Bush Is Famous For His Poor Choices

The Republicans in Congress want to give George Bush his choice of the person he nominated for a particular position. That's very commendable. But what about when the person he nominated is totally unsuited for the position? Does your loyalty to the president and the party supercede your loyalty to the American people, the country and the Constitution you took an oath to uphold? Our founding fathers tried to protect future generations by establishing a system of checks and balances so one branch of the government balances the others by checking the amount of power each can assume. They also separated the powers assigning certain ones to each branch.

Bush is famous for his poor choices of nominees.

He nominated Bernie Kirkuk, for Homeland Security, an unscrupulous, womanizing, corrupt bully who took kickbacks from the trobacco industry and funneled them into a foundation of which he was president.

He nominated a man who ignored the laws of the United States on torture and devised a defense on how to get around the law to Attorney General, a position that has the duty to enforce the laws of the United States.

He chose Condi Rice, leading administration hawk, who was inept at her job as National Security Advisor and expressed the desire to be Secretary of Defense, to be the Secretary of State, a position that tries to avoid war through effective negotiating skills. How do you negotiate peace when your preferred job is to wage war?

His Department appointees were either laywers or lobbyists representing the industry that the particular Department is supposed to monitor and prosecute.

And now John Bolton, a man who said there is no such thing as the UN and that if the top 10 floors of the UN disappeared, no one would notice, and whose belligerent, inflexible attitudes provoke people, is nominated to be the diplomatic representative to the world.

He presented the Medal of Freedom to George Tenet, the man blamed for the intelligence failures that led us into an unprovoked attack on Iraq, to Paul Bremmer, under whose watch $9 billion are unaccounted for, and to Gen. Tommy Franks, who led an unopposed military force that was too small to secure the country as occupiers and unequipped to protect them from maiming injuries.

The task of the Senate on nominees is to advise and consent. Will they advise honestly as to the suitability and qualifications of the candidate to perform the duties of the position or will they simply tell the president what he wants to hear and consent to give him everything he wants without checks, without balance and without separation, giving almost unlimited power to the Executive branch? Do we re-elect "yes men" more interested in furthering their careers than in furthering what is best for the country?

It's time to start watching Congress closely to see their
priorities and think about ours. We'll have to begin making that decision in 2006.