Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Yesmen and the damage they do

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has long been Bush's yesman. What kind of damage can a yesman do and how does it impact the very constituency he/she is appointed to serve? What kind of legacy do yesmen leave? Can democracies survive the proliferation of yesmen in the highest echelons of power?


WASHINGTON—Alberto Gonzales has always been there for George W. Bush.
The U.S. attorney general has been the president's "go-to guy" dating to their days in Austin, Tex., there to protect Bush from publicity over a drunk-driving conviction, making his death penalty decisions easier, giving his administration the wiggle room it sought in dealing harshly with prisoners in the war on terror, advocating greater presidential power.
Gonzales earned his stripes again at hearings in perhaps his most arduous day as the boss's surrogate, defending Bush's right to eavesdrop on conversations involving Americans without seeking court approval.
Here's a look at a number of times Gonzales has ridden to Bush's rescue since 1994, when he became general counsel to then-governor Bush in Texas:

  • 1994-1997: More than 50 times, Gonzales provided confidential clemency reports to Bush, who had the power to commute sentences of Texas death row inmates.
    None was ever granted clemency, and an investigation by The Atlantic Monthly in 2003 concluded Gonzales routinely ignored mitigating factors such as inept legal counsel, conflicts of evidence and evidence of innocence. According to Democratic Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, one Gonzales memo failed to mention that the lawyer of one condemned man fell asleep during his trial.
  • 1996: When governor Bush was summoned for jury duty, Gonzales was said to have sprung into action to argue he should be excused because of a conflict — the governor had the power to ultimately pardon the accused.
    But it appears a bigger issue was at play. Bush was being asked to sit on a jury trying an Austin stripper on drunk-driving charges and would have had to reveal his own 1976 drunk-driving conviction.
    That remained secret until the eve of the 2000 election. Gonzales denied the story under oath during his 2005 Washington confirmation hearings, but Newsweek magazine reported he made the conflict argument in secret in judge's chambers. Gonzales said he recalled no such meeting.
  • 2001: As Bush's legal counsel, Gonzales played a leading role in Bush's claim of unfettered wartime powers, allowing him to round up and seize "enemy combatants," ultimately rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court as an unjustified "blank cheque" for the president. That same year, he wrote the order establishing "military commissions" to try terrorist suspects, tribunals since widely derided as "kangaroo courts."
  • 2002: Gonzales signed the infamous memo to Bush calling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" that did not apply to enemy combatants scooped off the battlefields of Afghanistan. He was also central in the August 2002, justice department memo — since repudiated by the government — asserting torture could be very narrowly defined and opening the door, many believe, to the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
  • 2004: Gonzales led the vetting process for Bush's chosen Homeland Security chief, Bernard Kerik. The former New York police chief withdrew his nomination within a week after it was learned, among other things, he had entertained women in a hotel room across from the World Trade Center set aside for exhausted police officers.
  • 2005: At his attorney general confirmation hearing, Gonzales covered for Bush on the very question that brought him back to the committee yesterday.
    When asked specifically whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping, Gonzales dismissed the question as hypothetical, even though the program had been in effect for about three years.
    Feingold said yesterday Gonzales had purposely misled the committee. Gonzales said he answered truthfully when he said the president would not authorize something in contravention of criminal statutes.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Article&cid=1139267414229&call_pageid=968332188492

Leaders who appoint yes-people feel these folk are indispensable to their organizations. Got news for these leaders. Yes-people are only indispensable to the people who appoint them. Yes-people invariably get the people who appoint them into heaps of trouble.......and in many cases irretrievably damage the organizations/constituencies they purportedly serve.

Saturday, February 04, 2006

It appears as though the fallout from the invasion and occupation of Iraq is continuing. The North American media, indeed Western media is on trial and is likely to suffer from its blantanly false "reporting" regards just about everything to do with this war.
In fact there is a lot of accountability going on in society in general. I have gotten quite a few queries on the article on nepotism from those who know me, asking if I were referring to this or that particular organization. This tells me that the quest for accountability is snowballing. Just about every institution/organization is about to get closely scrutinized.
But first read about how media is beiung held to account. I guess the free market will rule on this one.

Arabic-language media have an unprecedented chance to take over as the world's premier news source because trust in their US counterparts plummeted following their "shameful coverage" of the war in Iraq, a conference heard today.
The US media reached an "all-time low" in failing to reflect public opinion and Americans' desire for trusted information, instead acting as a "cheerleader" for war, said Amy Goodman, the executive producer and host of US TV and radio news show Democracy Now!, at a news forum organised by al-Jazeera.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1700692,00.html