Bush “Unfit to Lead”

-->
Bush Administration

This is Joel Klein writing this, note —

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.

This is a miracle. Klein is almost as thick as David Brooks, yet a light has dawned.

Like Kevin Drum, I am awed by Klein’s overuse of dashes. Other quibbles from Kevin —

Yeah, we hear you. Except for a few things. It’s not really arrogance, is it? More like barroom obstinance. And not quite cynicism, either. Closer to partisanship and paranoia gone psychopathic. And I’d change “not likely” to something a little stronger. Let’s say, “Pigs will orbit Mars before this changes.” And finally, that “difficult to imagine” part isn’t quite right either. Unfortunately, it’s all too easy to imagine.

Read all of Klein’s piece, anyway.

Share Button
14 Comments

13 Comments

  1. moonbat  •  Apr 5, 2007 @11:48 pm

    As Kos put it:

    “The guy turns on Bush when Mr. 30 percent is so toast, that even Broder can’t pretend he can stage a comeback, and we’re supposed to pat him in the back?

    “Me, I see an irrelevant man trying to catch up to public sentiment. Too little, too late.”

    I mean, how come total nobodies out in the boondocks like you and me had Bush figured out in 2000, and finally someone as well connected as Klein, seven years later, finally gets it? Sheesh.

  2. Swami  •  Apr 6, 2007 @1:24 am

    precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history

    Huh..one of the worst..? Think again. Think preemptive war. Can anybody wrestle that concept into reason? I certainly can’t. Maybe in a place between light and shadow called the twilight zone it might make sense, but in reality it’s called naked aggression. Not that other administrations haven’t acted aggressively in our history, but they had the good sense to hide their aggression behind questional claims of provocation, and not base it on mind reading.
    With only a cursory knowledge of previous administrations, I can assure all that seek to rate a degree of incompetence and failure to assess the worst, that the Bush administration holds that distinction, bar none. When it comes to good governance…Bush is a fish out of water.

  3. John Palcewski  •  Apr 6, 2007 @4:41 am

    Ah, yes, of course. Bush is unfit to lead. But what to do? What to do? Klein was queried about whether his piece was a suggestion that the dreaded “I” word should be uttered, but he quickly corrected that notion. Oh, no. Impeachment can not be considered. Or mushy words to that effect.

    Let’s just ramble on and let the moron continue to destroy everything he touches. And of course we must not confront Turdblossom by calling on him to testify in public under oath. Oh, no. He must be allowed to continue to pull the strings behind the scenes.

    If neither he nor anyone else in America is prepared to act in a meaningful manner to correct this bizarre disaster, what in hell was the POINT of Klein’s piece anyway?

    The short version is: Everything is totally screwed up. But we must not do anything about it.

    Now, who will speak for the missing white women?

  4. emaldinak  •  Apr 6, 2007 @12:57 pm

    Klien’s stupidity is on show with this piece, first calling out the moron who would be king for his mis-administration then saying there is no reason to impeach him. Nice to see him belatedly joining the reality crowd but the empowerment of fool son has already destroyed this once great country.
    I agree with the above poster on the “preemptive” war. Naked aggresion is indeed what it was and all the wordsmithing in the world won’t change that fact. Dim fool son is a criminal, has been since he walked away from his military service, continues to be with every action of his misbegoten life.
    Bizzaro world dictates honor to a man who has never known the meaning of the word.
    This misadministration is an illegal cabal obviously working to destroy the United States of America. Imeach the mf now.

  5. Stan  •  Apr 6, 2007 @1:12 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.

  6. The Thinker  •  Apr 6, 2007 @1:21 pm

    Stan:
    Hmmm, Bush got where he is all because of his daddy. But then you and all your buds are about to coronate a lady who got where she is entirely because of her husband.

    Actions speak louder than words. Obviously you think that kind of nepotism is just fine.

  7. Stan  •  Apr 6, 2007 @1:28 pm

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Hillary fan either. She wouldn’t be in her position either if Bill didn’t lead the way. But then again, would Bill have gotten his position (and he had a lot of them, ask Monica) if he didn’t have Hillary. It’s all one big political orgy.

  8. Michael  •  Apr 6, 2007 @2:31 pm

    okay, to the Thinker (quote of 7)
    “Hmmm, Bush got where he is all because of his daddy. But then you and all your buds are about to coronate a lady who got where she is entirely because of her husband.

    Actions speak louder than words. Obviously you think that kind of nepotism is just fine.”
    =========
    Seriously, he didn’t meantion anything about liking Hillary or supporting her, and the primaries aren’t set yet. using a word like Coronate for the perceived support of a primary candidate is arrogant. Lets not put words in each others’ mouths, please, and stick to thinking with an open mind, not just pontificating for the sake of arguing with someone. that being said,

    I am a huge fan of the IMPEACH HIM NOW motto, even if it seems hard to convict him of the charges brought against him. This is why: “The US Department of Justice (DoJ) and the office of the White House Counsel are preparing a draft document laying out the President’s wartime authority to remain in office past 2008, The Register has learned.” (quote from the Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/01/gwot_cha/ ). I have been saying this for a long time, that war is the worst thing for American society because the President, during times of war, can extend his term in office indefinitely. effective dictatorship. next step, declaration of martial law, which effectively stops most Congress powers, including most congressional ratification of military action. WHY HAS NO ONE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AT ALL?! Not even mentioned it? This notion sent chills down my spine when I first learned about it in high school, and now it comes to the distinct possibility that Bush will be the second President to ever consider using it (and he might actually get away with it). and he’s a freaking lunatic! impeach now while Congress can do something about it.

  9. maha  •  Apr 6, 2007 @3:00 pm

    Sorry about #7 from The (Non) Thinker. I missed it.

    There is nepotism, and there is nepotism. All manner of rightie pundits got their jobs because of the accomplishments of their parents; e.g., Bill Kristol or Jonah Goldberg, neither of whom is bright enough to screw in a light bulb without coaching. Certainly Senator Clinton’s career as First Lady paved the way for her being a senator, but she does have a law degree and knows how government works inside and out. I often disagree with her, but she’s not the empty suit Bush is.

    In other words, it’s one thing to get a job because of nepotism or connections, and something else to get a job because of nepotism or connections and then not do the bleeping job.

    I still remember how people hollered when John Kennedy named his brother Bobby Attorney General. That mostly worked out, as I recall.

  10. maha  •  Apr 6, 2007 @3:07 pm

    Michael (#9) — the same rumors were flying around in 2004, as I recall. It may be that Gonzales is drafting a memo like that, but if there is one thing for which there is solid precedent it’s that presidential elections go on as scheduled, war or no war.

    If presidential elections could be held in 1864 in the middle of a Civil War in this country, there’s no excuse for not have presidential elections because of a civil war on the other side of the planet. Franklin Roosevelt also ran for re-election in 1944 during the most brutal time for American troops in World War II.

    There is absolutely no provision made in the Constitution for canceling elections because of war, and not a word that suggests a President can extend his term because of war.

    Believe me, son, if the Bushies tried to pull that trick now they’d be laughed out of Washington. Even most of the GOP wants Bush to disappear.

  11. Chris  •  Apr 6, 2007 @3:50 pm

    Michael (#9) and Maha (#10): The Register article you’re talking about was an April Fool’s Day joke from a year ago. The article even starts out with “April Fool” in red letters. I have to admit, the authors were pretty good in making the whole thing look credible, but it was a hoax.

  12. VJB  •  Apr 6, 2007 @3:54 pm

    Hey–I’m dash-a-rific. My eighth-grade english teacher back in the 50’s had this thing about the words ‘lot, stuff, and bunch’, the use of which would get you a hiding. She never said a thing about dashes, though, which I continue to use with impunity.

  13. VJB  •  Apr 6, 2007 @3:56 pm

    and–dare I say it–immunity!

1 Trackback



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile