Unfit to lead
By Michael J.W. Stickings
It took him far too long, and he was far too supportive of Bush even when it was obvious to any sentient being what Bush was all about both as a man and as a president, but Joe Klein finally seems to have come around. His latest piece in Time -- I can't believe I'm saying this -- is worth a read. Here are the key passages:
-- "The three big Bush stories of 2007 -- the decision to 'surge' in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons -- precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys)."
-- "When Bush came to office -- installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore -- I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful. He chose the opposite path, and his hyper-partisanship has proved to be a travesty of governance and a comprehensive failure. I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration -- arrogance, incompetence, cynicism -- are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead."
Klein obviously had too much faith in Bush from the beginning, and it was his mistake, a mistake that should not have been committed by any would-be objective journalist, to have been not just "respectful of the man" but so thoroughly naive. Klein really thought Bush would "govern in a bipartisan manner"? What signs had Bush given that he would so govern? His record in Texas, where he had little actual power as governor of a friendly state? What about how the Bush campaign conducted itself in 2000, not just against Gore but against McCain, not to mention during the post-election stand-off?
True, it could not have been known in detail in 2000 just how recklessly and callously Bush would conduct himself while in office, but it didn't take all that long for the "presidential" Bush to emerge.
So why has it taken Klein until 2007 to come around? Although I acknowledge that the surge, Walter Reed, and purgegate are serious "stories," and I agree that they speak rather unwell of Bush, they hardly represent anything different than what came before. What about Bush's handling of Katrina, for example? What about his handling of the Iraq War before the surge? What about his divisive pandering to the religious right, so evident in the 2004 election? What about the partisanization of the so-called war on terror? What about everything else? Bush's presidency may be arrogant, incompetent, and cynical, and so much else besides, but it's been that way pretty much all along. And many of us have been saying it all along, if not from the lofty pulput of Time.
Regardless, even Klein, mental masturbator, now thinks that Bush is "unfit to lead"? So where does that leave us? Not with a case for impeachment, says Klein, but what other conclusions are we to draw?
It took him far too long, and he was far too supportive of Bush even when it was obvious to any sentient being what Bush was all about both as a man and as a president, but Joe Klein finally seems to have come around. His latest piece in Time -- I can't believe I'm saying this -- is worth a read. Here are the key passages:-- "The three big Bush stories of 2007 -- the decision to 'surge' in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons -- precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys)."
-- "When Bush came to office -- installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore -- I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful. He chose the opposite path, and his hyper-partisanship has proved to be a travesty of governance and a comprehensive failure. I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration -- arrogance, incompetence, cynicism -- are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead."
Klein obviously had too much faith in Bush from the beginning, and it was his mistake, a mistake that should not have been committed by any would-be objective journalist, to have been not just "respectful of the man" but so thoroughly naive. Klein really thought Bush would "govern in a bipartisan manner"? What signs had Bush given that he would so govern? His record in Texas, where he had little actual power as governor of a friendly state? What about how the Bush campaign conducted itself in 2000, not just against Gore but against McCain, not to mention during the post-election stand-off?
True, it could not have been known in detail in 2000 just how recklessly and callously Bush would conduct himself while in office, but it didn't take all that long for the "presidential" Bush to emerge.
So why has it taken Klein until 2007 to come around? Although I acknowledge that the surge, Walter Reed, and purgegate are serious "stories," and I agree that they speak rather unwell of Bush, they hardly represent anything different than what came before. What about Bush's handling of Katrina, for example? What about his handling of the Iraq War before the surge? What about his divisive pandering to the religious right, so evident in the 2004 election? What about the partisanization of the so-called war on terror? What about everything else? Bush's presidency may be arrogant, incompetent, and cynical, and so much else besides, but it's been that way pretty much all along. And many of us have been saying it all along, if not from the lofty pulput of Time.
Regardless, even Klein, mental masturbator, now thinks that Bush is "unfit to lead"? So where does that leave us? Not with a case for impeachment, says Klein, but what other conclusions are we to draw?
Labels: Bush, Iraq, purgegate, U.S. military
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
8:42 AM
6 Comments:
To quote the Angry Old Broad, I want to give his such a thwap in the back of the head ...
By
Fixer, at 6:14 AM
The dots were connected post-Katrina. It was the turning point. The Administration hasn't recovered since.
By
cakreiz, at 9:49 AM
Well... where do I begin?
I guess I'm all Bushed out. The guy is a moron and obviously is unfit for leadership. Everyone knows this, even the Republicans. They just won't admit it. We have Pelosi going to Syria, along with all the brouhaha that has created. And then, we hear that various Republicans are doing the same thing.
What does this all mean. Quite simply, they are taking the lead in foreign policy issues because nothing, NOTHING, is coming out of the White House. We aren't talking to much of any body except for Great Britain, and we've managed to alienate pretty much the entire world against us. The bar has obviously fallen here. In earlier years, we would be in impeachment proceedings. Now, we just don't want the embarrassment. So, we seem to be willing to ride out the next couple of years with him in office.
So, for me, what does all of this mean? Simply this: I never TRULY understood the power of The President (who was given more power during the last six years). The President can make or break this country. So I've learned that who we put in that spot counts, big time.
By
Anonymous, at 11:56 AM
Too little, too late for Joe to redeem himself, but I do like that he's at least gone public. You have to see Shakes' post on this one though. It's hilarious and so little makes me laugh these days.
By
Libby Spencer, at 12:29 PM
Would Bush be where he is (as the leader of a big country) if he didn't have his daddy and his grandfather before that paving the political road for him. They cleared the path and he walked right in, totally unprepared for the job because there were always others holding his hand.
You have to think what kind of job he would have if his elders weren't there to clear the way. He would never have had the fortitude to run for political office on his own (unlike Bill Clinton). Most likely he would have been either a middle-of-the road insurance salesman or a drunken bartender. Of those two, I think I know which would be the more likely.
By
Anonymous, at 12:31 PM
It isn't 100% incomprehensible. To the righty's, Bush was their hero. Just like in the bible, 7 is an important number. So it will take roughly seven years for their hero to fall in their eyes. I expect the approval ratings to drop to 5% by the end of the year.
By
Librocrat, at 3:04 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home