Chiefs of Staff Gone Wild

It would seem that assistances and chiefs of staff are out of control at the Whitehouse. That explanation is basically what the administration turns to every time a political scandal breaks. Scooter Libby was Dick Cheney's chief of staff and the only person prosecuted in the Valerie Plame affair. Mr. Cheney must have been so disappointed in the conduct of his most trusted advisor. Remember that Libby wasn't charged with creating the actual sandal. He is going to prison because he tried so hard to actively cover up the truth of who did.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is also feeling the pains of shock and horror that his top aide, Chief of staff Kyle Sampson, could have been acting without his knowledge or consent. Gonzales claims to be angry at Sampson for acting with out his knowledge at least. Sampson did have the Attorney General's consent. Mr. Gonzales did sign off on the plan to fire 8 U.S. Attorneys according to documents recently released by the Justice Department. Gonzales claims he doesn't remember the meetings and who can blame him. After all an Attorney General must sign off on a lot of things in the course of any given day. How could he be expected to remember one particular instance of the planned firing of attorney's not working in the best interest of the political interests of the Whitehouse.
At the Whitehouse, the top aides were at it again. Harriet Miers was at one time nominated by the President to be a Supreme Court Judge. This is important to mention since her name in the role of Presidential advisor is now at the center of the controversy. Bush lobbied hard against a skeptical Republican congress that Miers was capable of holding the highest office of judicial oversight in the country. Now she is the main contact of Sampson in a scandal that subverts the independence of the Justice Department for political gain. Did she really believe that her role as Whitehouse legal counsel was to direct and control the Justice Department herself? Could she be another top aide out of control and operating without the consent or at least the knowledge of her superiors? What a terrible betrayal for the President.
Miers resigned from her duties at the Whitehouse in January, so it will be easy to blame everything on her. Sampson also recently resigned because of the scandal. The Whitehouse and the Attorney General still claim that nothing improper was done. If it turns out something improper was done, it is likely that those that have resigned probably did it. It should be to no ones surprise that the entire Iraq war is now the fault of departed Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Blaming the person that no longer works in any organization is a time honored tradition. It's amazing how well this tactic still works in deflecting blame from those currently in charge.
The remaining question is what is the motivation of these chiefs of staff, top aides and advisors to act in such a scandalous manner? These overzealous, overreaching, aggressive tactics and actions taken by those that do the detailed work of running the administration must shock and sadden the President, Dick Cheney and the Attorney General. How betrayed the President must feel by those that he put such confidence in. Surely no one in the highest seats of power would have condoned or suggested the actions that have been taken by these advisors and chiefs of staff. If it were otherwise, such leaders would have subverted and damaged the very ideals and balanced structure of our government itself. Thank goodness that these scandals only represent aides and advisors gone wild. Given all these betrayals the President, at least, can still count on advice from Karl Rove.

Military Solutions in Iraq

Iraq is a mess and we are sending more troops. Democrats are so cowed by the fear of being labeled as defeatist that most of them seem content to let it happen. Fine. We are going to fight this war until we “win.” Winning would be a secure and stable government that can control it's borders and decide it's own destiny. If this situation was true today in Iraq our troops could come home tomorrow. Creating this environment in Iraq can be achieved in Iraq with military power. All that is necessary is to chose a side. Freedom, liberation and democracy are all fine concepts for Americans. The administration has made it very clear however, that foreign people don't qualify for the same rights and protections we grant ourselves. Guantanamo, secret prisons, trials without representation, and “aggressive interrogations” have shown the world that our government will protect the rights of Americans by violating the rights of others. Free from applying our principles to the needs of the people of Iraq a solution for the crisis becomes much easier to find.
Saddam Hussein kept order in Iraq even though he was a member of and was biased to, the Sunni minority. The Shia represent over 70 percent of the population but maintained their sub servant position in Iraq out of fear of the Bathe regime. Iraq maintained peace with itself even through a war with Iran. For all the horrors that Saddam inflicted on the people of Iraq, he knew how to keep security and stability within his boarders. Perhaps the United States should use it's military might to reinstall a new Bathe dictator. Iraq would be as it was before Saddam lost power and the streets of Iraq would be quiet once more. The screams and blood would be pushed back into the torture chambers where the world would not be bothered by it. Iran will be happy to have peace on its' border and since Iran is predominantly Shia they will be happy to have this faction in power. Problem solved, except that vast majority of the Islamic world is Sunni, including Al Qaeda, and we would be responsible for the violent suppression of the majority of people in Iraq.
We could pick the other side in this conflict. The Government of Nori Al Maliki is representative of the Sunni majority. The Mahdi Army, lead by Moqtada Al Sadr, controls much of the countryside already and the level of violence rises and fall at his whim. Show that we support his goals of power over the country, help Sadr suppress any Shia fighters and peace and stability again falls onto the streets of Iraq. After all, the Bathe party has all been disrupted and destroyed. Also, thanks to Sadr death squads, the ratio of Sunni to Shia populations is now even higher. Problem solved, except that we might have to go to war with Shia dominated Iran by giving Iraq to the Sunnis. We are also giving a victory to Sunni dominated Al Quaeda. Remember the terrorist that hate and want to kill us? Supposedly that was what all this was about in the first place. There's also the matter of the violent suppression of the Shia minority that our government promised would have representation in the new Iraq after the invasion.
The third option is to place our troops on every street corner of Iraq and ask everyone nicely not to keep trying to kill each other. This seems to be the essence of our military strategy for the last couple of years. It hasn't been working. A sitting army without a clear goal is an army with a target on its' back. So much for the military options. Pick a side or leave. These are not the options that we would like to have, but they are the options we are left with. Leaving Iraq will not bring “victory.” What it will bring is a stop to the violence against our own troops and it will eliminate the need for us to choose one side or the other. Is this a good option? Is it a better option than those ideas just put forward? Leaving now will leave blood on our hands, but in terms of winning or loosing, I would rather we lose with dignity than win stealing the tactics of Saddam Hussein.

Libby's Reward

Lewis Libby was convicted last week on 4 of 5 counts brought against him including lying under oath and obstruction of justice. He was not charged in leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, which is what started this whole scandal in the first place. The question the administration doesn't want to be asked is: If he didn't leak the name why would he bother to lie. Prosecutors only had enough evidence to show that Libby was protecting someone and couldn't prosecute past that point.
Lewis Libby was Dick Cheney's chief of staff until the scandal broke, linking the white house with a politically motivated smear campaign against Joe Wilson. The whole situation is very complicated and only made more muddled by the Libby trial. This has been a boon for the administration to be able to air their dirty laundry in plain sight where no one can see or understand it. At the end of the day Lewis Libby will go to jail and the case will be closed and forgotten. This also works in the best interest of the administration eager to put this story to rest.
Until the time comes to see today's events in the context of history will the Plame affair announce its full relevance. By taking the time to pull the details of this story apart the perspective and tactics of those in power today become revealed with a clarity that only this case could provide.
The theme of sacrifice has been strongly promoted by the administration. Our military has paid the most, but our civil liberties, economy and Lewis Libby have all given to the cause of advancing the agenda and world view of those with the ability to steer the destiny of the country and the world. What have we gotten in return for our investment?
Lewis Libby will receive a jail cell. For many thousands of others, the bravest amongst us, the gratitude shown for their service by those in power is even less. The failings of Walter Reed Hospital to give proper care to this country's heroes makes me wonder about the conditions of the prison Libby is headed to. In light of recent reports on the level of out patient care which would you choose?
Mr. Libby will soon become a healthy man in a jail. Fed and sheltered for the length of his sentence he will use the time, most likely, to write a book. He will publish, make millions and retiring from the stress of public service live free from future worries. Because like the common soldier he will only be a footnote of history, barely mentioned next to the great names of power. Meanwhile, wounded service men and women returning from war have been cheated from the care and support that by any measure could be called adequate. Both Libby and the common soldier have made sacrifices in the defense of choices made by those in the position to lead. Only Libby, will live in the lap of luxury for the rest of his days for his trouble.

Local School Board Issue

Guy Gooder has left his elected post on the Macon County School Board. He departed by all accounts in good standing with the board, the community and the children he pledged to serve. Despite the controversy of potential conflicts between his business and his role as School Board Member; no critic has implied any such impropriety on his part or on the part of any school organization that did or will do business with Gooder Grafix.
The resignation of Guy Gooder makes any more discussion on this matter a moot point. Everyone involved, especially those remaining on the board, can claim “no harm, no foul,” and move on to business as usual. Decisions will be made and money will be spent. Polices of the Board and the functioning of the school system will go on as if Mr. Gooder was never elected at all.
Therein lies a question and a unresolved aspect of this story. If Guy has done nothing improper and functioned in good faith in his duties as school board member: What issues, policies and oversights will not be addressed in Mr. Gooder's absence? Surely he had ideas, suggestions and ambitions for making our school system a more efficient and effective place of learning. The potential for conflict created by his business certainly does not invalidate his aspirations of making our schools better. Neither does it invalidate the shared hope of the constituency that voted him into office. The resignation of Mr. Gooder puts to rest the question of whether or not he could function honorably in the dual role of business owner and servant to the education system. His resignation does not however, put to rest the contributions he would have made had he not been limited by circumstances of income.
Will the appointed replacement for Guy ask the same questions or address the same issues that he would have had he stayed? Will Roberta Swank ask Guy for council and direction on these issues that he felt needed addressing. The same Board Members that voted unanimously to instate her have never implied that Guy Gooder was doing a bad job in the same role. Had he been a hair dresser and not a sign maker after all, this exercise would not be necessary. In the interest of serving the will of the voters as well as the needs of the children of this county perhaps Roberta could at least investigate Guy's concerns and ideas for making our schools better.
Have we gained a school board clean of even the hint of financial conflicts of interest? I hope we have. Such an image and ideal are important for any government institution to maintain. Still I wonder what cost our diligence will engender. If we have gained, what have we lost? More importantly, who will ultimately end up paying the fee?