This has nothing to do with his avoiding Vietnam, either by pulling strings to get in the Texas Air National Guard, nor his failure to fulfill his military commitment therein. Nor does it have anything to do with being unwilling to acknowledge his previous history of drug and alcohol abuse. It does not even have anything to do with his using others, perhaps Dan Bartlett in the former case and Alberto Gonzeles in the latter, to help him coverup so he would not have to face the American people and acknowledge his previous weaknesses.
But perhaps the actions of others on his behalf on TANG and substance abuse is related. They involve a lack of political courage, an unwillingness to present oneself to the American people for their judgment. And that clearly applies now, when George Bush seeks to have others act on his behalf, so he will not have to an action that would require him to face the American people.
Oh, and insofar as they are enabling him to get away with it, the Democrats in Congress may not be cowards, but they are idiots.
George Bush is afraid to use his pardon powers. For those who on his instruction or with his acquiescence broke the law. They waterboarded. They tortured. That's criminal.
So much of the justification being offered for things like ex post facto protection of CIA personnel who may have used "enhanced interrogation techniques" is that they were acting under instructions from above. Hell, they may even had been advised that "competent" legal authority has said that what they were doing is okay, although clearly that justification would have disappeared when the man acting in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel had himself "waterboarded" and determined that it met the qualification to be categorized as torture. But before Daniel Levin could write a memo to that effect, which would have stripped away any legal protection for those who participated in or authorized the use of such method, Gonzales forced him out.
If Bush things he was justified in having such methods used, if it was done with his acquiescence, even after the fact, he has a simple solution to remove those men from legal jeopardy. He can exercise his powers of executive clemency. He can give everyone involved a pardon. Hell, he can legally even pardon himself.
He could do the same for the executives of the telecomms who also broke the law even before 9/11 by disclosing in any fashion the contents of the phone or electornic traffic of Americans without a court order (although a pardon for criminal actions would not in and of itself shield them from suits by injured parties, if those parties could ever demonstrate that they had been injured by getting access to information demonstrating their privacy had been violated, and that thereby they could demonstrate an injury).
Or course, the issuance of such pardons would create a firestorm of protest. IF Bush provided a list of people he wished to protect from legal jeopardy, he would have to give them blanket Federal immunity from all actions they have done, or else he would have to specify what acts he was erasing. In either case, that would create a situation of major public discussion, and of political heat and opposition. If Bush truly believes that what he did and/or others did on his behalf in taking such actions, and perhaps the additional actions of extraordinary renditions, hiding those in custody from the International Red Cross, and so on, then he has a simple action to take - exercise his pardon power and stand up and acknowledge it.
Were he truly courageous, he might pardon everyone else, but not pardon himself, because he would acknowledge that all actions were done in his name, on his authority.
Unless they weren't, in which case he is not fulfilling his sworn constitutional duty to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States
and to the best of his ability
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Since ratified treaties and enacted laws are part of the Supreme Law of the Land according to the supremacy clause in Article VI, that requires him to ensure that the law is faithfully executed, that treaties are properly abided by. And torture clearly violates both. And we have previously gone after those who waterboarded Americans. And disclosing of American's communications is prohibited by law.
Had the Democrats any courage, people like Rockefellar and others who are serving as enablers would say bluntly, Mr. President, if you think they did nothing wrong, you can pardon them. Those Democrats have in previous legislation already violated the spirit of the Constitution, a document wich prohibits ex post facto legislation, even if the important intent of that restriction was to prevent criminalization of actions after they were already done. Logically it should also remove from Congress the power either to decriminalize or to create blanket protection for suits on behalf of those who have torts, legal claims for injury, against those who have harmed them. In fact, the proper action for Congress to take is to pass a law enabling those injured to sue anyone in the Federal government who enabled such a violation of their privacy to occur.
Cowardice. A coward. I took a look at online definitions, for example, this from Encarta:
coward
cow·ard (plural cow·ards)
noun
Definition:
1. somebody lacking courage: somebody regarded as fearful and uncourageous
2. bully: somebody who harms or attacks people who are weaker or unable to defend themselves
3. anonymous enemy: somebody who anonymously harms those who cannot defend themselves
[13th century. < Old French cuard<Latin cauda "tail"] </p>
I am arguing that politically the first definition applies to Bush. I think that in his administration and in the politics he has had Karl Rove practice on his behalf the second two definitions are also applicable.
In politics it is appropriate to point out the truth about one's opponent, even should that truth be considered unpopular.
Perhaps I am asking too much? Perhaps suggesting that the Democrats demand the president accept responsibility is beyond what we can expect?
If I am asking too much, then Franklin's words are applicable. He told a woman who asked him what kind of government the founders had given us in the Constitutional convention was "A republic, if you can keep it." If we do not hold the executive accountable, if we do not force the president to use a power he actually has to provide the legal protection to which he insists others should be entitled, then we no longer have a republic as the founders envisioned it.
George W. Bush is a coward. He only knows how to bully. He never accepts responsibility.
Will the Democrats acknowledge this, and stand up to him? Or will their weakness, their moral failure, indicate to us that elections are becoming meaningless, that we no longer have a government of laws but one of men, men who are willing to seize power and refuse accountability.
I could not sleep tonight, so I wrote this. Having written it, my cats encourage me to cuddle. I have said what I can. I have offered my charge. Do others think my words are too strong, or my disappointment - or worse - in the Democrats on the Hill is unjustified?
I want to hear whatever you may care to share. Perhaps you can convince me of some flaw in my presentation. I fear something else, that you will tell me my words do not go far enough.
I wish I could wish you my normal close, of "peace," but tonight I feel none.
What about you?