>  Driving in my car earlier this week, I happened to hear live National Public Radio coverage of a Democrat Presidential debate. It was certainly interesting to hear it without seeing it…having watched two prior Democrat debates on television. What was striking was the reduced tone of the candidates rhetoric. I suppose no cameras meant no need for dramatic body language or “puffing.” 
    What caught my attention was Senator Joe Biden’s response to a question about immigration and the borders.  In true Biden fashion, the Senator pulled no punches, and both the thoughtfulness as well as the straightforwardness of his reply were refreshing and appreciated. Senator Biden likened the 12 million illegal aliens already in the U.S. and the need to address health care for their children to the issue of physical abuse of women who are in the U.S. illegally. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that “sometimes the humanitarian issue trumps the law.” By way of example, he referenced a bill he drafted and passed into law with bi-partisan support that grants immunity from deportation to any woman illegally in the U.S. who comes forward to report the crime of physical abuse. Biden’s point was that things are rarely as black and white as we would like them to be.
    Whether it’s a public policy issue or a disagreement with a friend or relative, resolutions are more often than not found in the “gray” middle ground between two polar opposites. As a former practicing lawyer who spent 13 years representing individuals going through divorce, I can tell you with certainty that as much as I may have liked my clients and believed in their “version” of the facts, it was a rare occurrence when both sides didn’t have merit and a just solution needed to take both versions into account. That’s why we have judges.
    So, it has me thinking about the tension between the United States and Iran over the alleged production of nuclear materials. We in the U.S have been told by our government that Iran has been relentlessly and surreptitiously pursuing production of weapons grade uranium with a passion. That belief is the basis for the present Administration’s foreign policy towards Iran as well as the basis for much media-enhanced fear. Iran, to the contrary, has been denying that it is pursuing a nuclear weapons program and accusing the U.S. of lying when claiming otherwise.
    Just this past week the U.S. Intelligence Report, compiled by 16 governmental agencies, has concluded that in fact Iran ceased pursuit of it’s nuclear program in 2003. Since issuance of the findings, the Bush Administration has been scurrying around to justify it’s prior allegations while the President of Iran has been telling the world, “See, I told you so” and demanding a formal apology from the U.S.
    There are, of course, proponents on both sides claiming “foul” and continuing to reassert their respective positions.
    But as in all things, it’s less black and white than gray.
    President Bush either knowingly or unwittingly misled the American people about the Iranian nuclear program. But it’s also true that Iran remains a volatile threat to the world with it’s religious zealotry, support of terrorism, and inflamed rhetoric. So, while both sides are right in some aspects, both are also wrong as well.
    In the end, it’s not right and wrong that matter anyway. It’s how to get to that gray middle ground where truth resides and peace is found that is of utmost importance.
    We are living through challenging times that present the opportunity for evolution, as opposed to revolution. It is the enlightened mind and the enlightened Soul that can see past positions to the heart of a matter where black and white become historical perspectives.
    

Comments are closed.