Gonzales Never Let Facts Get in the Way

Via NYTimes:

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Thankfully, this monster is gone, but his actions as attorney general will give us fear of the position for years (much like Bush has done for the presidency). A completely open government is not necessarily a good idea, some things need to be kept secret, but blatant lies have come out of every partisan official in the executive and judicial (ok, and legislative too...) branches. This trend must be stopped. Blogs and online syndication of newspapers have helped keep people knowledgeable of government's missteps which should keep them more wary, but it only forces government officials to keep their skeletons better hidden. Keep politicians in line, pay attention and don't fall for their pandering and lying.

Failures in Oil Program

Via NY Times(requires free subscription):

The Interior Department’s program to collect billions of dollars annually from oil and gas companies that drill on federal lands is troubled by mismanagement, ethical lapses and fears of retaliation against whistle-blowers, the department’s chief independent investigator has concluded.

The report, a result of a yearlong investigation, grew out of complaints by four auditors at the agency, who said that senior administration officials had blocked them from recovering money from oil companies that underpaid the government.

This program is one of the largest sources of revenue for the US, and yet it is horribly mismanaged and mired in cronyism at the highest levels. The government's close relationship with oil companies has hurt the US. Many elected officials are tied to the oil industry (See George W. Bush) and cannot afford to force beneficial change in the regulation of it. When gas prices rise to the height of giving people the choice between driving to work and starving or eating, but being forced to bike or take mass transit, maybe people will see that these oil companies have not been just keeping up with inflation but have been squeezing us for every ounce of money they can get to fill their already-inflated bank accounts.

Experience or Change?

Via NY Times:

Voters are almost equally divided over which is more important, with 41 percent citing fresh ideas and 44 percent citing experience.

But, the survey also indicated that voters think Mrs. Clinton is “more qualified” and “has a much better chance of becoming president.”

Mr. Obama has been trying to capitalize on his fresh-thinking approach, hoping it will resonate with voters. [...]

Six of the Democratic candidates took part in a forum organized by the Iowa Federation of Labor in Waterloo, Iowa. The Quad-City Times reports that the Democrats spoke about issues important to American workers and “stayed away from personal attacks”

It almost makes you think that democracy could work, doesn't it? The biggest difference between the democratic front-runners is not race or gender despite what the media wants; the biggest difference is experience against change. Ms. Clinton has touted her time as first lady and tenure in the senate as her main examples of superiority over the other candidates, yet she has not seemed to take a strong stance on many of the issues that so many progressives want her to take. Obama, on the other hand, is much less experienced in federal politics, having joined Congress in 2005 (elected in 2004). Obama, however, has used that to his advantage by pointing that he is not a "normal" politician, but an agent of change from "business as usual". This country has been harmed deeply by Bush and his administration's "business as usual" take on government.

This could be accomplished by someone with experience in the system that knows how to change things, or this could be accomplished by an agent of change who is knew to the scene. We'll see which one the American people want once the primaries finish. (...go Gore!)

Karl Rove Resigns

Via NY Times:

Karl Rove, the political adviser who masterminded President George W. Bush’s two winning presidential campaigns and secured his own place in history as a political strategist with extraordinary influence within the White House, is resigning, the White House confirmed today.

I wish I could find the ding dong the witch is dead music, but, you'll just have to imagine it. The smear campaigns orchestrated by this man are only the main things that we know. I don't even want to know what else he's done... Despite this resignation, I'm sure we will see him again in a few months once the candidates are selected, watch the shadows behind the republican candidate, you'll see him. I do like this comment though, that he just tossed in there:

In his exit interview today, which was with the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot, Mr. Rove had a parting shot for his political nemeses, telling Mr. Gigot that he believed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the Democratic nominee but called her a “tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate,” and predicted a Republican victory in the 2008 presidential race. It is the sort of political boasting that had become Mr. Rove’s hallmark.

While I agree that it is very likely that Ms. Clinton will be the democratic candidate, I do not think she is fatally flawed nor do I think there is any reason to predict a republican victory. Despite that, we must not forget that it is possible, and cannot take a democratic victory for granted.

Al Qaeda: Combatants or Criminals

Via NY Times:

THE line between soldier and civilian has long been central to the law of war. Today that line is being blurred in the struggle against transnational terrorists. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has sought to categorize members of Al Qaeda and other jihadists as “unlawful combatants” rather than treat them as criminals. [...]

Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefully distinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited. [...]

By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state’s responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.

I have the distinct feeling that he doesn't read what he writes. He says that Al Qaeda should not be labeled as combatants but should just be criminals (who are citizens, btw) and then says that combatants can't attack citizens (purposely). The military should not be simple police, catching criminals is not their job. The military's purpose is to engage an enemy combatant force and quell it. There is a vast difference between peacemaking and policing. Now, this wouldn't bother me if it was just some conservative nutjob, or random ranter, but this is Wes Clark ("the former supreme commander of NATO, is a fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles."). He also was drafted into the Democratic Part nomination in 2003 although he dropped out in 2004 to support John Kerry. Clearly, this is a person who should be able to offer some insight into foreign relations, especially those dealing with military conflict. Sadly, we must put General Clark into the crazy box and shake our heads a the nonsense people will say.

The Nuclear Option

Via NY Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has criticized Senator Barack Obama for saying he would rule out using nuclear weapons to root out terrorists in Afghanistan or Pakistan, made a similar comment regarding Iran last year, before she became a presidential candidate.

“I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clinton told Bloomberg Television in an interview in April 2006 [...]

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she was responding to a specific news report at the time that the Bush administration was considering nuclear strikes on Iran. The context, he said, was different than the scenario raised last week by Mr. Obama.

“Senator Clinton was not talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate,” Mr. Singer said.

Well, the "flip-flop" and double standard comments are sure to come soon. While nuclear weapons cause horrible consequences, it surely stops pretty much any nation from doing what they're doing. As much as I dislike saying it, Hillary Clinton is wrong in both of these cases. In Obama's circumstance, it is not a nation we would need to attack, it is a group hiding in mountains. Even a well aimed nuke would not stop a group that is not necessarily reliant on a command structure. If anything, an attack like that would show desperation and embolden our enemies. With Ms. Clinton's situation it is a nation, and I believe nothing should be removed from the table in that situation.