Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Buck Doesn’t Stop Like It Used To

The Buck Doesn’t Stop Like It Used To

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In regard to Rep. Mark Foley’s improper e-mails to teenage congressional pages, the House ethics committee has approved subpoenas and promised to go “wherever the evidence takes us.” Which could mean that the buck might actually stop somewhere, as it did on that rare occasion when it slammed into Tom Delay. Okay, maybe, maybe not. Seeing is believing.

Meanwhile, Tom Delay’s man, Speaker Dennis Hastert, after exposure and pressure and much hesitation, finally said he accepted responsibility for failing to investigate the complaints against Foley. He told us, “Ultimately…the buck stops here,” a rather famous phrase he had the nerve to borrow from our flinty past president, Harry S. Truman; though Hastert displays none of Truman’s flint, a president who had the fortitude to fire General Douglas MacArthur, the hero of the Pacific war and father of post-war Japan, who recklessly wanted to widen the war in Korea by invading China.

Compare Truman to President Bush, a man who up to now has evaded the buck, who edged aside the experienced general, Eric K. Shinseki, who (like Powell) sanely wanted to commit several hundred thousand troops to Rumsfeld’s Iraqi shock-and-awe, to handle the post invasion phase of that unnecessary war, for which we mostly abandoned the still important one in Afghanistan. The then deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, attacked Shinseki’s estimate as “wildly off the mark.” This same sage also said, in 2003: there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq. Really? Well the buck never got near him. Mr. Wolfowitz is now safely out of the way in his job as the president of the World Bank.

In contrast to allowing bucks to stop, this administration and its Republican congress have shown exceptional expertise in the knee-jerk passing of bucks.

Example: Republicans are saying the Dems knew all along what was going on with Foley and the young pages, and waited ‘til just before the midterm elections to reveal the scandal for political gain. (And the GOP wouldn’t?)

True, but the Dems were shopping the Foley e-mails to the media for months, not days, whether for gain or not, while the usually sanctimonious and ultimately hypocritical Republicans were scrambling to cover up their asses as well as the story, to protect Foley’s congressional seat. ABC News finally did the right thing by going public with the story.

Foley’ ex-chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who wanted the buck to stop, said he brought Foley’s e-mails to Hastert’s attention as early as three years ago, but Hastert doesn’t recall this. Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean, said anyone guilty of improper communications with pages should “be fired or subjected to a vote of expulsion.” Okay, but then we have congressional officials who cover up for the transgressors. Will the buck land on their desks?

Our cynical President Bush recently stood side-by-side with Speaker Hastert and said he was proud to be there, and that the country was “better off” with Hastert as Speaker; while at the same time about half the country was thinking that teenagers are brought to Congress to attend school, to perform errands as pages in what should be the sanctuary of the congressional chamber. They are not there to be seduced or groped by weird adult officials, and ignored by those politically motivated pass-the-buck creeps who wish to turn away from these monumental ethical failures.

Writing for the New Republic’s online “The Plank,” Ryan Lizza wrote that the GOP congressional leadership continued to look the other way in regard to Foley’s indiscretions, and that in early 2006 Foley had wanted to retire to become a lobbyist on K Street; but fearing the loss of the House, Karl Rove insisted Foley run for re-election. If he didn’t, Rove warned Foley, it might negatively impact his lobbying career. On the other hand, if he dutifully served for two more years it would “enhance his success” as a lobbyist.

No doubt the soon to be exposed Foley mourned the loss of the greatly expanded income he had to sacrifice from the Republican’s lucrative quid pro quo lobby-the-legislative system we so lovingly call “democracy at work;” part of that D.C. Beltway scam with its endless loop through which retiring well-connected administration staffers, legislators, military generals, CIA and FBI intels, for whom, whatever their crimes and misdemeanors, the buck will rarely stop. Those who choose to will move seamlessly into corporate boards, corporate lobbies and/or consultancies; the total of which is an inbred multi-billion dollar world, which exists solely to feed itself, and has little to do with enhancing the lives of American taxpayers who are daily forced to swim upstream against the one-way tide of GOP economic policies.

But poor Foley: duty called. Or rather, Rove threatened.

Revising history by passing another buck: Republican senator John McCain, a man whose moderation, manifest honesty, and personal dignity I had long admired, has, due apparently to his own presidential ambitions, courted those who are very far to the right of what he used to be, and drawn himself closer to President Bush by physically hugging him (the man who previously trashed him) and by helping the president to pass another big very big buck: the blaming of Bush’s disastrous North Korea policy on President Clinton.

McCain said that President Clinton’s 1994 “Agreed Framework” between the U.S. and N. Korea had been a total failure. The senator further claimed that the warnings the Clinton White House issued to N. Korea, such as not to eject the International Atomic Agency and not to remove fuel rods from their reactor, merely allowed N. Korea to ignore such admonitions and were subsequently rewarded with more talks.

And you know how dangerous it is to just talk.

The truth of it, though, is that Clinton didn’t pass the buck. The “Agreed Framework” actually worked for the eight years Clinton was in office; an agreement that prevented the N. Koreans from producing plutonium and developing nuclear weapons, an agreement President Bush foolishly abandoned in 2002, a Clinton policy which Secretary Of State Powell endorsed as correct.

McCain was having a convivial chat with adoring Chris Mathews on the telly before a university audience, when he was questioned about the Military Commissions Act Of 2006, just signed by the president, the president who passed the buck to senior officers regarding his having given permission to torture, the officers who then passed the buck to sergeants, corporals, and privates, who had no one to pass it to. The senator said it was a good compromise that precluded torture. Did he really believe that? Truly? And noticeably, nothing was said about the loss of habius corpus, the debasement of our constitutional rights. Does the senator’s ambitions prevent him from seeing that American citizens can be scooped up and detained without legal representation? Who will he pass the buck to if he is challenged about signing on to this loss of an individual’s right to face his or her accuser?

Maybe he should listen to George Washington U. Professor Of Constitutional Law, Jonathan Turley, who appeared on MSNBC’s Countdown, who said: “…people have no idea how significant this is. What really a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principals and values.”

Today we have a disconnected Bush awash in insoluble problems, now avoiding his “staying the course” while trying to appear to be open to talk, to listen to military advisors and older sages (think James Baker), to be engaging allies, some of whom are the “old Europe” that he and Rumsfeld and Cheney had so arrogantly dismissed during their unilateral blunder. One can imagine the president now wildly thrashing about looking for others to which he can pass the host of bucks that threaten to slam into him like a barrage of artillery. If not now, later, in the written history of America, if we’re still free to write it.

In closing, I was reading a N.Y. Times book review of the Cold War secretary of state, Dean Acheson, by Robert L. Beisner. The review was penned by Henry A. Kissinger who at its end wrote of the theme of an Acheson speech at the War College in August 1951: “There was not ‘one more river to cross’ but ‘countless problems stretching into the future.’ … Americans must reconcile themselves to ‘limited objectives’ and work in congress with others, for an essential part of American power was the ‘ability to evoke support from others–an ability quite as important as the capacity to compel.’” (Italics mine).

You didn’t have to pass the buck when you had that kind of thinking.

 

 

 

Powered by

About Lefty

  • Bliffle

    You’ve got it right, Sammy. Very cogent article.

  • http://www.unclesammysays.com uncle sammy says

    Thanks Bliffle. “Cogent” didn’t happen ’til I rewrote it a couple of times. Just waiting now for the incoming brickbats, if any.

  • Nancy

    Well written, good backups. A major part of this administration’s dysfunction is that none of them have EVER had to answer for or bear responsibility for bad decisions on their part. All of them have simply walked away from all their past blunders & mistakes, leaving others to bleed & suffer for their egregious errors, most notoriously Dubya, whose mommy & poppy have always bought his way out of his troubles, and Cheney, who has always threatened & blackmailed his way out of his. A lovely, ethical group, indeed; to even think about any of them allowing the buck to stop at their feet is laughable.

  • http://www.unclesammysays.com uncle sammy says

    Thanks, Nancy–
    You’ve said it all in a single paragraph. If, this November 7th, the American voter doesn’t grasp what you’ve written, and puts the crooks and liars back in power, it will prove to me that they only watch sitcoms and slimy preelection commercials which relieve them of having to struggle with seeing the obvious–a do-nothing, values-pandering, pork-ridden congress and a devious administraion.

  • Nancy

    Actually, Uncle Sammy, I’m not entirely convinced it will matter even if they DO wake up & try to throw the bums out, because I suspect the GOP & Big Business have already arranged for Diebold to ensure all GOP candidates get re-elected, regardless of how many vote against them; the fiascos in MD during the primaries were just a dry run for The Real Thing next week. Remember after all, Diebold is owned & run by members of Bush’s campaign committee, and its execs have consistently refused to allow inspection or testing of its units. We’re all just supposed to take their word for it they’re on the up & up, a la Dubya’s mantra to trust him. They got away with it in 2000 & again in 2004; why not a 3rd time? The idiot Dems will only utter feeble bleats of protest before rolling over & ceding the election.

    Talk about being damned if you do & damned if you don’t: damned if you go GOP with utter corruption, arrogance, & power lust, and damned if you go Dem with utter stupidity, fecklessness, and lack of focus. Jesus H. Christ! What a choice to have to make.

  • http://www.unclesammysays.com Martin J. Ryan

    This is funny (not really) because you sound like my wife. From the moment she heard of hackable machines she became convinced( and still is) that the GOP will contrive to electronically redirect the vote. Certainly their ongoing lack of ehics suggests they’d resort to most anything to win, and with their history I don’t doubt they’d do it. It’s a hot topic and you’re a good writer, and out in front of me on the subject. You should write more at length about it and have BC publish it.
    I’m a lifelong Democrat (born when Herbert Hoover was President) but I can’t recall a group of Dems so gutless and uninspired as this current bunch. But I’m only repeating what you’ve already said.

  • http://www.unclesammysays.com Martin J. Ryan

    Nancy
    P.S. Just noticed I signed my real name: Martin. Just letting you know this is a response from Sammy.

  • Nancy

    Thanks. And thanks also for the compliment, but I think I’m too volatile to write a balanced enough piece as a critic. Maybe someday.

    I’ll tell you why I, at least, think/feel the way I do about GOP subversion of the Diebolds: not only are there the blatantly obvious conflict of interest issues with the owners/directors of Diebold itself, in addition to their refusal to cooperate with any kind of investigation or experimentation that has been proposed, regardless of the probity of the investigators, on the flimsiest of grounds, there is also the openly stated declaration by Karl Rove a few years ago that he would not hesitate to do whatever needed to be done in order to keep the GOP in power & win an election – any election. He has also openly discussed and speculated on various talk shows & in interviews possible schemes for subverting an election in such a way that it couldn’t be proven by any but a most determined opposition, and also stated that without the full consent of congress, such an investigation into possible voting fraud would be unenforceable, and since congress was firmly in the hands of the GOP – & he would see to it it remained so – there was no chance of such an investigation ever happening, regardless of WHO called for it or on what grounds.

    Talk about brass balls! Openly bragging about stealing elections & fixing voting machines, & no one would ever be able to call it to account, because the party that would be re-elected would call all the shots!

    If THAT isn’t incentive to utterly distrust both Diebold and any other machines, as well as any future elections results, then I don’t know what would be. After that, there’s no need whatsoever to be neurotic or paranoid, because that’s a pretty damned good basis, considering the source, for figuring that such is indeed the case, both in past and future elections. Even more astounding is the fact that Bush keeps Rove right next to him in the halls of power. After a statement like that, any NORMAL, honest, honorable, ethical person would have given Rove the heave-ho. In fact, lowering the standards considerably, any normally cautious, circumpsect politician would have shown him the door after such a performance. Only someone as clueless and indifferent to public opinion, or as devoid of honor, ethics, and honesty as Bush & Cheney, would keep such an amoral scumbag around.

  • http://www.unclesammysays.com Martin J. Ryan

    Wow!
    Your quote: “He has also openly discussed and speculated on various talk shows & in interviews possible schemes for subverting an election in such a way that it couldn’t be proven by any but a most determined opposition.”

    It would be good if you could accurately source this statement. Have you read this material? Seen a TV show?

    (Have to close for now).