January 15, 2009
With less than a week before the end of George Bush’s Presidency, we are seeing numerous retrospectives on the successes and failures of the Bush Administration. Of course, the failures have been plentiful and catastrophic. Quite a bit of attention has been focused on the inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina. The use of warrantless wiretaps has become a rallying cry for those calling for the prosecution of Bush Administration officials. The politicization of the Justice Department is back in the news with the disclosure that a former Justice Department official, Bradley Schlozman, refused to hire attorneys he considered too liberal. The Administration’s use of torture at Guantanamo is also in the headlines with the revelation by Susan Crawford that Mohammed al-Qahtani (a man alleged to have been the would-be twentieth hijacker from September 11, 2001) was tortured. Crawford explained that as a result of the treatment of this prisoner, she would be unable to bring him to trial. Crawford is a former Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, who in 2007, was appointed to the position of convening authority for military commissions. In that post, she is the top Bush Administration official overseeing the military trials of suspects held at Guantanamo.
As we reach the end of his second term in office, we cannot help but realize that George W. Bush, as Commander in Chief of our armed forces, never caught America’s worst enemy: Osama bin Laden. Despite the cowboy posturing, the “wanted: dead or alive” rhetoric and the numerous assurances to the contrary, George Bush has been unable to capture or kill bin Laden. Once bin Laden escaped from the battle of Tora Bora, fleeing into the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, many observers believed Bush had lost his chance at bringing this villain to justice. These critics turned out to be right. Some of my friends believe that Bush never really wanted to catch bin Laden. Under that theory, bin Laden was more valuable as a “bogeyman”, who could be used to justify the infringements on our liberties and the “harsh interrogation methods” employed by the Bush Administration. Regardless of whether such theories are true or not, Bush’s pursuit of Osama bin Laden has become yet another abject failure of this administration’s legacy. If the al-Qaeda attack against the United States had taken place at a later time during Bush’s tenure, he could invoke the excuse that he “didn’t have enough time” to catch bin Laden. As it turned out, Bush had seven years and four months to capture or kill bin Laden, yet he failed to do either.
In a villa somewhere in western Pakistan, bin Laden is probably watching an American cable newscast and chuckling with delight about his victory over George Bush. Bush never got him, nor will he ever have a chance at it again. He must enjoy watching the video clips of Bush doing his little bounce, squinting in attempt to make a tough, cowboy face, cranking up the faux Texas accent, and making some hollow threat to “get bin Laden”. In his latest audio message, bin Laden taunts President Bush by emphasizing the harsh reality that Bush has been unable to catch him. As reported by Khaled Wassef and Tucker Reals of CBS News, bin Laden’s newest discourse includes a dig at Bush’s low approval rating:
“Can America keep up the war with us for more decades to come? All reports and analysis indicate that this is not possible. In fact, 75 percent of American people are happy with the departure of the president who got them into wars they could not possibly win.”
Bin Laden goes on to say President Bush “drowned” the American people in economic woes and “left his successor a difficult legacy, and left him one of two bitter choices … The worst heritage is when a man inherits a long guerrilla warfare with a persevering, patient enemy – a war that is funded by usury. If he (Obama) withdraws from the war, that would be a military defeat, and if he goes on with it, he’ll drown in economic crisis.”
As President Bush and his minions struggle to re-define the Bush Legacy, we have America’s worst enemy providing an assessment of the Bush years in terms that are painfully close to the truth. Heckuva’ job, Bushey!
The World Holds Its Breath
January 19, 2009
All over the world, people are waiting with abated breath as the Obama Presidency begins. Some thought it would never happen. I have often wondered whether, at the last minute, the Bush-Cheney junta might decide that it does not want to give up its authority. Would they contrive some sort of “national security emergency” as a pretext for declaring martial law and suspending the Constitution? Such a tactic would be entirely consistent with what we have seen for the past eight years. Surely, there must be some provision buried in the so-called “Patriot Act” allowing the Bush-Cheney regime to continue, despite the expiration of its Constitutionally-prescribed existence. Constitutional restrictions to unlimited executive power have been ignored by the outgoing administration for the past eight years. Why should now be any different? My skepticism on this matter will continue until Barack Obama completes his recitation of the Presidential Oath.
In the mean time, there are those who question whether President Obama will really deliver on his promise of change. From the liberal side of the political spectrum, plenty of opinions have been published (by reputable commentators) expressing apprehension as to what likely will happen and what actually may not happen during Obama’s tenure in the White House.
On January 18, Salon.com featured an article by David Sirota entitled: “Obama Sells Out to Wall Street”. Mr. Sirota expressed his concern over Obama’s accelerated push to have immediate authority to dispense the remaining $350 billion available under the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailout:
Discomfort about another hasty dispersal of the remaining TARP funds was shared by a few prominent Democratic Senators who, on Thursday, voted against authorizing the immediate release of the remaining $350 billion. They included Senators Russ Feingold (Wisconsin), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Evan Bayh (Indiana) and Maria Cantwell (Washington). The vote actually concerned a “resolution of disapproval” to block distribution of the TARP money, so that those voting in favor of the resolution were actually voting against releasing the funds. Earlier last week, Obama had threatened to veto this resolution if it passed. The resolution was defeated with 52 votes (contrasted with 42 votes in favor of it). At this juncture, Obama is engaged in a game of “trust me”, assuring those in doubt that the next $350 billion will not be squandered in the same undocumented manner as the first $350 billion. As Jeremy Pelofsky reported for Reuters on January 15:
Meanwhile, there is worldwide concern about what Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can accomplish in the foreign relations and anti-terrorism arenas. As discussed in an editorial from the January 18 Times of London:
As the sun finally rises over the Obama Presidency, there are still plenty of clouds in the sky. Does this mean we are in for more turmoil? Some people might take this as a sign that it’s about to start raining money.