To Watch and Learn

I recently posted something I wrote back in March.  I was originally hesitant to post it because of some ideas it presented; looking back on it, I kind of disagreed with myself.  However, I believe the purpose of this website is to document history, showing the evolution of my thoughts, and in doing so, stimulate the readers’ thoughts.

I honestly don’t know why I feel it is important for me to write these things; I know I want it to be more than roughshod journalism.  I guess I feel as though it helps me establish some sort of mindset, or a social doctrine, or a belief system.  I welcome any comments which contradict the ideas I post; constructive criticism creates a flow of ideas and helps to solidify or rein in the opinions I give.  I decided to post the writing from five months ago due to a couple of issues in recent news that show how things have evolved, either positively or negatively, on Alberto Gonzales and nuclear power + foreign policy.  But first, I have some housekeeping to do.

Peter Pace, et al 

I guess we will never really know if General Pace’s comments on homosexuality cost him his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; I downplayed the importance of those words then.  Hopefully, he was only judged for his performance as the top military leader of the best military in the world, and not for the political spin put on a statement made once in a speech.  As a note, on looking back, I would not have commented the way I did at the end of my statement; I read those words and now realize they were unfounded and stifled free speech.  I’m sorry.  I guess we learn as we go.

Further down in the writing I commented on the apparent apathy of the general public when it comes to certain foreign relations.  Back in March, Hamas and Fatah had agreed to form a unity government; wow, have things changed!  Most people, however, are totally in the dark on this issue.  Too many ins and outs to deal with, I guess; too many characters to deal with in this situation.  It’s not that important!  I’ve got to get back to my voluminous Harry Potter books!  (Note:  This is not a rip on any one person or even the Harry Potter series; I realize it honestly composes the greatest literary works of this generation.  I just don’t dig it.)

Ali G  

In March, I stated “(Alberto) Gonzales’ actions… were not criminal and should not be handled by Congress.  I think if we wait a week, another celebrity will do something stupid and/or die and this will all be distant memory.”  I don’t think I could have been any more wrong on that one.  I will not take total blame for my miscalculation though, for a couple of reasons.  I have quietly been watching this saga evolve, and I just couldn’t take it anymore.  Alberto Gonzales had my support in March, but through his dishonesty and unreliability, he has proven his incompetence, and now I have to retort. 

It appears Alberto Gonzales has committed perjury before a Congressional hearing; as the head of the Justice Department, this is totally impermissible.  Congress has given him a “mulligan” of sorts, the same they gave Karl Rove when he was asked to rethink his testimony on Scooter Libby, four times over.  This “do-over” potentially saved Rove from a perjury charge; Gonzales needs to be truthful before Congress and the American people this time, lest he be indicted for perjury.  We actually have an Attorney General facing this threat today.

Initially, I was angry at Sens. Leahy and Schumer for what I believed to be a partisan display of power; I wrote the following in March:  “(Alberto Gonzales fired) eight US Attorneys in one day for apparent political reasons.  He only fell 85 short of the Clinton Administration’s record 93 US Attorney firings, happening on his second day in office.  In this case, these people work directly for the President, and Gonzales fired them based on their beliefs.”  I can’t discredit the actions or Leahy and Schumer any longer, as Gonzales managed to take a golden opportunity to be forthright and assertive and single-handedly harvested a scandal.  In fact, I have gained a little more respect for Leahy and the gang, as the original testimonies could have been taken, and perjury charges could have followed; obviously, these actions would have had political implications.  For whatever reason it was decided not to do that, both Gonzales and Rove should be grateful.

Equally embarrassing for this Administration (and the Administration is accountable for this disaster) is the misuse of “executive privilege.” Executive privilege, although not in the Constitution, was approved by the Supreme Court after the Nixon scandal, but was only to be invoked to protect national security, and not the hides of those in the Administration, while in opposition to the rule of law.  What makes Alberto Gonzales, or Karl Rove, or Harriet Miers any different than you or I when giving a sworn testimony?  To me, it appears this is the pinnacle of what I have observed as an exponential growth in dishonesty in the Bush Administration.  This “executive privilege” case shares the stage with recent cover-ups of surgeon general and global climate change reports, and when compared to the Scooter Libby scandal, it ultimately brings discredit to the process by which we went to war. 

I’d like to highlight a case that is not gaining much recognition, but helps prove my point.  Today, I read of a surgeon general’s report concerning global health that was never published; it was apparently blocked by a man named William Steiger.  The surgeon general wanted to release this report which tied poverty to health issues, and in its conclusion, called for American interaction; he was apparently called in and told, “You don’t get it.  This will be a political document or it will not be released.”  Steiger, whose intriguing lifelong friendship with both the Bush family and Vice President Cheney landed him as the head of the Office of Global Health Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services sans either a Public Health or Medical Degree, apparently called the shot on blocking the report. 

I hate to say all of this because I share a similar belief system with President Bush.  We are relatively from the same camp on domestic issues and we are even on the same base level on foreign policy.  I respect him now as my job description requires, and I will continue to respect him for the man he is, even after he leaves office; but to allow members of the regime pass through the judicial system unscathed or control the flow of information in media is contrary to the fundamental democratic tenets of transparency and rule of law. 

So concerning my earlier Alberto Gonzales prediction:  I guess there is some appeal in being right and somehow foreseeing the future, but there is greater value in looking back and seeing how wrong some predictions were.  Now, after this recent soap opera before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe it is time for AG to hit the road, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

Nuclear Brotherhood 

One more note:  I think some of the more interesting thoughts I have written in the past are those on nuclear power policy and North Korea, which are admittedly fringe, and are shown on this website.  However, this past weekend rendered an AP report which displayed a similar relational theory between the U.S. and India, which “would reverse three decades of American anti-proliferation policy.”  The U.N. would oversee an Indian reprocessing facility to prevent spent nuclear fuel from being used as bomb-making material.  India is our ally, but so is Pakistan, so the implications of this deal have rippling affects in foreign relations.  Nevertheless, could this proposal be used as a diplomatic “foot in the door” with our apparent enemies of the state?  Could it even extend an olive branch to countries we may disagree with, yet bring existing or eventual nuclear powers into the Nuclear Brotherhood?  These questions (hopefully) will be asked as this deal with India is debated internationally and before Congress.  How ironic:  What seemed my most outlandish idea in March is now considered the most substantiated idea five months later.