Issue:Reuters AlertNet - CIA's Goss has 'excellent' idea where bin Laden is-Time

Specific: "dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play."

Comment:My father passed away recently. I miss him dearly. We didn’t talk about politics. Yet it was his and my mother’s activism in the Republican party in the 70’s that eventually drew me into Political Science a college major and my form of activism. His Republican party in the 1960’s and 70’s were outnumbered – so as my mother tells it. That’s why they joined the party. They were into good governance – not about power.

Governance versus power, that is a key item we now have to debate. Respect for the man or the Office is part of this debate. Democrats/Liberals can be wrong. They can be clueless. But they are open to discussion. It is this characteristic that is one distinction between good governance and bad. Good governance is a non-partisan concept. For the issues I’m about to raise, I may indeed be wrong and clueless. You the reader should judge. Ask yourself if the issues add up to Good Governance.

H. J. RES. 24 - Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. It has been referred to the Judiciary Committee in April. This is the amendment that prevents Bill Clinton and now George Bush from running for President every 4 years for the rest of their lives.

President Bush does not want to set a pull out date in Iraq. He has set up terrorism as permanent fear, much like communism was positioned during the cold war. Al-Quaida is set up as a perpetually imminent threat. Al-Quaida is a threat – no doubt. One issue of the Vietnam War was that the Vets did not have a parade to honor their sacrifices. Does not a perpetual state of war, against an enemy that is a tactic(not a political philosophy), prevent the parade of honor for Vets of the Iraq war?

Then there is the United Airline pension plan default. This President wants to “fix” social security by adding the burdens of being concerned about the future. In a previous century, when industry broke the promises to the elderly employees, and American government said – we will take care of you. An American government relieved its population of a burden in a time of life that is transitional for family and difficult for the individual.

When the scope of an issue grows because smaller concerns gravitate a problem, a need to categorize, prioritize and define the limits of the smaller issues develops. Limits must be defined. It is good governance to define reporter questions. Such is the Iraq war and the war on Terrorism. Questions like who, what, where, when and why have never been adequately defined by this administration.
Personally, I feel comfortable and more willing to support dramatic policy shifts when I can watch several different media outlets ask variations of the questions. In the periods between shows and questions about the issues, time is spent on bubbling up the next set of questions I need to be answered.
The Bush Administrations secretiveness, lack of open press conferences have not enabled me to get behind a perpetual war on terrorism. There always have been and always will be individuals and groups who want to do harm to Americans. There will be great catastrophes in which large numbers of Americans will get harmed. Al-Quaida is as much a threat as a the idea permanent President.

Is it good governance to be perpetually protecting America from short term threats? In some neighborhoods, it is wise to keep a gun handy while one sleeps. The principle of freedom dictates that those that live in those neighborhoods choose to do so. No one makes them live there, rhetorically speaking. But logic dictates that if they made efforts to protect the neighborhood, they may not need a gun in the bedroom. The risk of accidental shootings in the home are reduced. Children are better protected, when short term threats are addressed by long term thinking.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a philosophy. Yet the administration is treating terrorism as if it is the new communism. It seems reasonable that they do this to enhance their domestic political control.

And then there is the recent comments by Porter Goss concerning sovereignty and Osama Bin-Laden. In case you had not heard, the US govt knows where the number one 9/11 bad guy is located. Yet we are NOT going after him in deference to a respect for the sovereignty of a nation. Personally, I favor respecting a nation’s sovereignty, as sort of a “prime directive”. It is makes sense to me.

But is this good governance to change policy like this in the middle of a war? We occupied 2 nations. Clearly these were acts that did not respect the sovereignty of the particular countries. Yes, indeed we gave them back their countries. So what is the principle? What are we teaching our young?

Mr. President please lead me. When it is ok to occupy/invade a country? What is the principle I can tell my children? Pre-9/11 it was enough to think that if America was attacked – like Pearl Harbor – we are morally justified to stomp on any entity that hit us first. Ok post 9/11 things are different – so what is the rule now?
Is it good governance that such a question can be asked?

Thousands cross the borders from Mexico into the US on a daily basis. Container ships dock in America ports daily with the potentially deadly cargo. Chemical plants with inadequate security. According to news media, these loopholes are as big as pre-9/11. Before you discount some news media, some have gone the extra lengths of actually shipping radioactive material from Asia to Washington DC. Are the fair and balanced media outlets testing our governments security ascertions?

Is it good governance that such security holes exist – 3 years after 9/11?
And yet this party in complete control, wants to eliminate Presidential term limits, before fixing these holes. Is this good governance? Is it fair and balanced governance? Is it good governance? Mr President – what is good governance?