Update from the Heartland
No.299
27.8.07 – 2.9.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.299
27.8.07 – 2.9.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Happy Labor Day . . . to our American subscribers.
The follow-up news items:
-- The White House announced the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, effective mid-September. I am truly surprised it took this long. [268 & subsequent]
-- White House Press Secretary Robert Anthony "Tony" Snow, 52, also announced his resignation. [158, 252, 277] President Bush picked Snow's deputy, Dana Marie Perino, 35, to replace Snow when he leaves in two week.
-- Michael Vick stood before a federal judge and pled guilty. His attempt at contrition left me disappointed, but hey, at least he made that attempt, which is more than many criminals do. [298]
United States Senator Larry Edwin Craig of Idaho finds himself in deep kimchi, and his lame protestations made the sordid episode all the more disgusting. Presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee summarized it best . . . “The American people will forgive us for being sinners. They will not forgive us for being hypocrites.” When will they ever learn? 'Nuf said. Craig resigned his Senate seat on Saturday.
Then, all in the same week, we add the announcement by Senator John William Warner of Virginia that the influential, senior senator was not going to seek reelection. The complications for Republican Party's prospects in next year's election continue to multiply, seemingly exponentially.
I have collected various, recent, journalistic assessments of the war. First:
"Who Lost Iraq?"
by James Dobbins
Washington Post
Published: August 23, 2007
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W7RH02ABA81ED059C0E3936D4A34A0
The second was an on-line interview with Tom Ricks -- Washington Post journalist and author of "Fiasco:"
"The War Over the War"
by Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
Tuesday, August 21, 2007; 12:00 PM
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W7RH02B582035059C0E3936DF543A0
The third comes from New York Times Op-Ed columnist Tom Friedman:
"The Kurdish Secret"
by Thomas L. Friedman
Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/opinion/02friedmancolumn.html?th&emc=th
We have heard quite a bit from American politicians, journalists and generals. Here is a different perspective:
"Army chief predicts a 'generation of conflict'"
by Michael Evans
The Times (of London)
August 28, 2007
http://timesonline-emails.co.uk/go.asp?/bTNL001/mKBQE24/q2BZ524/uNSC46/xD5BBR
Chief of the General Staff Sir Francis Richard Dannatt, KCB, CBE, MC, offered his views of the War on Islamic Fascism. As reported by Evans, the general observed, “The threats and challenges to our society are . . . global and have sympathisers in many societies and countries, including at home" -- true for the United Kingdom, true for the United States. Dannatt went on to say, “The challenge of this generation is as great as any that have gone before us in the last century. It is a battle of ideas, and the battleground will be unpredictable. We need to be prepared for a very wide range of tasks, from warfighting . . . operations to low-level combat within a complex environment, whilst critically maintaining the support of the population, the consent of the nation and maintaining our own values and reputation” – sober words from an accomplished professional. I must say, spot on, general.
Congress simply loves to propose and enact laws that play to the emotions of the citizenry as pabulum for the masses of ill-informed and un-thinking citizens who elect them. Far too many of these feel-good bills flow forth from Capitol Hill, and yet every once in a while, one of these specimens triggers my ire, again. The latest example comes to us from Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado -- the Child Pornography Elimination Act of 2007 (H.R.3148). The bill stiffens criminal penalties for anyone in possession of pornographic material involving children, and goes after, i.e., criminalizes, electronic service providers who “knowingly” or “negligently” transmit child pornography. Sounds fantastic and appropriate . . . doesn’t it? After all, we cannot condone the exploitation or abuse of children for any reason, especially sexual. The problem for lawmakers like Musgrave rests in the very nature and essence of the Internet – freedom – freedom for good and unfortunately also for bad. Laws like this one are comparable to using a howitzer or a nuclear device to kill a bothersome gnat – far more collateral damage than intended consequence. For those who do not use the Internet or do not understand the World Wide Web, intrusions, restrictions and prohibitions are not a problem; after all, the law sounds good and does not affect them. Laws like these treat the symptoms rather than the root cause. In my humble opinion, the root cause in some, perhaps many but not all, cases has been and remains negligent and/or complicit parents or guardians. I say not all because I suspect some of these materials are generated by children themselves using modern technology, but parents/guardians still bear some culpability. This bill is wrong despite its good intentions. We can only hope it dies a quite death by benign neglect in the House Judiciary Committee.
A recent Kansas court case flashed into national prominence by its relevance to the boiling immigration policy question. Nicholas L. Martinez, an illegal alien, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and endangering a child. [Martinez had been charged with the sale of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, endangering a child, theft, and unlawful possession of an identification card.] The issue before the Kansas Court of Appeals – Kansas v. Martinez [KS CA no. 96,613] – hinged upon Martinez’s contention he was denied Due Process because of his immigration status. The court found in his favor. The essence of the laws cited by the Kansas court focuses upon the lack of state immigration law and the fact that immigration law is a Federal jurisdiction. From my lay perspective, the Kansas appeals court interpreted the law properly and wisely. This case represents our far greater vulnerability regarding simple illegal immigration as well as the far more sinister War on Islamic Fascism. Our judicial system presumes individuals are innocent and law-abiding, and exerts extraordinary due process to ensure that the rights of every citizen, indeed every individual regardless of status, receives equal and fair treatment given a violation. The Martinez ruling cites the U.S. Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio [367 U.S. 643 (1961)]:
"Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)]: 'Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law into himself; it invites anarchy.'"
As much as we may be offended by the Martinez ruling, it is the law. This case can now join others that demonstrate the failure of the Federal government to perform its constitutionally required duty. The Nation teeters on the verge of anarchy. The Executive has failed to enforce existing law, and Congress has failed to amend and reform federal immigration law to account for today’s conditions. Illegal aliens, terrorists, and Islamofascists learn quickly how to use our laws against us; and, we have only ourselves to blame; we elect these buffoons who are far more interested in self-aggrandizement and reelection than they are in performing their constitutional duties. I wonder if we will learn before it is too late . . . if it is not already too late.
Beyond Larry Craig's hypocrisy and lame denials, I suspect his claim of entrapment may very well hold validity, but his guilty plea to disorderly conduct negated the legal basis for all that aspect of the debate. According to Laura M. MacDonald ["America’s Toe-Tapping Menace;" New York Times, published: 2.September.2007], homosexual men utilize a proven, discreet and delicately choreographed code to find like minded men in public places, to avoid being beaten to death by an irate, straight, macho-male. Thus, and most likely, Craig received signals that led him to pursue the connection. These public restroom events represent a sad statement on the condition of our society, that some otherwise productive citizens are driven to seek sexual gratification in such risky ways. Some talking heads question the double standard in comparing David Vitter [292] and Larry Craig, or even Bill Clinton. The difference lays with Craig’s guilty plea in his effort to avoid judicial and public scrutiny; he was embarrassed by his actions. Lastly, others have hypothesize that the Minneapolis Police were on a homophobic witch hunt. I have a hard time absorbing that argument. The police have far more serious law-breakers to pursue without targeting homosexual men. I suspect the airport police station received a few too many complaints from citizens offended by overt or aggressive homosexual advances. As my words imply, I have mixed opinions regarding this kerfuffle. I advocate for and seek a more enlightened and tolerant society, less schizophrenic about sex, and I encourage every citizen who breaks the law to stand up and be accountable for their actions. If the law is wrong, work to change the law. To vilify homosexual citizens is wrong. However, society has an obligation to define fair, equal and acceptable conduct and behavior within the public domain.
As fate would have it, another interesting article came along to keep the topic of legalization of drugs [298] simmering on the stove. This week’s addition to the debate is:
“Canada's Shooting Gallery”
by Mary Anastasia O'Grady
Wall Street Journal
August 27, 2007; Page A10
http://www.wsj.com/wsjgate?source=jopinaowsj&URI=/article/0,,SB118816976955209258,00.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion%26ojcontent%3Dotep
Mary tells the sad story of Canada’s free syringe program (InSite) intended to give drug addicts some protection from communicable diseases like HIV and Hepatitis-C. While the public health objective is laudable to an extent, the program accentuates the failure of the controlled substances prohibition process – and, says as much in the article. Mary observes, “Even the most pro-legalization libertarians would have to agree that a government that engages in drugging the citizenry is pretty far removed from the classic definition of the modern liberal state.” In some respects, I do agree. The notion of the State contributing to the self-destruction of a human being is hardly an enlightened condition. However, what is missing at this level of discourse seems to be a citizen’s individual and private freedom of choice. If the State was administering the drugs with the intention of neutralizing or destroying a person, the observation might have validity. Certainly, making free needle exchange the cornerstone of a more empathetic drug policy is like a teaspoon of water on a raging conflagration, it seems to me. The consummate and collateral effects are only marginally better than prohibition and criminalization. There are most likely a myriad of reasons individuals seek the oblivion of psychotropic substances, and yet it appears the rendered essence must be dissatisfaction with their lot in life and the concomitant desire to ‘zone out.’ Mary concludes, “Something is also very wrong when society officially winks at its own prohibition laws. Indeed, InSite demonstrates that encouraging drug use through the welfare state while at the same time attempting prohibition is not just illogical. It also produces the worst of all worlds.” While the Canadians have made an attempt, however futile, to lessen the risk associated with injectable drugs, they have hardly gone the distance. My suggestion: give them what they seek and help them along their way; namely, the State should provide shelter, sustenance as they desire, and free access to their substance(s) of choice in high-quality, defined dosage, pharmaceutical-grade drugs along with their associated application means. This sounds silly, I know. However, I ask you to seriously think about it. By taking this step, we eliminate the illegal, smuggling, drug trade; we localize those individuals so inclined such that they can be monitored and more importantly, removed from interfering with productive society; and, we allow them the free exercise of their liberty, i.e., when they decide they have had enough, they can seek appropriate treatment and extrication . . . or termination of their miserable lives as they may wish. The point of such a harsh approach is recognition of every individual citizen’s constitutional freedom of choice without indirectly sustaining the current criminal subculture. These wayward individuals could be cared for properly rather than criminalizing their conduct, and perpetuating the cycle of violence and destruction. The bottom-line reality remains, that those prone to addictive behavior will never seek or fulfill treatment until they convince themselves they want to change. No one can cure them, no matter how hard we try; only they can cure themselves. Until that time, we should eliminate the criminal element and ease the burden on society of those so inclined. Our vast counter-narcotrafficking dollars would be spent in a far more efficient manner.
Comments and contributions from Update no.298:
"What is your take [on the Gonzales resignation], Cap? Presidents before (thru their Attorney Generals) have fired as many as ALL the federal prosecutors. They serve at the pleasure of the Pres. But somehow this time, with these firings, it was different. And then the hard core push Really came on. Was Mr G even remotely qualified to begin with? Was he just a yes man for GW? Etc, etc, etc."
My reply:
My take . . . this should have happened at least six months ago, more like nine months ago when the U.S. attorney firing fiasco became public. Yes, you are quite right; U.S. attorneys are appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President. Thus, each of the U.S. attorneys is subject to dismissal at any time for no other reason than the President’s displeasure. However, just because such dismissals are legal does not justify the inept handling of the process by Gonzales and his lieutenants. Like it or not, regardless of the process by which they attain the office, U.S. attorneys are essential officers of the court and directly reflect upon our system of justice. If any U.S. attorney becomes stained by political partisanship, our justice system is seriously diminished. For the Attorney General of the United States of America to testify under oath that he cannot recall critical events in any case is reprehensible, disgusting, and reflective of the partisan politics. IMHO, Alberto Gonzales was far more concerned about loyal to the George W. Bush than to the law. He is not the first, and probably will not be the last.
Was Gonzales qualified to be Attorney General? I cannot pass judgment on his legal prowess; I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. I imagine he is a very nice person and a good friend to the George W. Bush. However, I believe Alberto Gonzales was and is incompetent as the Attorney General of the United States. I recall my impressions of George Mitchell during the Nixon-Watergate fiasco; Gonzales has joined Mitchell in the category revolting performances.
Was Gonzales just a yes-man? My opinion, yes, absolutely. As I said, he apparently was far more interested in loyalty to George W. Bush – the man – rather than being a responsible officer of the law and leader of the Justice Department. That is never good. When the law becomes subservient to political expediency, any democracy becomes fatally corroded. Yet, we survived Richard Nixon and George Mitchell; we shall survive George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Happy Labor Day . . . to our American subscribers.
The follow-up news items:
-- The White House announced the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, effective mid-September. I am truly surprised it took this long. [268 & subsequent]
-- White House Press Secretary Robert Anthony "Tony" Snow, 52, also announced his resignation. [158, 252, 277] President Bush picked Snow's deputy, Dana Marie Perino, 35, to replace Snow when he leaves in two week.
-- Michael Vick stood before a federal judge and pled guilty. His attempt at contrition left me disappointed, but hey, at least he made that attempt, which is more than many criminals do. [298]
United States Senator Larry Edwin Craig of Idaho finds himself in deep kimchi, and his lame protestations made the sordid episode all the more disgusting. Presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee summarized it best . . . “The American people will forgive us for being sinners. They will not forgive us for being hypocrites.” When will they ever learn? 'Nuf said. Craig resigned his Senate seat on Saturday.
Then, all in the same week, we add the announcement by Senator John William Warner of Virginia that the influential, senior senator was not going to seek reelection. The complications for Republican Party's prospects in next year's election continue to multiply, seemingly exponentially.
I have collected various, recent, journalistic assessments of the war. First:
"Who Lost Iraq?"
by James Dobbins
Washington Post
Published: August 23, 2007
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W7RH02ABA81ED059C0E3936D4A34A0
The second was an on-line interview with Tom Ricks -- Washington Post journalist and author of "Fiasco:"
"The War Over the War"
by Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
Tuesday, August 21, 2007; 12:00 PM
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W7RH02B582035059C0E3936DF543A0
The third comes from New York Times Op-Ed columnist Tom Friedman:
"The Kurdish Secret"
by Thomas L. Friedman
Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/opinion/02friedmancolumn.html?th&emc=th
We have heard quite a bit from American politicians, journalists and generals. Here is a different perspective:
"Army chief predicts a 'generation of conflict'"
by Michael Evans
The Times (of London)
August 28, 2007
http://timesonline-emails.co.uk/go.asp?/bTNL001/mKBQE24/q2BZ524/uNSC46/xD5BBR
Chief of the General Staff Sir Francis Richard Dannatt, KCB, CBE, MC, offered his views of the War on Islamic Fascism. As reported by Evans, the general observed, “The threats and challenges to our society are . . . global and have sympathisers in many societies and countries, including at home" -- true for the United Kingdom, true for the United States. Dannatt went on to say, “The challenge of this generation is as great as any that have gone before us in the last century. It is a battle of ideas, and the battleground will be unpredictable. We need to be prepared for a very wide range of tasks, from warfighting . . . operations to low-level combat within a complex environment, whilst critically maintaining the support of the population, the consent of the nation and maintaining our own values and reputation” – sober words from an accomplished professional. I must say, spot on, general.
Congress simply loves to propose and enact laws that play to the emotions of the citizenry as pabulum for the masses of ill-informed and un-thinking citizens who elect them. Far too many of these feel-good bills flow forth from Capitol Hill, and yet every once in a while, one of these specimens triggers my ire, again. The latest example comes to us from Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado -- the Child Pornography Elimination Act of 2007 (H.R.3148). The bill stiffens criminal penalties for anyone in possession of pornographic material involving children, and goes after, i.e., criminalizes, electronic service providers who “knowingly” or “negligently” transmit child pornography. Sounds fantastic and appropriate . . . doesn’t it? After all, we cannot condone the exploitation or abuse of children for any reason, especially sexual. The problem for lawmakers like Musgrave rests in the very nature and essence of the Internet – freedom – freedom for good and unfortunately also for bad. Laws like this one are comparable to using a howitzer or a nuclear device to kill a bothersome gnat – far more collateral damage than intended consequence. For those who do not use the Internet or do not understand the World Wide Web, intrusions, restrictions and prohibitions are not a problem; after all, the law sounds good and does not affect them. Laws like these treat the symptoms rather than the root cause. In my humble opinion, the root cause in some, perhaps many but not all, cases has been and remains negligent and/or complicit parents or guardians. I say not all because I suspect some of these materials are generated by children themselves using modern technology, but parents/guardians still bear some culpability. This bill is wrong despite its good intentions. We can only hope it dies a quite death by benign neglect in the House Judiciary Committee.
A recent Kansas court case flashed into national prominence by its relevance to the boiling immigration policy question. Nicholas L. Martinez, an illegal alien, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and endangering a child. [Martinez had been charged with the sale of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, endangering a child, theft, and unlawful possession of an identification card.] The issue before the Kansas Court of Appeals – Kansas v. Martinez [KS CA no. 96,613] – hinged upon Martinez’s contention he was denied Due Process because of his immigration status. The court found in his favor. The essence of the laws cited by the Kansas court focuses upon the lack of state immigration law and the fact that immigration law is a Federal jurisdiction. From my lay perspective, the Kansas appeals court interpreted the law properly and wisely. This case represents our far greater vulnerability regarding simple illegal immigration as well as the far more sinister War on Islamic Fascism. Our judicial system presumes individuals are innocent and law-abiding, and exerts extraordinary due process to ensure that the rights of every citizen, indeed every individual regardless of status, receives equal and fair treatment given a violation. The Martinez ruling cites the U.S. Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio [367 U.S. 643 (1961)]:
"Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)]: 'Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law into himself; it invites anarchy.'"
As much as we may be offended by the Martinez ruling, it is the law. This case can now join others that demonstrate the failure of the Federal government to perform its constitutionally required duty. The Nation teeters on the verge of anarchy. The Executive has failed to enforce existing law, and Congress has failed to amend and reform federal immigration law to account for today’s conditions. Illegal aliens, terrorists, and Islamofascists learn quickly how to use our laws against us; and, we have only ourselves to blame; we elect these buffoons who are far more interested in self-aggrandizement and reelection than they are in performing their constitutional duties. I wonder if we will learn before it is too late . . . if it is not already too late.
Beyond Larry Craig's hypocrisy and lame denials, I suspect his claim of entrapment may very well hold validity, but his guilty plea to disorderly conduct negated the legal basis for all that aspect of the debate. According to Laura M. MacDonald ["America’s Toe-Tapping Menace;" New York Times, published: 2.September.2007], homosexual men utilize a proven, discreet and delicately choreographed code to find like minded men in public places, to avoid being beaten to death by an irate, straight, macho-male. Thus, and most likely, Craig received signals that led him to pursue the connection. These public restroom events represent a sad statement on the condition of our society, that some otherwise productive citizens are driven to seek sexual gratification in such risky ways. Some talking heads question the double standard in comparing David Vitter [292] and Larry Craig, or even Bill Clinton. The difference lays with Craig’s guilty plea in his effort to avoid judicial and public scrutiny; he was embarrassed by his actions. Lastly, others have hypothesize that the Minneapolis Police were on a homophobic witch hunt. I have a hard time absorbing that argument. The police have far more serious law-breakers to pursue without targeting homosexual men. I suspect the airport police station received a few too many complaints from citizens offended by overt or aggressive homosexual advances. As my words imply, I have mixed opinions regarding this kerfuffle. I advocate for and seek a more enlightened and tolerant society, less schizophrenic about sex, and I encourage every citizen who breaks the law to stand up and be accountable for their actions. If the law is wrong, work to change the law. To vilify homosexual citizens is wrong. However, society has an obligation to define fair, equal and acceptable conduct and behavior within the public domain.
As fate would have it, another interesting article came along to keep the topic of legalization of drugs [298] simmering on the stove. This week’s addition to the debate is:
“Canada's Shooting Gallery”
by Mary Anastasia O'Grady
Wall Street Journal
August 27, 2007; Page A10
http://www.wsj.com/wsjgate?source=jopinaowsj&URI=/article/0,,SB118816976955209258,00.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion%26ojcontent%3Dotep
Mary tells the sad story of Canada’s free syringe program (InSite) intended to give drug addicts some protection from communicable diseases like HIV and Hepatitis-C. While the public health objective is laudable to an extent, the program accentuates the failure of the controlled substances prohibition process – and, says as much in the article. Mary observes, “Even the most pro-legalization libertarians would have to agree that a government that engages in drugging the citizenry is pretty far removed from the classic definition of the modern liberal state.” In some respects, I do agree. The notion of the State contributing to the self-destruction of a human being is hardly an enlightened condition. However, what is missing at this level of discourse seems to be a citizen’s individual and private freedom of choice. If the State was administering the drugs with the intention of neutralizing or destroying a person, the observation might have validity. Certainly, making free needle exchange the cornerstone of a more empathetic drug policy is like a teaspoon of water on a raging conflagration, it seems to me. The consummate and collateral effects are only marginally better than prohibition and criminalization. There are most likely a myriad of reasons individuals seek the oblivion of psychotropic substances, and yet it appears the rendered essence must be dissatisfaction with their lot in life and the concomitant desire to ‘zone out.’ Mary concludes, “Something is also very wrong when society officially winks at its own prohibition laws. Indeed, InSite demonstrates that encouraging drug use through the welfare state while at the same time attempting prohibition is not just illogical. It also produces the worst of all worlds.” While the Canadians have made an attempt, however futile, to lessen the risk associated with injectable drugs, they have hardly gone the distance. My suggestion: give them what they seek and help them along their way; namely, the State should provide shelter, sustenance as they desire, and free access to their substance(s) of choice in high-quality, defined dosage, pharmaceutical-grade drugs along with their associated application means. This sounds silly, I know. However, I ask you to seriously think about it. By taking this step, we eliminate the illegal, smuggling, drug trade; we localize those individuals so inclined such that they can be monitored and more importantly, removed from interfering with productive society; and, we allow them the free exercise of their liberty, i.e., when they decide they have had enough, they can seek appropriate treatment and extrication . . . or termination of their miserable lives as they may wish. The point of such a harsh approach is recognition of every individual citizen’s constitutional freedom of choice without indirectly sustaining the current criminal subculture. These wayward individuals could be cared for properly rather than criminalizing their conduct, and perpetuating the cycle of violence and destruction. The bottom-line reality remains, that those prone to addictive behavior will never seek or fulfill treatment until they convince themselves they want to change. No one can cure them, no matter how hard we try; only they can cure themselves. Until that time, we should eliminate the criminal element and ease the burden on society of those so inclined. Our vast counter-narcotrafficking dollars would be spent in a far more efficient manner.
Comments and contributions from Update no.298:
"What is your take [on the Gonzales resignation], Cap? Presidents before (thru their Attorney Generals) have fired as many as ALL the federal prosecutors. They serve at the pleasure of the Pres. But somehow this time, with these firings, it was different. And then the hard core push Really came on. Was Mr G even remotely qualified to begin with? Was he just a yes man for GW? Etc, etc, etc."
My reply:
My take . . . this should have happened at least six months ago, more like nine months ago when the U.S. attorney firing fiasco became public. Yes, you are quite right; U.S. attorneys are appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President. Thus, each of the U.S. attorneys is subject to dismissal at any time for no other reason than the President’s displeasure. However, just because such dismissals are legal does not justify the inept handling of the process by Gonzales and his lieutenants. Like it or not, regardless of the process by which they attain the office, U.S. attorneys are essential officers of the court and directly reflect upon our system of justice. If any U.S. attorney becomes stained by political partisanship, our justice system is seriously diminished. For the Attorney General of the United States of America to testify under oath that he cannot recall critical events in any case is reprehensible, disgusting, and reflective of the partisan politics. IMHO, Alberto Gonzales was far more concerned about loyal to the George W. Bush than to the law. He is not the first, and probably will not be the last.
Was Gonzales qualified to be Attorney General? I cannot pass judgment on his legal prowess; I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. I imagine he is a very nice person and a good friend to the George W. Bush. However, I believe Alberto Gonzales was and is incompetent as the Attorney General of the United States. I recall my impressions of George Mitchell during the Nixon-Watergate fiasco; Gonzales has joined Mitchell in the category revolting performances.
Was Gonzales just a yes-man? My opinion, yes, absolutely. As I said, he apparently was far more interested in loyalty to George W. Bush – the man – rather than being a responsible officer of the law and leader of the Justice Department. That is never good. When the law becomes subservient to political expediency, any democracy becomes fatally corroded. Yet, we survived Richard Nixon and George Mitchell; we shall survive George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment