Ethics

by Robert Parry

Reprinted from ConsortiumNews.com

In the history of the American Republic, perhaps no political family has been more protected from scandal than the Bushes.

When the Bushes are involved in dirty deals or even criminal activity, standards of evidence change. Instead of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt"that would lock up an average citizen, the evidence must be perfect.

If there's any doubt at all, the Bushes must be presumed innocent. Even when their guilt is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, it's their accusers and those who dare investigate who get the worst of it. Their motives are challenged and their own shortcomings are cast in the harshest possible light.

by Robert Parry
Reprinted from ConsortiumNews.com.

Criminal trials – especially relating to national security scandals – are an imperfect way of learning the larger truth. As with the four-count conviction of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the charges are often structured narrowly to avoid long battles over classified secrets or inherent presidential powers.

But even limited trials can offer important glimpses into the inner workings of an administration, especially one as secretive as George W. Bush's. Though Libby was convicted only on perjury and obstruction charges, there should be little doubt what the full picture looks like.

If the panorama could be viewed all at once, the American people would see an administration that, in summer 2003, felt it could pretty much do whatever it wanted to anyone. Bush's inner circle validated every cliche about the arrogance of power, particularly the old saying about absolute power corrupting absolutely.

"The Mark Foley affair is so simple and so human," wrote Lenore Skenazy in her New York Daily News column, "it's like a Cliffs.Notes version of all the other Republican scandals...." Foley, Republican congressman from Florida's 16th district since 1995, resigned on September 29, 2006 as ABC News reported that he had exchanged sexually explicit electronic messages with a teenage boy who had worked on Capitol Hill. The messages were also posted on the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's web site (CREW). With only this information, the matter might seem on the order of any number of congressional sex scandals, from Bob Packwood to Gary Condit. What makes the affair emblematic of the Bush administration is that Foley was Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. As Newsweek put it "Rep. Mark Foley helped exploited children by day. A slew of e-mails suggests he exploited them by night."

Updated April 14, 2006

The Bush administration's response to hurricane Katrina is a metaphor for the way it has managed the nation: assessing political implications before taking action, even when lives are at stake; making appointments based on cronyism and loyalty without regard to subject-matter experience; valuing corporate over individual welfare; taking any opportunity, including disaster and the misfortune of others to channel tax dollars to political associates, and to promote its right-wing agenda.

Updated April 4, 2006

At a weekly Republican policy lunch in the Senate Mansfield Room in early April, Tom DeLay rose to declare to his colleagues that he was the victim of a Democratic conspiracy, blaming financier George Soros and the grass-roots group MoveOn.org for his woes. The GOP agenda was in danger, DeLay reportedly said, because Democrats funded by Soros were targeting him in attempt to keep the party from making progress on its initiatives.

A letter to Houston-area voters blamed a "syndicate" of Democrats, advocacy groups and a "legion of Democrat-friendly press."

In recent days, however, DeLay has come under criticism from within his own party, and in the editorial pages of journals from across the political spectrum, including the Wall Street Journal.

Updated July 20, 2007 ¹

On Wednesday, January 28th, 2004, a British judicial inquiry released its report clearing the Blair government of having intentionally misrepresented the threat of Iraqi weapons in a September 2002 intelligence document that was used to make the case for war to Parliament and the British public. A key claim in the document was that some weapons could be launched within 45 minutes. After meeting with Dr. David Kelly, an arms expert in the British Ministry of Defense, BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan had reported that Blair spokesman Alastair Campbell was responsible for the "45-minute" claim, and that Campbell knew it to be false. Campbell denied Gilligan's allegations and demanded a retraction, triggering a media dispute during which the government covertly leaked, and subsequently publicly confirmed David Kelly's name as Gilligan's source. Kelly was summoned to testify at a parliamentary inquiry into the Iraq war, and was subsequently found dead with his wrists slashed. Prime Minister Blair immediately called for an inquiry into his death, and it was that investigation -- led by Lord Hutton, a senior judge -- that issued its report this week. In addition to absolving the Blair administration of having knowingly misrepresented the case for war in the 2002 dossier, the Hutton report cleared the government of responsibility for Dr. Kelly's death, finding that it was a suicide. An internal BBC document obtained by the Observer (UK) claims that the Hutton report omitted evidence and takes issue with its legal conclusions.