The Utopian Politico » George W. Bush

The real “Fundamental Issues”

eric — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:09:08 +0000

This Sunday morning (Aug.30, 2009), many of the political pundit shows discussed the loss of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. One show, “This Week w/ George Stephanopolis”, discussed not on the the former Senators life, but also a recently released report by Attorney General Eric Holder. The report can best be summed up by a New York Times overview of the CIA:

On Aug. 24, it was revealed that the Justice Department’s ethics office, the Office of Personal Responsibility, had recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing C.I.A. employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects.

The response to the report has been varied and loud. The mere suggestion that our government had done some wrong-doing in the attempt to keep us safe is appalling and sad. The fear that comes with the suggestion has led many to shake their heads in disbelief and denial of any possibility that the suggestion might be true. Along with that, those who could be under investigation or have some part in the wrong doing have pointed their finger to the effectiveness in detaining terrorism suspects.

The most prominent figure to deny any wrong doing is former Vice President Dick Cheney. Here’s an interview with Chris Matthews about the matter:

Here’s the “This Week” that had Liz Cheney, Orrin Hatch, and Sam Donaldson (to name a few). The first video is the round table and the second video is the backroom discussion not aired on TV.

They use the term “fundamental issues” over and over. They discuss these issues in a specified manner and look at the situation from one angle. The process by which the Bush Administration had strengthened the Executive Branch had been through legal memos written by John Yoo and then affirmed by Judge Jay Bybee. Again, after Holder’s conclusion, Bybee came out defending his decisions (source).

The fundamental issues that are talked about here are those of a semantic nature. The points of the Liz and Dick Cheney are easily identifiable as they define the idea of torture as a necessity. Those who stood for the left or the Democratic Party are overtly pointing to the injustice that has been carried and allowed under the Bush Administration. Both sides are missing the point, though. The real fundamental issue is one that our country has gone over since its beginning: the level of power of the federal government.

Do we as citizens allow our government to make decisions in secret for the betterment of our society or country? Do we allow our country, from time to time (which has been in the past MANY times), make these judgments on their own?

In all actuality, the suspension of the acknowledgment of government roles and the bypassing of “rule of law”, IS, in fact, the real issue. These other tidbits of information that these leaders and pundits have decided to focus on (finger pointing) do not change the effects of the previous administration’s actions. This acceptance of this horrific act is just as disappointing and reprehensible as the act of terrorism itself.

The praise of the Bush Administration has yet to be countered with any real challenge to the policies and precedents set by Cheney or Bush. The allowance of poor judgment, selfish desires, and the push for absolute executive power should bring the average American citizen to their knees in shame. But these real fundamental issues have been tossed to the side in attempt to please critics among the right. Obama’s weak stance on the prosecution of those who sought to torture possible terrorists, has limited his support on the left and stopped a real push for real justice. The political capital that Obama has to spend, will be worthless, unless there is an understanding that there it is an acceptable reason to charge our leaders (past or present) with crimes, if there is enough evidence to do so.

If we look at other parts of the world, we can see that other countries do not have any issue with accomplishing this daunting task. The latest victim of their own power struggles is Ehud Olmert, former Isaeli prime minister. Olmert has been brought up on ethics and campaign finance charges. He asserts his innocence and suggests that the prosecution is on a witch hunt. Regardless of the differences between the “innocent” and “not guilty” verdict of Olmert’s case, the real fundamental issue of this example is that the Israeli government and the people of Israel do not and will not accept corruption and lying that comes from their leaders.

Why is it that the American people and their representatives do not/refuse to do this? The answer is simpler than thought; politics. The step that must be taken next is the follow-through of prosecution of those who have contributed to torture. The allowance of the powers exercised by government workers, based on political and fearful motives, is denounced in our Constitution and in a majority of the public forum.

As time goes on, the memory of failures among the last administration could possibly echo in the future with the lack of oversight in a number of areas that lack transparency. Will we remember these problems? Or will we keep the fear of others’ contentious problems with our nation and allow ourselves to be afraid?

In remembrance of what has been done in the name of protection, here is a compilation of the events (via Keith Olberman) that had led our nation to possible torture by our own immunized (by justice) leadership.

In the shadow of Bush

eric — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 04:20:13 +0000

As a future, long term historian, I read as much as my brain will allow me about the current political situation. This was put to the ultimate test today, while sitting in a bland waiting room during jury duty. Waiting in that room is like waiting for the polar ice caps to melt; painful to my soul and the effects are lifelong. I wandered to and from the bathroom, cafeteria, the waiting room, and then all over. After this period of my life, I picked up a 5 month old Newsweek. It had a picture of President Bush with the title saying “Where is the GOP to go now?” I flipped to the main article and read some of it. Evan Thomas wrote on President Bush’s career and the precedent that he and his Administration have left behind in the last 8 years.

President George W. Bush has squandered that trust. His presidency has been, in essence, faith-based-not just faith in God, but faith in Bush. After 9/11, he asked the nation to invest in his narrative of good versus evil. He seemed to be saying, “I’m taking care of this, you have to trust me.” Critics and naysayers were scorned as ditherers or cowards. Bush wanted to appear resolute, but at times he just seemed bullheaded and oblivious. As Jacob Weisberg shows in the following excerpts from his new book, “The Bush Tragedy,” the president constantly changed his rationale for invading Iraq -indeed his entire foreign policy-as inconvenient facts popped up or the mood moved him. Other crises, like Hurricane Katrina and more recently the sinking economy, seemed to catch him by surprise. – Evan Thomas

Thomas’ argument is evident and rings true. In 2008, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan published a book on his experience and opinion on the shortcomings of the President. Trust in the executive branch left our society within the first 2 years of Bush’s first term with a rush of problems that he could have or could not have handled.

When thinking about the trail of mud that George Bush has dragged behind him, I can’t help but think about the atrocities that have been committed on behalf of our current regime. Some of the evidence that can be seen would be the “911 Commission Report“, the failings of Operation Iraqi Freedom, failed domestic policy (Katrina), and an embarrassing orating for the last 8 years have given more citizens of the UP.SO. a reason to distrust, disassociate, and disregard our current government. The result has been a back-lash in like-ability in politics and a cry for change.

As an active participant in our society’s judicial system, I sat in a courtroom as the very well educated judge explained the theories of innocence and prosecution and asked myself about the concept of putting our President on trial for his faults. Could a nation of eager prosecutors be right? Is the man that took unilateral action (in more ways than one) in a foreign country responsible for the death that has taken place there?

Here, I pondered this enormous question as the proceedings of the case continued. Questions of the possibility of untainted jurors began to narrow down as the defense and prosecution asked all of the citizens if they could fair decisions in the courtroom. After about three hours of this game, with me being juror 34 of 35, I was released.

But as I walked out of the ornate courthouse, the question of George W. Bush still laid heavy on my mind. Do the American people have the responsibility to hold their leader accountable, even the country has elected him twice (fairly or not)? I would say that we do, to a certain extent.

If you look at the article that Thomas writes, he questions the “legacy” of Bush, which doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s looking at the man, but rather the actions of the man. I can list off action after action that FDR took during his first 3 months of office and his part to define his Administration. The actions that have presented in Thomas’ article show from the Bush Administration have not positively affected the country or its allies. The legacy appears to be a failed attempted of a national change in the direction of social conservatism, thwarted by a horrific terrorist attack that was NOT in the Administration’s plans. But then again, no presidential Administration could have expected 9/11.

Regardless of the plan set out by the Bush Administration in 2000, the goals of prosperity, hegemony, and peace are faint from their origin. As President Bush walks into the sunset of retired presidents, I’m sure he looks back and wonders what could have been.

As for the judicial system and the big “question” of Bush’s actions, only the future will tell us the truth. It’s every citizen’s hope that the future of their country is in the hands of responsible men, but the truth is, it may not happen. I guess that’s where democracy comes in and allows us to interact with our government. Looking at this big question, there is no absolute answer or one that could be effectively carried out. As we enter into a new era (or at least I hope so) of politics, the question of legally judging Bush becomes a fowl stench of dung in a modern, political, potpourri dish. The past is the past and the embarrassed of our country don’t seem to want to try a man whose blemish on our country is so deep that moving on seems more polite. In a sense, I agree. The damage has been done.

An example of this can be seen through Iraq. Thomas Ricks, who wrote The Gamble, has a theory that the damage of Iraq has yet to come and that a decade from now, we will all look back and see that the Bush Administration started the out of control fire, and the Obama Administration will be known for handling the stabilization of the country. If this is the case, more investigation into the matter will point the finger to the Bush Administration.

Will we need to be prepared to ask ourselves the same questions from the Obama Administration? I hope not, but only time will tell.

-Eric

P.S.

Here’s some links of interest: