|
Edited on Mon Dec-13-04 11:18 AM by No Mandate Here.
I just sent this LTTE to the NYTimes, and hope it sees the light of day. I have begun to get even more cynical about how * must view his subjects, now that he is the dictator. This episode may help others see this, as well...
To the Editor,
The disastrous nomination of Bernard Kerik for the very sensitive post of Homeland Security Director raises many more questions about the Bush administration than it does about Mr. Kerik.
The vetting process was handled by the current White House Counsel. Since progressive internet sites were able to come up with at least four or five very troubling revelations about Mr. Kerik's past in just a few days, just how thorough could the White House's vetting process be? Several of the problems would seem to be criminal in nature.
Am I the only one troubled by the fact that the vetting was done by the presumptive next Attorney General? Given how haphazardly the vetting must have been done, is Gonzales really a good choice for AG?
There are two outrageous possibilities here. If the vetting did not reveal these past problems with Kerik, are Gonzales and his subordinates competent to do their current and future jobs? If Kerik was fully vetted, and given a green light by the administration - even knowing just how much baggage Kerik was carrying, what does this tell us about how the American public is viewed by this administration? If this is the case, then this is unprecendented contempt of the American people.
Just how sheeplike does the Bush administration think we are? If this incident does not raise doubts about how the administration feels about its subjects (not all of whom are loyal to a fault), then we are truly in trouble as a democracy. If this doesn't raise alarms among the media, they will have shown themselves to be completely allied with the administration. Neither possibility would be good.
|