American Government - Bush - Essay Example

1 Bush I have reviewed articles in three newspapers and I have found the reporting on his affairs to be balanced and fair. Of course there are instances when a reporter may editorialize; to either emphasize a point or to clarify, but overall he is not treated poorly, though one might say that he is not treated with kids gloves, after all he is the president of the most powerful country in the free world, and people expect much more out of him than they would any ordinary politician. In one of the articles which I read in the L A Times op ed section, President Bush was called to task for his behavior towards an amendment which was being proposed by fellow Republican Senator John McCain; McCain introduced an amendment to the defense appropriations bill prohibiting U. S. personnel from subjecting prisoners to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. President Bush made attempts to have the bill watered down. By the personal accounts of some it might be hinted that the columnist projected an editorial bias when she asserted that, "Mr. Bush appears that the war on terror can not be won unless we are particularly inhumane." Actually it all boils down to where one is situated on the bell shaped curve; whether you are to the left or to the right. Personally I do not believe she was biased, based on Bush's actions. As a matter of fact, I take the position that she was quite fair in her assessment. As Americans we can not insist that whoever we label as being the enemy, that whenever that enemy has an American in custody/ or as a prisoner of war, then the enemy is compelled to adhere to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. But, whenever we capture the enemy and particularly if that enemy is labeled as a 2 terrorist, then we have the unfettered right to inflict the ills of past or accumulated mis- deeds, and use the prisoner as a poster example of what can happen to all others who unwittingly find them selves in the custody or American interrogators. He receives the same treatment as would any other major political figure who is prone to take a rigid stand on an issue, the same as any political figure who arrogantly believes that it is his way or the highway. McCain's amendment passed in the house by a 99 to 9 vote. It was so substantial, albeit Bush was opposed, he was left with no other option except to sign the amendment. In his own recalcitrant demeanor, at the signing ceremony, President stated; In a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch and as a commander in chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objectiveof protecting the American people from further terrorists attacks. (Bush LA Times) One does not have to project a personal bias when the principle puts forth statements such as the above quote from President Bush. He lets it be known that he begrudgingly affixes his signature to the amendment. But even though he is compelled to sign it, he will encourage and approve disobedience when he deems it necessary. While scanning the LA Times I came across another article on Bush, which was written by a writer from the Washington Post. I felt compelled to draw a parallel between the two writers and the two papers. The piece from the Washington Post was laid out in an objective manner with all of the facts and a minimum amount of 3 editorializing. Specifically it was titled "Port Deal to Have a Broader View". By Jonathan Weisman. It is clear that many people feel this undertaking, particularly the manner in which the mid-level government employees handled and the President, was without broad foresight or thought and it included very little precision-the president was alerted to the deal only days after the decision had been made to accept the Dubai bid offer. The President was treated as well as anyone could be treated who appears not to have knowledge or control over the decisions which are being made by members of his administration. Albeit, several agencies participated in the eventual decision to accept a foreign company to operate US ports, the Department of Homeland Security was not brought up to speed until after the decision had been made. Clearly, the piece depicts a house which if not divided, it exemplifies one where there is a dearth of communication flaws. The piece would not be guilty of showing a bias for highlighting the fact that people are placing barriers on information flows and even the President is put on a need to know, when basis. It does not portray him any differently than it would or does any political figure. He is the chief executive an the climate (post 9/11), is not even one of organized chaos within his administration. The deal has caused individuals from both houses on both sides of the aisles to question its soundness. People like Peter King (R N.Y.), who has been a staunch supporter of the bush white house, is now questioning the wisdom of the deal. King is the chairman of the House Homeland security committee and he knows even less about the deal than President Bush did. Mr. King said he was aware of some of the national security conditions and requirements, but they do not address the underlying conditions, which is how they are 4 going to guard against things like infiltration by al Queda or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption These are precisely the questions which should be answered to the satisfaction of Congress and the people. (King Miami Herald) Questions which should have been resolved, long before President Bush placed his verbal stamp of approval on the deal are still unanswered and only recently being posed by those who should have been present to shape the policy and framework of the initial deal. Of course both of the papers used in this piece are labeled as liberal papers, which in the minds eye of some (particularly conservatives), serves as mere detractors to deeds which are considered to be admirable. This is the wonderful thing about the country which we live in. we can look at different sides of any issue, and even express our opinions, without the worry of repriasals.we can even evaluate the actions and the perceived motives of the chief executive. I would like to see it remain this way. The reason why the founding fathers set it up this way is so that the powerful minority will always feel a sense of accountability to the grass-roots majority. Works Cited Brooks, Rosa, McCain To Bush: Don't Try it Pal, Los Angeles Times, Op Ed January 6, 2006 On line: from www. Washington post.com/wp Miami Herald, Take Another Look At Port Take over, Editorial February 21, 2006, On line; from, www.miami.com/mld/miami.heraldnews/editorial Read More