The Bush administration's cabinet reshuffle spells bad news all around, writes Joel Wendland George W Bush is using his razor-thin margin of victory in the United States presidential elections to cut any former pretense of moderation from his second term in office. Nowhere has this been more apparent than, after a stream of cabinet resignations, his nominations were made public. There are two main reasons for this unusually large turnover of personnel. First, Bush wants to bring to public prominence the neo-conservative ideologues who previously ran the behind-the- scenes operation. Second, he no longer wants the administration's goals to be hindered by career politicians' propensity for tact and pandering. Nothing will be held back in the next four years. The neo-conservative agenda of aggressive, unilateralist militarism will no longer hide behind the niceties of the politician's smarmy smile. Bush's hard right turn was signalled first by the replacement of Colin Powell -- whose efforts at rebuilding the peace process between Israel and Palestine had been undermined at every turn -- with Condoleezza Rice in the State Department. Added to this, Alberto Gonzales took over from John Ashcroft in Justice; reproductive rights opponent and pro-privatisation ideologue Margaret Spellings replaces Rod Paige in the Department of Education; Bernard Kerik replaces Tom Ridge at Homeland Security; and Tommy Thompson's replacement by an as yet unnamed nominee are but only a few of the others. Thompson's "resignation" exemplifies the true nature of the cabinet turnover. After the announcement of his departure, Thompson gave a televised speech in which he was visibly shaken and made claims about a terrorist threat to the US food supply. The White House denounced Thompson's claims about the threat as overstated. Thompson's verbal slip and the administration's immediate rebuttal highlight the involuntary nature of these resignations. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who survived the purge, did so for several reasons. Bush does not want the appearance of dissatisfaction with, or a change in the course of, his war in Iraq. Replacing the secretary of defense would indicate both and, more importantly, would provide Senate of Democrats with a public forum during nomination hearings to question and criticise Bush's war. These would include criticisms such as "lack of readiness", "lack of a post-war plan", "corruption", "torture", "the state of security", "the question of the shift to Iraqi sovereignty" and so on. Further, as more torture stories filter out of Iraq, Rumsfeld, who took the fall for the Abu Ghraib scandal, is being set up to take the brunt of further embarrassment. New reports of sexual humiliation and physical torture conducted by US Navy Sea, Air, Land (SEAL) teams give credence to claims made by the Abu Ghraib military police. Currently under criminal investigation, they maintain that their actions were ordered by military intelligence as part of an official policy. Combined with the International Committee of the Red Cross recent rebuke of the US treatment of its prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay as "tantamount to torture", the torture scandal under Rumsfeld's watch is growing rather than subsiding. Bernard Kerik's appointment as head of the Department of Homeland Security is especially telling of the administration's post-election rightward shift. Despite Kerik's overblown billing as a major player in rescue efforts after the 9/ 11 attack -- as highlighted in White House Talking Points -- the administration risks a defeat by sending this nomination to the Senate. Kerik's past in the New York City Police Department (NYPD) is riddled with scandal. He allegedly engineered a kickback scheme with tobacco companies for contracts to sell cigarettes to inmates in New York jails. Other incidents that took place under his watch as head of the Corrections Department are currently under criminal investigation. Despite this sordid past and lacking necessary experience, Kerik was chosen to head the NYPD in 2000. This was after the nationally publicised brutal assault on Haitian immigrant Abner Louima while in police custody, and the slaying of African immigrant Amadou Diallo outside of his home as he tried to present officers with his identification. Kerik suppressed the internal investigation of the officers who killed Diallo after they were acquitted by an Albany, New York jury. This action left the officers unpunished for a racially motivated criminal act that at the very least deserved administrative retribution. Additionally, Kerik's reduced four-month service under Paul Bremer in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq -- another corruption-ridden organisation -- as a special adviser to the new Iraqi police force, deserves more investigation. In addition, Kerik's abrasive personality often brought him into conflict with US military leaders and likely with Iraqi officials. He was eventually sent home in September 2003 when the provisional government selected new Interior Ministry officials, choosing not to retain Kerik's services. It is Kerik's personality that seems to make him more attractive to Bush rather than his shady past or thin curriculum vitae. On the campaign trail, Kerik whipped up fears of terrorism, stating that another large-scale terrorist attack was almost guaranteed if voters chose Kerry. His appointment to office is the reward for campaign trail service. Further predicaments include Kerik's implication that misleading the public about the reasons for war was no big deal. In supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq, Kerik is quoted as saying, "I don't care if they find them [weapons of mass destruction] or not. Saddam tortured and killed one million people. Somebody had to go there." Kerik repeatedly insisted on a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, despite evidence to the contrary. This contributed significantly to the widely held mistaken belief among Bush-supporters that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Kerik also shared the view of many in the administration that dissent is treasonous: "Political criticism is our enemies' best friend." So why does Bush risk a defeat with this nomination? Kerik will likely prove a useful test for Bush in the early phase of his new term, allowing him to test the waters and see just how far he can go without being curtailed. Kerik's unswerving loyalty to Bush is something the administration desperately seeks in its second term. Silencing internal dissent and debate is a main priority. More importantly, by appointing a former policeman with a penchant for deadly force and a strong disregard for civil liberties as head of the country's main internal surveillance bureaucracy, Bush is signalling his intolerance of rational public debate and organised opposition to his policies. Opposition to the war, both within the administration and in civil society, nearly cost Bush his invasion in early 2003. He is determined not to let this happen again. Bush is also implying that in the so-called "war on terror", protection from abuse of public, legal or military authority is not a priority or even a concern. Support for constitutional rights, civil liberties and international conventions against torture and abuse are a thing of the past. At any rate, the mixture of old and new faces in the administration is not a gesture of conciliation to the anti-war half of the US population. Nor is it an expression of the intent to rebuild fractured international relations and improve Bush's image to the majority of the world that opposes his ideologically driven unilateralism.
