Rant on Current Events

I haven't posted in just about a month, which seems odd because I thought I had just posted a blog just yesterday (it felt like). The past month has flown by and time shows no sign of slowing down anytime soon, especially since finals are the week after next, graudation the following week, and a NJ trip. Then starts my work-filled summer -- I'm at Petersburg National Battlefield again this summer and I really don't consider it work because it's fun and a lot better than most jobs. So I just caught you up on events surrounding me, which should last you until June. Now for the rant that has been itching to be written for a while concerning current events in the political spectrum of the U.S.

Yes, in November 2004 I voted for George W. Bush and I have NO regrets -- he was the best candidate, he didn't pretend to be and suddenly become a Christian just before the election like John Kerry, and he was Republican and shared many of the same views I have on certain issues. John Kerry is not the devil or anything, but I do not think he could have cut it. On top of that, he flip-flopped on many issues in a matter of 3 years and his indecisiveness is what killed his campaign in November 2004 -- he DID NOT show the solidarity that Bush showed, despite the fact that Kerry was a better orator. Neither were great speakers, but Kerry definitely had the advantage.

Now, for my rant.

What has made President Bush's second and final term in office poor has been the people he has surrounded himself within his cabinet. Consequently, he has made some poor decisions and has supported questionable policy. After indulging in the research of current events in my Politics of the Middle East course, several issues have jumped out at me and have clarified themselves quite a bit.

The first policy of the Bush administration I take issue with has been on the debating table for quite some time, since about 2002. And that is the issue of toture and interrogation, strictly at Guantanamo in Cuba and at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. I am not blaming President Bush personally for the events that took place at these two locations, but I am blaming President Bush for having people in his cabinet that went out of their way to ensure the interrogation techniques were legal and within the parameters of the Geneva conventions WHEN THEY WERE NOT. That man being Donald Rumsfeld.

In February 2002, President Bush was advised by Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense to take on a political course that would "circumvent the Geneva conventions, which prohibit both torture and 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment'" (The New Yorker, Feb. 27, 2006). Did President Bush know at the time it was circumventing the Geneva conventions? No. Rumsfeld did and he failed to inform President Bush as well while at the same time consoling the president and ensuring the interrogation techniques were legal and within the Geneva conventions.

Granted the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were deliberate attacks on the U.S., our beloved home,the attitude of many Americans and especially the Pentagon was that of determination -- determination to defend our country, determination to fire back at those who fired first. Alberto J. Mora, former Navy general counsel commented that the mood in Washington at the time was that "the gloves had to come off. The U.S. had to get tougher" (The New Yorker, Feb. 27, 2006). I totally agree with that statement. The U.S. did HAVE to get tougher or another 9/11-caliber attack would be succesful. Enter the department of Homeland Security.

It was set up for all the right reasons and has become quite effective, so far, in preventing another terrorist attack on American soil. We certainly had to get tougher and I do not oppose most interrogation techniques, but some are out of line, despite the fact that the suspects may be terrorists who blatantly kill innocent Americans. The U.S. has historically been known as the safeguard of the world (20th century and beyond) and has done right in combating Communism through the successful policy of containment (the Soviet Union died and only 2 minutely succesfull communist regimes exist today) and terrorism through the creation of Homeland Security. So, why now become hypocritical and "circumvent" sneakily past the Geneva conventions we so desparately supported to combat evil, if you may, around the world? Donald Rumsfeld is to blame for many of the circumventing of the Geneva conventions when it comes to interrogation techniques that have been questionable legally. Bush is to blame in the sense that he kept people like Rumsfeld in his cabinet.

The second policy of the Bush administration I have taken issue with is the recent nuclear dealing with India, "the world's biggest democracy and one of Asia's rising stars" (The Economist, April 8th-14th, 2006,34). President Bush made a historic visit to Delhi, India in February to extend the benefits and the advantages of America's civilian nuclear trade deal. In the deal, the U.S. has agreed to sell India nuclear plans for civilian nuclear facilities, primarily for nuclear power which would address many problems in India's vastly populated country. That part sounds fine and dandy correct? Yes. However, the other part to the deal allows President Bush to "lift restrictions on America's civilian nuclear trade with India, even though [India] has the bomb and rejects the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" (made to help prevent nuclear weapons technology and the weapons themselves from falling into the wrong hands).

President Bush is known for his War on Terror, which includes non-proliferation laws and policies, and has devoted countless pages and speeches to promoting the battle against terrorism wherever it may be and strangely enough, he accepts the fact that India rejected the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- all because he wants to solidify a future friendship with India for the U.S. Is good relations with India worth making the U.S. hypocritical of its own policies? NO!

Also, in the India deal, there comes to the forefront yet another person Bush surrounds himself with that just harms his administration and his own character. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, has "strongly defended the deal as being good for American jobs, good for friendship with India and even good for efforts to shore up the global anti-nuclear rules" (The Economist, April 8th - 14th, 2006, 34).

Really? Good for American jobs? How? At the same time, a great number of jobs are being outsourced to India. It may be good for bringing back American jobs that were taken because of outsourcing, but there will be no significantly notable increase in American jobs.

Good for friendship with India? Oh yes. India now gets what they want nuclear-wise and also gains an economic friendship with the U.S. on top of the economic boosts it has been receiving due to outsourcing. India certainly is not complaining and the U.S. feels now that India, because of the deal, will feel that it is in their best interest to keep their nukes under tight scrutiny without having to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It's kind of like giving a kid a candy sucker and assuming he will be good for the rest of his childhood days because "it's in his best interest" to do so. SKETCHY.

Good for efforts to "shoree up the global anti-nuclear" laws? No way. This deal is the epitome of the complete opposite. It is BAD for efforts to shore up the global anti-nuclear laws. Like I said above, because of the U.S.'s acceptance of India's rejection to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it does nothing to support anti-nuclear laws. This deal severly harms any serious attempt to solidify anti-nuclear laws.

That deal just does not make any sense when you degrease it to see its bare bones. I just think it's one more giant step backwards in curbing/preventing nuclear proliferation because India is bound by NO LAW if they just so happen to elect a bad egg who finds it his right to aid countries by giving them nukes.

In short, I voted for Bush in 2004 because he was the best candidate at the time and he shared many of the political beliefs I held. He also showed he would not back down on the War on Terror and he was not wishy-washy on any issue -- he had a direct, consistent view on events. Also, I think Bush has hurt himself in many ways by having members in his cabinet who pursue questionable policies domestically and internationally. But of course, he did not know his cabinet members would take such stances on policies before hand - nobody can tell the future. BUT, once the cabinet members became questionable in their policies, Bush should have cleaned house. No wonder Colin Powell left the administration.

Amid such events, I still would have voted for Bush if he had the opportunity to run for election in 2008, knowing about these particular events and questionable policies. BUT, many things would also have to happen for me to unquestionably vote for him (IF it were possible for 2008): Rumsfeld must be out, Cheney must be out (even though he makes no legislative or administrative decisions that greatly affect American foreign/domestic policy - he just comes off as quesitonable), Rice must be reigned in forcibly, and he would have to get a press secretary not scared to answer honestly and straight-foward.

That is all. I'm not much of a political man, but I do have ceratin rants I just need to get off my chest.