument that America should attack Iraq. Bush ultimately decided to go after Bin Laden and Afghanistan, but the great Neo-conservative win that day was to call the War on Terror, providing sufficient ambiguity to allow an expansion of the war into Iraq. Sure we were attacked by Al Qaeda, but it was felt that going after a small organization like Al Qaeda or even the impoverished Afghanistan wouldn't provide the object lesson that was needed. No, rather they needed to defeat a serious military force such as Saddam and his million man modern army. Only then would petty dictators and tyrants understand that if you cross the United States of America, you will lose your country, your freedom, and perhaps your life.

But they ran into resistance. America is fundamentally a peaceful nation. We were late getting into both World Wars, and were reluctantly dragged into Vietnam when the French withdrew. We have no territorial designs to expand our nation. We have, time and time again, intervened in armed conflicts around the world attempted to broker peaceful solutions. Saddam seemed to be contained. He was defeated in the Gulf War, sanctions had been imposed, and he was ostracized by most of the Middle East. Sure he was a pain, but little more than that. Violence against the Kurds and Shiites was viewed as an internal problem. America has a history of refusing to intervene in internal problems, so much so that we stood by and watch genocides occur in Hitler's Germany, in Rwanda, and lately in the Darfur region of Sudan. It is only with a lot of pushback did we intervene in the conflict in Bosnia. Even as the Neo-conservatives floated their ideas, introducing concepts such as "preemptive war" that were largely foreign to Americans, they had difficulty getting Americans past the ingrained notion that America stands for Peace, not War. So the administration needed to sell the war - to couch it in terms and reasons that the American people would buy. Remember there were no street protests demanding that we attack Iraq, rather it was the White House that persistently and repeatedly sold the idea to the American public. They did everything they could, attempting to link Iraq to 9-11, made selective use of evidence and made wild claims of weapons of mass destruction. The administration and the war's Neo-conservative architects, often fell back on the excuse that Saddam was evil, only understands violence, and the world would be better off without him. Ironically, it was this last fall back position that, after all the other reasons were debunked, ended up being the primary justification for the invasion. Ultimately, it took every bit of fear, political good will, and a desire for revenge from 9-11 to sell the concept to a skeptical public. And so, we went to war.

If we pause and think about it, one realizes the break. America is a peaceful nation, one who roundly criticizes other nations who proactively invade other sovereign nations, regardless of reason. Yet we were initiating a war of our choosing. Neo-conservatives were privately assuring themselves it was a necessary to restore America's rightful place in the world and to terrorize our enemies into submission (it is unknown if the Neo-conservatives recognized the irony in that they were attempting to use fear to break the will of America's enemies while simultaneously claiming to be fighting against Terror as the justification). America was breaking with our principles under the excuse that "it is the right thing to do": protecting America and Americans. The age-old excuse of "the greater good".

Once this link was between principle and action was broken, it unleashed a torrent of activities starting with the very top, with Bush, and worked its way through the entire administration. Article II of the Constitution, which establishes the role of the Presidency, states in section three the President's duties:

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

Of the few duties explicitly described, one is "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The Presidency is responsible to ensure laws are adhered to, and yet it was Bush that argued that the FISA laws didn't apply to him. The legal justification was that the President's duties as Commander in Chief trumped his responsibility to uphold the law - as if both cannot be done simultaneously. More importantly was his moral argument: he was doing to keep America and Americans safe. By ignoring the law he felt he was doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Soon, this became the reason de jour. Torture? Fine, so long as it is being done for to protect America. Assassination of foreign nationals on foreign land? Fine so long as they are being done for the right reasons. Extraordinary renditions? OK, if they are being done to protect America and Americans. Suspension of habeas corpus and our international treaty obligations? Sure, if it being done for the right reasons. And the list goes on. Historically, America has led by example, being the class president and captain of the football team. Instead, we turned into the class bully.

Decisions were made with America's best interest at heart. But it wasn't long before there wasn't any attempt made to reconcile that which might be necessary with our principles. Instead of asking for amendments to the FISA law, it was just ignored. "Aggressive interrogation techniques" that might have produce value, quickly degenerated into the Sadism exhibited in Abu Ghraib.

Besides the slippery slope into the unknown, by abandoning our principles and doing not what was right, but doing things for the right reasons, was that we entered the murky world of self justification. The litmus test became was, "is it good for America?" Sure, using drones to invade foreign national airspace and kill our enemies is "good for America", but we would never allow a foreign nation to invade our airspace to kill their enemies. We roundly condemned Hezbollah for starting the 2005 Lebanon war with Israel claiming it destabilized the region. Yet, our invasion of Iraq that destabilized the region was OK. Why? Because our war was for America. Double standards and dubious logic abound. It is this hypocrisy that sows the seeds of discontent throughout the world. As our status falls, we find ourselves unable to raise the assistance needed, even from our NATO allies, to pacify Afghanistan and rebuild Iraq. We find ourselves increasing alone in the world, bearing the full weight of these responsibilities, and increasingly the target of hatred and anger.

There is the Golden Rule, which comes from Christianity and the book of Luke 6:31 which states: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise,” but on need not be Christian to appreciate this Ethic of Reciprocity. Many philosophers and religions, including Islam where Muhammad in the Final Sermon states, “Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” Keep in mind that it is this truism that makes us humble in victory, as some day we may be on the other side of defeat. Bin Laden, in speaks specifically as one of his complains against the West that we treat Islamic nations on a basis of theft and deceit. It is far time that we return to our beliefs, our principles, and the Golden Rule, and retreat from the other golden rule: “He who hath the gold, makes the rules.”