PS - Who's next?

There is considerable speculation about who the next nominee for US Attorney General might be. Among the candidates touted, the name of Larry Johnson seems to surface repeatedly. A former Justice Official in the Bush Administration, Johnson now serves as General counsel for Pepsico. Johnson also happens to be Afro-American.

While Johnson is undoubtedly talented, it is to be hoped that he is also smart enough to retain a sense of pride and self preservation. It may be that this would be his only opportunity to hold the top law enforcement position in the United States, if Bush were to offer the appointment. Yet if ethnicity and history mean anything to Johnson, much less personal integrity, he would decline consideration. To take on the top position in a seriously dysfunctional Justice Department that has been subjugated to the Bush White House and thereby lost all credibility and respect would be a thankless and largely unproductive stint. To take on the position as first Black Attorney General after Alberto Gonzalez has disgraced his heritage by abject failure and dereliction of duty as the first Hispanic Attorney General would be a grave tactical error.

Johnson would be remembered as the guy brought in during the lame duck portion of the GW Bush presidency to "clean up" after the mess that an incompetent and morally compromised Gonzalez had made. He would not likely be permitted to truly correct the mistakes made during the Gonzalez tenure because the White House would not allow it. In short, no real good could come of such an appointment. Yet men have been known to act against self interest and stoop to useless acts when presented with appeals to their vanity intead of their intellect and good character.

Of Right and wrongs - Alberto Gonzalez & Bush

The United States is caught in a moral and ethical vacuum, a plight recognized by the rest of the world but to which too many Americans seem oblivious. Any objective observer who examines the course of events within the United States of America and elsewhere at the instigation or insistence of the US government is aware how ill conceived and simply wrong the decisions and direction of the country are. Yet with this blindingly manifest wrongdoing, the so called leadership of the US government persists with an obstinate conviction that it is acting out of righteousness. The Bush administration, having lost the confidence of a majority of the populace in the world now turns to empty sophistry and claims that "history" will judge him more kindly.

As a famous philosopher stated, however, “in the long run, we are all dead.” It is the damage that we do while alive that truly matters to the living. And therein lies the rub of the moral vacuum. To do the right thing, it is necessary or at least very helpful to know the difference between virtue and evil. The ability to distinguish between true public service and self serving venality can guide policies and actions with potentially global impact. President Bush seems to lack the capacity to distinguish, or if he has the capacity he does not care to use it.

Moreover, the current Administration has been infested with sycophants and cronies who suffer from the same debility. Without any functional moral compass to guide them, they search for or concoct the policies and plans that seem to them expedient. This flies into a conundrum because “expedience” simply connotes a faster or easier means to desired ends, regardless of the consequences befalling victims along the path. When those “ends” are morally bankrupt and fashioned by persons without knowledge, experience or wisdom, the methods used are likely to be flawed and misguided as well. Thus the methods may be "expedient" but toward no useful goal or purpose except perpetuation of misguided and dysfunctional policies.

In so many cases during the past five years we have seen example after example of misconduct that ranges from petty pride and blind arrogance to blatant and felonious behavior conducted by members of the Bush Administration. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez in many respects typifies the kind of ethical corruption and moral paucity that characterizes the Bush Administration. The man appointed to be the chief law enforcement officer and principal protector of democratic and Constitutional freedoms has repeatedly shown a disregard for that responsibility. Gonzalez helped craft a memorandum that gave support to the use of torture by US government agents, claiming that the principles of international law embodied in the Geneva Conventions were “quaint and obsolete.” He saw nothing wrong with taking such a position contrary to the highest principles of global justice. Gonzalez rushed to the sickbed of a seriously ill and heavily medicated Justice official seeking to coerce approval of an unconstitutional domestic spying program that the White House wanted, and saw nothing unethical in such conduct. Gonzalez came before Congress and perjured himself about a White House backed plan to fire US Attorneys for purely political reasons, yet insists that he has done nothing wrong.

The President was reluctant to accept the resignation of Gonzalez from his post as Attorney General, or so it is reported. Bush also believes that his good friend and ally has done no wrong. Certainly, a devoted counselor who advised the Administration top officials on methods for violating international law and humanitarian precepts while avoiding prosecution for war crimes should be applauded and not condemned, right? An Administration loyalist who deliberately looked the other way while White House functionaries openly violated the Presidential Archives Act by conducting business through a clandestine e-mail system operated by the Republican National Committee and included communications with high Justice Department officials is to be rewarded and not roasted. Indeed, President George W. Bush assessed Gonzalez as a “man of integrity, decency and principle” who had been hounded from office for political reasons. It is not quite clear what the “political” reasons might be when top Republican Judiciary Committee members opined that the lack of honesty and integrity displayed by Gonzalez bordered on the criminal.

The crisis that the United States of America currently faces is not simply the lawlessness and venality that has been taking place at the expense of American freedoms and its public fisc. The true crisis is the lack of moral consciousness of its leadership that fosters and encourages corrupt decisions and actions. In Psychological parlance, the condition would be deemed “sociopathic.” One who is without regard for social norms of right and wrong and acts without regard for the adverse and potentially lethal consequences of his or her actions on others is a sociopath. How else to rationalize the conduct of Gonzalez, Bush, Rove, Cheney, Libby and others?

Perhaps the greater danger and worst potential damage arising from the present crisis lies in the failure of Congress to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility to hold these malfeasors accountable and block their further destructive conduct. Instead of forcefully blocking harmful and counterproductive actions and policies, Congressional leaders seem content to tolerate the Administration’s continued prosecution of illegal and ill conceived policies and operations. Treating the Bush Administration in this fashion is a bit like treating Jesse James and Al Capone as wayward children who just liked to steal things and maybe kill a few people if they got in the way. Any responsible and rational person knows different and would deem it necessary to stop such conduct and hold the transgressors accountable.

Is It Any Wonder?

The progress of the “Mission” in Iraq, or lack thereof, has many Americans wondering who is truly in charge of the mission and the current disaster that has been created. The White House insists upon pursuing as a matter of policy if not principle. Clearly, the President has shown his lack of experience and competence to actively direct the mission. His assiduous avoidance of any substantive contact with actual military duty or training and his consistent record of unsuccessful management of any major enterprise prior to his election as President are public record. Bush is the Commander in Chief and the civilian leader of the armed forces, but that role rarely translates to actual battlefield command. Expecting George W. Bush to undertake direct command of the military mission would be unspeakable and negligence.

The military is founded upon the principle of rank and "chain of command." Soldiers are tasked to execute orders as directed by their superiors. Under this structure, at least in theory, the responsibility for the development of strategy and delivery of orders for the soldiers to follow lies with the top brass. When the stakes are extremely high and the movement, coordination and direction of a complex group of military personnel and equipment is involved, lower level soldiers cannot reasonably be expected to determine policy while facing the dangers of their daily duties. Unless the soldier has deliberately disobeyed a direct order, the responsibility for execution lies with the chain of command. At the same time, the expenditure of billions of dollars from the public treasury and the loss of thousands of soldiers’ lives demands that the military be accountable to the American people. The theory is that the power to command troops and vast resources is accompanied by the responsibility for how the mission is carried out and the actions of soldiers under one's command.

Congress has been investigating a relatively minor military incident that has rather large implications for the military and for the American people. Pat Tillman, an all-American athlete with an all but guaranteed lucrative NFL career chose to enter the military rather than play professional sports after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Whether or not Tillman was misguided because of the Administration lies that led the US into the Iraq mission, he nevertheless believed that he was committed to a patriotic cause and serving his country by enlisting. Unfortunately, his service ended as a result of a botched mission and “friendly fire,” meaning that he was shot down by US soldiers and not the “enemy.” These events alone would be tragic. The tragedy was grossly compounded when the Army, the Department of defense and the White House trumpeted his death as an act of heroism based upon asserted death at the hands of Al Qaeda extremists. His death was used as a public relations gemstone for the President’s Iraq mission.

In fact, the Army knew that Tillman had not died as publicly announced. Other soldiers present at the battlefield incident were admonished to keep their mouths shut. False reports were submitted and news of the real circumstances was conveyed to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Yet the Pentagon and the Bush Administration continued to lie to the Tillman family and use them cynically and publicly to promote public support for the Iraq Mission. More than five weeks later, the Tillman family was finally alerted to the fact that the initial reports were untrue. No member of the top brass was willing to acknowledge that the facts of Tillman’s death were suppressed in order to exploit Tillman’s death for political purposes.

And this is where the larger implications arise. Secretary Rumsfeld publicly acknowledges that mistakes were made and that the system that he was responsible for directing failed. Yet he denies that he has any personal responsibility for the cover up of facts and failure to disclose the truth to the Tillman family. Retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, learned of the friendly fire nature of the incident toward the end of April but claimed that it was not his responsibility to inform the White House or the Tillman family. Retired Gen. John P. Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, and retired Gen. Bryan Douglas Brown, former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command also testified before a Congressional Committee also testified that they had no personal responsibility for what happened.

The seemingly obvious question would be, if the top civilian and military leaders charged with commanding the troops and operation of the military mission in Iraq believe that they are not responsible for the execution of the mission, including errors that are committed under their command, who is responsible? In addition, can the American people place any real faith in any President or Congress that places individuals with such lack of integrity and sense of responsibility in such high positions Is it any wonder that the situation in Iraq has devolved into such a quagmire and that there is no sense of clarity in the mission or accountability for its failures when these types of individuals are in command? Is it any wonder that hundreds if not thousands of committed and patriotic soldiers who have seen action in Iraq are refusing to return even at the cost of potential military court martial or loss of their military careers?