I've made comment before to my affinity for Harry S Truman. I believe he was perhaps the greatest president of the past 100 years. One of the things I admire most about his time as President was that he said what he believed and stuck to his principles. He kept us involved in a police action that some may have thought was unnecessary, but which turned out to be key to the region - he responded to an attack and a plea for help; he didn't try to fabricate something to manufacture a legacy. That, of course, is how many view the war in Iraq.
But this post is not about fabricated wars. This post is about another example of how President Bush is dissimilar from Harry Truman. You see, Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here." And he held true to that sentiment. Everything he did, he did because he thought it was best for the country, and Constitutional. He was, as much as one can be in polarized government, apolitical.
President Bush is not. Yes, he plays at imitating the Truman legacy, even having evoked the name in speeches during his tenure in office. But, the differences are there. For example, the DOJ recently has admitted that former aides broke the law in allowing the Bush administration politics determine who got hired. Now, I'm sure there's going to be spin coming out, and the apologists are going to start with the talking points, "But the Democrats did it, too," "the Justice Department serves at the pleasure of the President," etc. But the point is still there - that partisan politics has very little business in an oversight position. Justice department officials should be apolitical; and process by which they are hired NEEDS to be apolitical. Otherwise, justice's blindfold gets lifted, but for only one eye. And that's dangerous when there is an agenda.
How is this connected to Harry Truman? Simple - Harry Truman would accept responsibility for this happening - or more to the point - he wouldn't allow this to have happened in the first place. President Bush, however, is not going to take the heat for this, even though it was his attorney general who approved the policy. No - it was the aides that broke the law. It has to stop below the top dogs - lest there be some evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors; as we know where that could lead.
I just hope there isn't a precedent set for the next administration, or those following thereafter.
No comments:
Post a Comment