January 09, 2006

Too Stupid To Be President

The New York Times explains why, in the final analysis, George W. Bush will always be considered an idiot:
It is disturbing that President Bush has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses.
The NYT editorial focusses on Bush's recess appointments, which bypass Congress for no good reason except fear of contradiction. But the same stupid attitude to a potentially difficult Congress (which he, after all, controls) can be seen behind a raft of other Bush policies, particularly the NSA wire-tapping fiasco.

And therein lies the basic flaw of the Bush administration, with all it's overtones of Greek Tragedy: sheer bloody arrogance. To quote an otherwise totally misguided Newsweak article:
To many people, the most perplexing aspect of the Bush administration’s domestic spying program is that it was largely unnecessary. President George Bush could have simply invoked the emergency provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which would have allowed the government to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists 72 hours before receiving authorization from the FISA court. Alternatively, the White House could have gone to Congress to amend the FISA statute. So why did the White House take such a controversial step, one that would inevitably open it up to serious charges of violating the civil liberties of American citizens?
The article blames the so-called "Cheney camp" for creating this anti-Congress mindset. Truth is, the "Cheney camp" hand-picked Boy George to be their puppet President, so the distinction is totally meaningless.

If future scholars are some day seeking to understand exactly WHY Bush over-reached his Presidential powers (already at historical highs) so needlessly, they might well consider the ailing health of Bush's long-serving VP. Bush has another three years to serve. Cheney may be lucky to survive that long.

Arrogance. Hubris. Pride. Or to quote Frank Rich, from behind the NYT firewall (thanks to Atrios):
If the Bush administration did indeed eavesdrop on American journalists and political opponents (Ms. Amanpour's husband, Jamie Rubin, was a foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign), it's déjà Watergate all over again. But even now we can see that there's another, simpler - and distinctly Bushian - motive at play here, hiding in plain sight.

That motive is not, as many liberals would have it, a simple ideological crusade to gut the Bill of Rights. Real conservatives, after all, are opposed to Big Brother; even the staunch Bush ally Grover Norquist has criticized the N.S.A.'s overreaching. The highest priority for the Karl Rove-driven presidency is instead to preserve its own power at all costs. With this gang, political victory and the propaganda needed to secure it always trump principles, even conservative principles, let alone the truth. Whenever the White House most vociferously attacks the press, you can be sure its No. 1 motive is to deflect attention from embarrassing revelations about its incompetence and failures.
You get the government you deserve, folks. Unfortunately, as I have said before, so does the rest of the world...

If you have ever wondered just WHY the powers behind the 43rd US President hand-picked an idiot like Bush as their puppet, the answer is right here. They saw in Bush's arrogant swagger a mirror image of themselves. And ultimately, through sheer bloody-minded carelessness, they connected with it.

1 comment:

Jaraparilla said...

As to why I think that Newsweak article was "otherwise totally misguided", this bit is where I have a big problem:

"The pity in the administration’s approach is that its initial impulse was on the mark. Cheney is right that in the post-Watergate and Vietnam era, the executive branch lost some of its vigor as Congress asserted itself in national security matters. No one should be misty-eye about the bad-old-days of black bag jobs and illegal mail openings. But there was a price to pay for presidential deference. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies grew risk averse, unwilling to take some necessary chances for fear of being hauled before congressional committees or exposed by investigative reporters..."

I totally reject that argument. The Bush team's Police State reaction to 9/11 was wrong: this was a terrorist action and should have been treated as such. They have used 9/11 as an excuse to build a climate of fear and eternal war: exactly as the neocons planned in their Project for the New American Century doc.

And to blame Clinton for failing to stop 9/11 is totally disengenuous: it was Bush and his team who missed all the "flashing red light" warning signals (on purpose, maybe?).

Pages

Blog Archive