• Title: Reply to: Bridging the horns of the Bush accountability dilemma, Professor Bernie Finifter.
  • Author: Scott Boehme (Saidnews.org, East Lansing, Michigan)
  • Date: 04/26/2009
  • Additional Categories: Recent Essays, Scott Boehme

Reply to: Bridging the horns of the Bush accountability dilemma, Professor Bernie Finifter.

Professor, actions have consequences. Calling for a witch hunt is still a witch hunt no matter how many qualifying statements are attached to the verbage. To set an example let us use you, the good professor.

Professor, we should investigate and bring possible criminal charges against you for not stopping the several disturbances in East Lansing of past. It matters little that your job description does not mandate that you step forward in a pro-active manner, you are responsible. This is an after the fact changing of your responsibilities.

Just as silly is this assumption of a witch hunt for something that is policy. This policy does not claim water boarding as torture. The original interpretation is that physical injury is torture. Now some say taking away stuffed teddy bears at bed time is torture.

The debate is not what is torture, but when the definitions changed. In many circles it has not. If something happens to this country, water boarding will become acceptable to all but the smallest portion of the population.

If this confrontation continues, the least that will happen is that every administration will be under the threat of prosecution for a difference of opinion. Remember, Mr. Clinton lied under oath. One example is a policy decision the other is an illegal act visible to all.
Knowledge is not wisdom. Our actions should be based on both, not emotional appeal with a few blurred innuendos.

The Bush administration will very likely be considered one of the better administrations because of the focus on protecting this country using similar practices as did President Franklin Roosevelt.

As for President Obama, it is too soon to tell, but indications are that he will be a weak president and at least strong confusion will be the results. Again, much knowledge and little wisdom.

Referencing to you professor, what in your past was considered acceptable without debate and is now in debate?

You are either against crucifying someone for their policy or for it. This is a black and white decision, no gray areas. This does not mean you agree with policy, only protect the differences of policy. if you so desire.

So Professor, as a black and white decision, are you for this thing or against it? Yes or no?

Scott Boehme
East Lansing Resident
Foundation Radion