Moral Status of Embryos vs Human Victims of War

I was reading in the current issue of American Journal of Bioethics regarding the view of the President's Council on Bioethics describing the Majority members view expressing full moral status to the extra-corporeal human 14 cell embryo and arguing against the "routinely and large scale" destruction of these embryos for therapeutic stem cell research. I suspect our President, based on his statements and actions, agrees with that view. What I was wondering is whether there is some philosophical explanation or rationalization of his view for full moral status and protection against destruction of the embryos when our President can initiate a war which involves the gross destruction of innocent born sentient humans, including perhaps unborn embryos, all of whom by the view of the Majority have full and highest moral status. The President might argue that he initiated the war for a good. One can also argue that destruction of embryos for stem cell research is also for a good. Is there something, from a philosophical aspect that I am missing in attempting to understand our President? Does one good trump the other good? If there are some philosophers out in blogland who can explain what seems to me to be an inconsistency, I would most appreciate it. ..Maurice.