Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Disengaged and uninvolved: The non-leadership of George W. Bush

Right-wing regurgitator Insight, which recently reported that Vice President Cheney may retire after the '06 midterms, is claiming that "President Bush has decided to stay out of the lion's share of decisions made by his administration," instead preferring to focus exclusively on "Iraq and the Republican congressional campaign in the 2006 elections".

One would think that the disengagement of such an inept president has been good for America, but "sources" say that "Bush's lack of involvement on most issues has led to numerous errors in judgment".

Okay, fine, but hasn't his involvement also "led to numerous errors in judgment". Like Iraq itself? Like, on the domestic front, social security?

Does it even matter anymore if this president is engaged and involved in the day-to-day affairs of state? So what if he focuses exclusively on Iraq? Has that focus improved the situation on the ground in Iraq? Has it averted bloodshed? Has it prevented Iraq from sinking into civil war?

Or is that not the problem? Perhaps the situation would improve if he were to disengage and delegate. Or perhaps not. Perhaps there's nothing he can do to clean up the mess he's made. Either way, it's time for a president who actually cares about what's going on in the world, both at home and abroad, a president who doesn't obsess about his legacy (achieving some semblance of success in Iraq and maintaining the Republican majorities in Congress), a president who doesn't ignore every other serious problem out there, who doesn't delegate responsibility to unelected officials, a president who actually knows what he's doing.

Too bad we've got almost three years left of this one.

Bookmark and Share


Post a Comment

<< Home