I was listening to NPR last night and a few things caught my ear.
First, they aired some Republicans sniffing about how the Democrats insisted on debating whether Condoleeza Rice should become secretary of state.
Some Democrats complained that Rice was a principal architect of the Iraq invasion mess and therefore should be held accountable. Republicans dismissed Democratic objections as playing politics (which is unheard of in Washington).
"We are talking about the safety and security of this country, so I very much and very quickly want to move with Secretary Rice," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said earlier while criticizing the delay caused by the debate.
To which I respond: we are talking about the safety and security of this country, which is PRECISELY why such a high profile nomination, the head of America's diplomacy with the rest of the world, should be debated thoroughly.
Frist was probably just taken aback by the Democrats actually showing a spine. They haven't done that much since Frist became Senate leader.
Rice's nomination was eventually approved. What was the result of the horrific delay Republicans were screaming bloody murder about?
Rice sworn in as secretary of state yesterday evening, instead of yesterday afternoon. Oh my goodness, the terrorists might have struck again in those extra few hours!!!
Say what you will about Rice, at least she tried to defend her dubious policies before the Senate. Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales, on the other hand, was incredibly evasive in his Senate hearings.
Gonzales, who wants to become the nation's chief law enforcement officer, refused to answer many questions or could not recall. Particularly regarding to his opinions as White House counsel on the legality of torture.
How 'the legality of torture' even became an issue in a country whose Leader crusades on themes like 'freedom,' 'liberty' and 'ending tyranny', who was elected by voters who supposedly prioritize 'morality' and 'values,' is a question for another day.
Defenders will say Gonazles was merely offering an interpretation of what the law allowed, not necessarily his own personal opinions. But his lack of openness before the Senate on what WERE his own personal opinions did not sit well.
"In his answers to the committee, Alberto Gonzales obfuscated more than he clarified," said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was a strong supporter of Condoleeza Rice.
"Time and time again, he voiced the president's policies instead of his own philosophy, and relied on technical interpretations of the law. I wanted him to show something of his own personal values and judgment, but he did not."
Gonzales is associated with controversial policies of questionable legality. Personally, I'm a bit curious to know how and if the nation's top LAW-ENFORCEMENT officer is going to, uh... enforce the law.
Again, some will defend Gonzales' actions. But shouldn't he be able to do that himself? Or perhaps as smart as he is, he's not talented enough to defend the indefensible.
This is all in perfect harmony with the long-standing Bush administration policy of secrecy beyond what could be justified as reasonable, contempt for public discourse, objection to straight-forward exchanges, dismissiveness of the legislative body (taking the imperial presidency to a new level) and emphasis on personal loyalty over the greater good.
Secrecy is the enemy of democacy and good governance. And it's always been that secrecy that's bothered me about the Bush administration more than anything else. Even more so than their actual policies, if for no other reason than the secrecy casts doubt on the sincerity of their intent. Simply put, you aren't that secretive unless you're hiding something. Secrecy makes people assume you're guilty of something.
Finally, I heard about a story about the day's events in Iraq. I've never been one of those people who's been furious that the US military doesn't keep track of how many Iraqi civilians have died. Knowing that the civilian death toll is 'exactly 14,235' rather 'a whole lot' doesn't make me any more or less outraged. I don't need concrete numbers to know the whole thing stinks.
And besides, it's perfectly reasonable for soldiers in the heat of battle to worry more about keeping safe and, I trust they do, trying to minimize civilian casualities. Those things are slightly more important than becoming a statistics bureau.
That's what I used to think, until yesterday.
While the US military has no idea how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by American troops, NPR ran comments by a general who could tell us EXACTLY how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by insurgents. I think the number was three-hundred-something.
So it begs the question: does the military really have better information about what the enemy is doing than about what their own men are doing? Or do they only collect statistics when they're useful for propaganda purposes?
Or do they only release them when they're useful?
No comments:
Post a Comment