After months of continued calls for his resignation from both sides of the aisle, Alberto Gonzales has finally resigned. This was not the first time a pal of the President made it to a top cabinet position, nor will be the last. But it shows how the position of the Justice Department’s top official is too important to be filled on the basis of cronyism.
The showdown of the past months between Gonzales and Congress has been instrumental in Gonzales’ demise, as one of Bush’s more trusted legal counsels. But in the end his loyalty for the White House got in the way of his duty as Attorney General, where he was supposed to be lawyer of the people, not lawyer of the White House.
Even before Gonzales became Attorney General, he seemed more interested in justifying the administration’s aggressive use of executive powers than in applying the law. Even as White House counsel, his legal opinions seemed to spread the Constitution to provide a rationale for abandoning the Geneva Conventions in the basis of terrorism suspects. This was evident in the infamous memo, which Gen. Colin Powell, Secretary of State at the time, denounced on the basis of Gonzales declarations which had stated the Geneva Conventions to be “obsolete’ and “quaint” when it deferred to the treatment of prisoners of war. But this was not the only shadow in Gonzales’s record. Then came the famous visit he made to then Attorney General Ashcroft’s hospital bed in order to obtain a signature that would reauthorize the controversial warrantless eavesdropping surveillance program designed to stop terrorism.
What finally topped the ice cream cone though, was the unexpected firings of nine U.S. attorneys at the beginning of the year, which now is believed to have been in the basis of political retaliation for supposedly failing to attain the legal conservative agenda of Bush’s White House. What ensued after, was a political power struggle between the hill and the White House. Emails got erased, aides got reassigned, a total of 12 top Department of Justice officials have resigned or been relocated to other posts. That on top of possible perjury charges against Gonzales for continuously changing his testimony during several hearings in Congress has completely drained his lack of shame.
Let this show that cronyism has no agenda, place or counsel in government and public service. One would have expected Bush to wake up and realize this, after the disastrous Katrina/FEMA incident, but sometimes losing a battle is not enough. In his last 17-months, lame-duck presidential time left, he has time to turn back and voices to appease, if he is to purge his administration of the crony monster that dwells within.
August 28, 2007
May 24, 2007
Global Warming: The last remnants of skepticism
Wish you could go back to 1978 when global warming hysteria in the political spectrum along side the ticking population bomb theory of the 50’s was a poster child issue conceived by the ‘radical’ Left?
Remember FDR’s New Deal? A series of programs whose goals of relief, recovery and reform of the United States economy during the Great Depression was the ultimately architectural design of big government and not the last for that matter, then came the Marshall Plan, etc.
Today’s conservatives are at it again, concluding that global warming is just the latest temptation of aspiring bigger government. However, the same market forces that conservatives deeply believe in are handing the Right a big defeat on global warming, because the scientific findings have become so compelling that even big players like Exxon Mobil and General Motors have stopped questioning the theory.
Needless to say, the scientific evidence is really strong. Climatologists say that according to weather patterns, there is over a 90% likelihood that the increase in temperatures is traceable to human activity. A panel of over 2,000 world scientists concluded the same in March this year. This is no small ice-age, or a cyclical warming of the earth, like conservatives guiltlessly emphasize. This means change, and the only meaningful and effective rollback that can make global warming slow down is big government in the form of policies that directly address it.
Although our understanding of what climate change means for the future is largely theoretical, conservatives cannot keep lucratively resisting calls for regulating greenhouses emissions. Having allied themselves for years with groups proposing “intelligence design” and other crackpot theories, the Right has lost much of their intellectual rigor. President Bush’s White House has been in a constant warfare with scientists and this has damaged their reputation considerably.
If what the Right fears in the global warming action list is a ‘consequential economic meltdown’, then they must accept that this criticism is no longer reputable, given the fact that corporate entities and market forces are joining to bring about economic incentives in developing and distributing sustainable and renewable products and services.
But if their resistance to global warming consensus is a fervor-driven crackpot theory born out of the very same natural fiber of intelligence design, then consider the last skeptics on the endangered list and let’s not allow the oversold imagery of global warming taint our efforts to slow it down.
Remember FDR’s New Deal? A series of programs whose goals of relief, recovery and reform of the United States economy during the Great Depression was the ultimately architectural design of big government and not the last for that matter, then came the Marshall Plan, etc.
Today’s conservatives are at it again, concluding that global warming is just the latest temptation of aspiring bigger government. However, the same market forces that conservatives deeply believe in are handing the Right a big defeat on global warming, because the scientific findings have become so compelling that even big players like Exxon Mobil and General Motors have stopped questioning the theory.
Needless to say, the scientific evidence is really strong. Climatologists say that according to weather patterns, there is over a 90% likelihood that the increase in temperatures is traceable to human activity. A panel of over 2,000 world scientists concluded the same in March this year. This is no small ice-age, or a cyclical warming of the earth, like conservatives guiltlessly emphasize. This means change, and the only meaningful and effective rollback that can make global warming slow down is big government in the form of policies that directly address it.
Although our understanding of what climate change means for the future is largely theoretical, conservatives cannot keep lucratively resisting calls for regulating greenhouses emissions. Having allied themselves for years with groups proposing “intelligence design” and other crackpot theories, the Right has lost much of their intellectual rigor. President Bush’s White House has been in a constant warfare with scientists and this has damaged their reputation considerably.
If what the Right fears in the global warming action list is a ‘consequential economic meltdown’, then they must accept that this criticism is no longer reputable, given the fact that corporate entities and market forces are joining to bring about economic incentives in developing and distributing sustainable and renewable products and services.
But if their resistance to global warming consensus is a fervor-driven crackpot theory born out of the very same natural fiber of intelligence design, then consider the last skeptics on the endangered list and let’s not allow the oversold imagery of global warming taint our efforts to slow it down.
May 02, 2007
President Bush's legacy
It's scandal after scandal which aggravates the Bush Administration's last golden hours and miniscules their grandiose attempt at leaving behind a legacy of conservative imprint in all branches of government. If we go back almost six years ago we have a list for your consideration: the Terri Schiavo case, the US Supreme Court nominee fiasco, the Iraq invasion, the mismanagement of the war on terror, the poor accountability of funds in the first year of the war, the suspicious contracting to big corporations, Hurricane Katrina, the 'remake' of his staff, the ousting of a CIA covert agent, the firing of US prosecutors, and the list goes on. But historians will ultimately judge Bush's presidency based on his leadership through two tragedies — the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, plus a conflict of his own design: The war in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Americans have a very poor memory, and when the time comes, Bush junior will be remembered with a condenscending grim and we will all struggle to remember the shame and incompetence which brought this country to the back of the line. Just like Bush seems to have lost the capacity of connecting with an anxious public (his ratings have been in the 30's% for many years now), so will we have lost the capacity of connecting his failures with his blundering presidency.
Unfortunately, Americans have a very poor memory, and when the time comes, Bush junior will be remembered with a condenscending grim and we will all struggle to remember the shame and incompetence which brought this country to the back of the line. Just like Bush seems to have lost the capacity of connecting with an anxious public (his ratings have been in the 30's% for many years now), so will we have lost the capacity of connecting his failures with his blundering presidency.
March 30, 2007
Ahmadinejad and Bush
I know, I know, it does not sound very respectful but consider the facts:
Ahmadinejad's approval ratings in Iran: possibly 40%
Bush's approval rating at home: 31%
Admadinejad ran for President on a campain focused on corruption and oil wealth for the poor.
Bush ran for President on a platform for restoring traditional values and compassionate politics. Both ran like reformists and ended up as neo-conservatists and hypermoralists.
Ahmadinejad is the first nonmullah to be Iran's President since 1981.
Bush is the first conservative republican to be President since 1984 (last one was Reagan).
Did I mention the fact that the legislature in both countries has continously rejected appointees by these two leaders? For example, the Majlis or Parliament has rejected several Ahmadinejad's Cabinet appointments, just like Congress has oppossed several of Bush's appointees.
Both leaders use military, political and religious rethoric to lure supporters into their webs. They are both hated by elites and moderates in their respective countries, and poor domestic policies haunt them while international policies have yet to yield positive results.
Ahmadinejad has frequently made allusions of his connection to a divine order, just like Bush has made comments of speaking to God and being in constant communication with Him.
Just like the Bush administration was forced to implement policies of the Iraq Study Group, so is Ahmadinejad being pressured to adopt some of the resolutions set forth by the UN Security Council in order to avoid further sanctions that will undermine Iran's economic growth.
So there you have it. Sometimes simililarities can be a siginifact divider in a already strained relationship such as this one. The US is waiting for Iranian moderate forces to prevail in this showdown of power, while Iran's Ahmadinejad is banking on the same exact thing.
Good luck.
Ahmadinejad's approval ratings in Iran: possibly 40%
Bush's approval rating at home: 31%
Admadinejad ran for President on a campain focused on corruption and oil wealth for the poor.
Bush ran for President on a platform for restoring traditional values and compassionate politics. Both ran like reformists and ended up as neo-conservatists and hypermoralists.
Ahmadinejad is the first nonmullah to be Iran's President since 1981.
Bush is the first conservative republican to be President since 1984 (last one was Reagan).
Did I mention the fact that the legislature in both countries has continously rejected appointees by these two leaders? For example, the Majlis or Parliament has rejected several Ahmadinejad's Cabinet appointments, just like Congress has oppossed several of Bush's appointees.
Both leaders use military, political and religious rethoric to lure supporters into their webs. They are both hated by elites and moderates in their respective countries, and poor domestic policies haunt them while international policies have yet to yield positive results.
Ahmadinejad has frequently made allusions of his connection to a divine order, just like Bush has made comments of speaking to God and being in constant communication with Him.
Just like the Bush administration was forced to implement policies of the Iraq Study Group, so is Ahmadinejad being pressured to adopt some of the resolutions set forth by the UN Security Council in order to avoid further sanctions that will undermine Iran's economic growth.
So there you have it. Sometimes simililarities can be a siginifact divider in a already strained relationship such as this one. The US is waiting for Iranian moderate forces to prevail in this showdown of power, while Iran's Ahmadinejad is banking on the same exact thing.
Good luck.
March 13, 2007
Latin America: US involvement a decade too late....
So, Bush wraps up a 5-day tour in Latin America, but brings back nothing with him.
This tour has come too late at a moment when US diplomacy is at its weakest in decades, even in recent weeks of renewed diplomatic talks with countries in the Middle East and China, and only thanks to Rice, who has been eargely making the rounds, in a move to clear up and wash out the Bush Administration's lack of foreign diplomatic overtures.
Latin America, with all its complexities and problems, seems to be hanging tough, as they have waited years to see trade agreements finalized, economic aid disembursed, and political commitments materialized. South America has for now found their guy in Venezuela's Chavez, who is more than willing to fill in the vacuum and which has plenty of cash and free advice to give.
This is exactly the danger and the frivolity of territorial politics, and the Bush Administration never seemed to capitalize on it. As Lebanon fell to Hizballah when Syria pulled out, everyone seemed too busy with the 'terrorists' and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the US.
Now, it is too late for US deals and cheap talk; China has moved in to provide trade and aid and Chavez has continued to engulf South America and Central America with his populist rethoric. Today, Venuezuela's political and economic influence in the region is proportioned to Russia's oil supply to China's economy. China is always shopping for oil suppliers and has found a loyal one in Venezuela, which only helps to fuel Chavez's regional agenda.
I say this to Bush: go back to your drawing board and come up with a new set of economic and political policies that can efficiently compete with Chavez's own.
This tour has come too late at a moment when US diplomacy is at its weakest in decades, even in recent weeks of renewed diplomatic talks with countries in the Middle East and China, and only thanks to Rice, who has been eargely making the rounds, in a move to clear up and wash out the Bush Administration's lack of foreign diplomatic overtures.
Latin America, with all its complexities and problems, seems to be hanging tough, as they have waited years to see trade agreements finalized, economic aid disembursed, and political commitments materialized. South America has for now found their guy in Venezuela's Chavez, who is more than willing to fill in the vacuum and which has plenty of cash and free advice to give.
This is exactly the danger and the frivolity of territorial politics, and the Bush Administration never seemed to capitalize on it. As Lebanon fell to Hizballah when Syria pulled out, everyone seemed too busy with the 'terrorists' and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the US.
Now, it is too late for US deals and cheap talk; China has moved in to provide trade and aid and Chavez has continued to engulf South America and Central America with his populist rethoric. Today, Venuezuela's political and economic influence in the region is proportioned to Russia's oil supply to China's economy. China is always shopping for oil suppliers and has found a loyal one in Venezuela, which only helps to fuel Chavez's regional agenda.
I say this to Bush: go back to your drawing board and come up with a new set of economic and political policies that can efficiently compete with Chavez's own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
