Seeking In The Zeitgeist: George W. Bush

Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts

11.05.2010

George W. Bush - Torturer in Chief

In his upcoming memoir, former president George W. Bush proudly owns the title of Torturer in Chief.

Human rights experts have long pressed the administration of former president George W. Bush for details of who bore ultimate responsibility for approving the simulated drownings of CIA detainees, a practice that many international legal experts say was illicit torture.

In a memoir due out Tuesday, Bush makes clear that he personally approved the use of that coercive technique against alleged Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an admission the human rights experts say could one day have legal consequences for him.

Bush previously had acknowledged endorsing what he described as the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation techniques - a term meant to encompass irregular, coercive methods - after Justice Department officials and other top aides assured him they were legal. "I was a big supporter of waterboarding,"

Eric Holder, the current attorney general of the US, in January 2009:
Asked just minutes into his confirmation hearings whether waterboarding qualified as torture, Holder was unequivocal in his response.

"If you look at the history of the use of that technique used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crimes, we prosecuted our own soldiers in Vietnam, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture.

I'm sure Bush's lawyers gave him the OK on this. He must be certain that the DOJ and the Obama Administration won't touch him. That the International Court won't file Human Rights violations. Torture has never been a particularly effective intelligence-collection technique, it's only real purposes are usually for humiliation or revenge.

Torture and secrecy. Where one is used, the other is indispensable. It weakened the standing of our Country, helped recruit and radicalize our enemies and made us all complicit in it. Torture is soul-destroying for both the tortured and the torturer and is morally corrupting to the country that sponsors it.

I feel his owning this is just evidence that he still doesn't get it. Won't get it. Is incapable of getting it. It's wrong. Legally, ethically, empirically and morally wrong!

10.18.2010

In Politics, Does Size Still Matter

I'm talking about height, you all have filthy minds. ;)

An observation and a question. There have been just three US Presidents under 5' 7". James Madison, Martin Van Buren and Benjamin Harrison. The most recent, Harrison was elected 122 years ago. He was nominated on the final ballot just a few months before the election. He campaigned, as was the style, from his hometown and mostly from his front porch. His speeches were read, not heard. His photo was from the mid-riff up. His height was ridiculed by partisan trades, but had no real election impact. His notoriety came from; his possibility of carrying a Swing state (Indiana), being the grandson of William Henry Harrison, a one term US Senator, and a Brevetted Brig. General in the Civil War. Like George W. Bush in 2000, Harrison lost the popular vote, but won (without Supreme Court intervention) via the Electoral College.

In the 21 Century's 24/7 news machine, where every thing from his financial ties, his leadership style, his fondness for motorcycles, and his baldness will be critiqued, does Indiana Republican Governor, Mitch Daniels at just 5' 5" (and I'm being generous) have a valid shot at becoming President?

I'm not talking about any perceived media bias. Nor the Tea Party, or liberals vs conservatives, or Red vs Blue. Just the one thing that the MSM, FOX, TMZ, and your brother-in-law's blog have in common with all of us. Rightly or wrongly, consciously or subconsciously, we judge people on things like height. It's primal, evolutionary, lizard brain stuff, and yet we do it.

Is it still possible that someone of less than average height could be popularly elected president? I don't know. I'm asking. You folks weigh in. Tell me.

5.12.2008

Meghan O'Sullivan, My Neo-Con Crush

I have to admit that after watching Meghan O'Sullivan on the 05/02/08 Charlie Rose, I've become instantly infatuated.
That being said, I have serious reservations with her work the last four years.
According to her Wikipedia Entry:

She served in the Office of Policy Planning at the State Department, where she assisted Colin Powell in developing the smart sanctions policy proposal; as an assistant to Paul Bremer in the Coalition Provisional Authority subsequent to the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and as Senior Director for Iraq at the National Security Council. O'Sullivan [sic] last position at the White House was as the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan.

During her time in Iraq, O'Sullivan was involved with many key decisions on the political front, including helping negotiate the early transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis and assisting the Iraqis in writing their interim constitution. She is remembered for driving herself around Baghdad to meet with Iraqis, and endured some harrowing experiences while in Iraq, including escaping from a terrorist attack by scaling a building ledge ten stories up. In Washington, several policy insiders have credited her with being one of the original architects of the "surge" strategy that led President Bush to send more troops to Iraq in 2007.
Her resignation was announced April 2, 2007, and took effect late last spring.

From The Washington Post, 03/04/2007

Critics, however, have questioned whether O'Sullivan was too young for such a challenge and whether the former Brookings Institution scholar with a master's degree and doctorate from Oxford University was too steeped in theory for the job. Others said that however impressive she may be, the net result of her tenure has been a costly war and enormous turmoil for the Iraqi people.
"The administration's policy has been a tragic failure, and she has been a central element of our policy making," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University professor who worked for the CPA and became a tough critic of the president's handling of Iraq. But Diamond said "the majority of the blame needs to rest at the foot of the higher officials," especially Bush.

It was a good interview, she was as honest as ANY former Bush adviser has been. She admitted mistakes were made and things will take a long time to sort out. She didn't, however, accept any responsibility of her own or directly blamed anyone in the Administration.

It seems as if she honestly tried, got in over her head and now regrets much of it. O'Sullivan (unlike ANYONE at her level in the Administration) talked and met with the Iraqi people suffering outside of The Green Zone. I applaud her for that much.

Technorati Tags: Meghan O'Sullivan,Charlie Rose,Bush Administration,Iraq War