NYT has a two-part article on the creation of the military tribunal system in the Bush Administration. A conservative leaning bloggist summarizes it thusly: "the legal strategy took shape as the ambition of a small core of conservative administration officials whose political influence and bureaucratic skill gave them remarkable power in the aftermath of the [9/11] attacks." He follows up with the comment that it is mentioned that even Attorney General Ashcroft felt things might have gone too far.
And, now we hear that the same "small core" has been at it again. The torture memoranda, refusal to respect international law and institutions (or have a certain degree of due care), and dishonoring of basic civil liberties is a major reason to worry about this administration. Of course, their penchant for secrecy is a major issue here. All of these things are also involved in some fashion in the disappearance of close to four hundred tons of explosives in Iraq. This includes lack of due care, cover-up activities, and refusal to take proper advantage of the resources and warnings of international institutions.
[The true problem is not that some material was lost in the fog of war, though the fact the war was unnecessary means they deserve less of a pass. The problem was their failure to heed warnings and then trying to cover-up the fact to the degree that they pressured the Iraqi government to not reveal what happened. And, then, try to claim superiority in the area of foreign affairs and terror fighting. Imperfection mixed with lack of humility mixed with failure to admit error mixed with going it alone (with a small core often in control) just crosses some line, even if you are sympathic (unlike I) to their general philosophy.]
Remind me again: why exactly are people voting for this guy? I'm unclear the net value of voting for someone even many conservatives argue violates conservative principles such as fiscal responsibility and restraint in foreign affairs (America #1 sure ... America going on reckless foreign adventures? not so great). Is the idea that President Bush is a man of faith? You mean as compared to a church going Catholic who spoke of his anti-abortion personal beliefs? There are reasons to vote for the guy, not that many are that good, but it's sometimes hard to think of them.
True libertarians might not like Kerry, but Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party) would seem to be the true alternative. Given the restraint of a Republican Congress and the fact fiscally, Kerry might be more responsible (some rhetoric aside), the fact the vote might help him is not really too bad, is it? Also, unlike Nader, Badnarik is not only on all the state ballots (except for New Hampshire, where write-ins are possible, and Oklahoma, which is being litigated), he is a head of a true party. His candidacy is not some sort of vanity effort. And, since the his party is split over abortion, Badnarik not even pro-abortion rights (more agnostic) as a true libertarian arguably should be.
Back in 2000, a libertarian candidate was the difference in one state, leading to a split US Senate (later 50-49-1, Democrat). Nader supporters might sometimes go around saying his candidacy might actually hurt Bush more, but listening to Nader talk about the need for stronger environmental regulations and such (his specialty), I find this somewhat hard to believe. Badnarik ... now he might do the trick.
Given how the Red Sox are doing, who knows what will happen?