Joe Klein's "An Administration's Epic Collapse"

[thatguyoverthere]

Here's an interesting editorial:

An Administration's Epic Collapse | TIME

Originally Posted by Joe Klein

An Administration's Epic Collapse



The first three months of the new Democratic Congress have been neither terrible nor transcendent. A Pew poll had it about right: a substantial majority of the public remains happy the Democrats won in 2006, but neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has dominated the public consciousness as Newt Gingrich did when the Republicans came to power in 1995. There is a reason for that. A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration.


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).


Iraq comes first, as always. From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had. But never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops and employing counterinsurgency tactics inappropriate to the situation on the ground. "There was no way he was going to accept [its findings] once the press began to portray the report as Daddy's friends coming to the rescue," a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission told me. As with Bush's invasion of Iraq, the decision to surge was made unilaterally, without adequate respect for history or military doctrine. Iraq was invaded with insufficient troops and planning; the surge was attempted with too few troops (especially non-Kurdish, Arabic-speaking Iraqis), a purposely misleading time line ("progress" by September) and, most important, the absence of a reliable Iraqi government.


General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible." Translation: This thing fails unless there is a political deal among the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds. There is no such deal on the horizon, largely because of the President's aversion to talking to people he doesn't like. And while some Baghdad neighborhoods may be more peaceful--temporarily--as a result of the increased U.S. military presence, the story two years from now is likely to resemble the recent headlines from Tall 'Afar: dueling Sunni and Shi'ite massacres have destroyed order in a city famously pacified by counterinsurgency tactics in 2005. Bush's indifference to reality in Iraq is not an isolated case. It is the modus operandi of his Administration. The indifference of his Environmental Protection Agency to the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions was rejected by the Supreme Court on April 2.


On April 3, the President again accused Democrats of being "more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need." Such demagoguery is particularly outrageous given the Administration's inability to provide our troops "what they need" at the nation's premier hospital for veterans. The mold and decrepitude at Walter Reed are likely to be only the beginning of the tragedy, the latest example of incompetence in this Administration. "This is yet another aspect of war planning that wasn't done properly," says Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "The entire VA hospital system is unprepared for the casualties of Iraq, especially the psychiatric casualties. A lot of vets are saying, 'This is our Katrina moment.' And they're right: this Administration governs badly because it doesn't care very much about governing."


Compared with Iraq and Walter Reed, the firing of the U.S. Attorneys is a relatively minor matter. It is true that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, but they are political appointees of a special sort. They are partisans, obviously, but must appear to be above politics--not working to influence elections, for example--if public faith in the impartiality of the justice system is to be maintained. Once again Karl Rove's operation has corrupted a policy area--like national security--that should be off-limits to political operators.


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.

The text I highlighted jumped out at me. A good thing about Richard Nixon is that, for all his faults, he had two huge things going for him that Bush does not.

1. Nixon truly coveted the title of "peacemaker"
2. Nixon was more than willing to talk to his enemies

Has Bush had a face to face sit down win the president of Iran? Has he even tried? Has he considered visiting North Korea? I didn't really expect Bush would visit Saddam, but even Nixon had Kissinger in constant, repeated contact with both North Vietnam and South Vietnam during the war. At least they were talking.

Why does Bush seem reluctant to dialouge with his enemies?

I can not believe they're tieing walter reed to Bush. That was a wider federal government failure, blaming that on Bush is ridiculous.

The othher two issues have some real legitimacy, but walter reed? man it's hard to grasp anyone who takes their journalism career seriously would peg that on him.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I can not believe they're tieing walter reed to Bush. That was a wider federal government failure, blaming that on Bush is ridiculous.

The othher two issues have some real legitimacy, but walter reed? man it's hard to grasp anyone who takes their journalism career seriously would peg that on him.

His role as Commander in Chief puts him at the top of the list when a fault in the military is found, that's the nature of the job of President. However, it is just as much the fault of the Congress, who is supposed to be exercising oversight on everywhere their funds are being spent, which obviously they failed to do as well. It was a failure of 2 branches of government.

Originally Posted by thomez

His role as Commander in Chief puts him at the top of the list when a fault in the military is found, that's the nature of the job of President. However, it is just as much the fault of the Congress, who is supposed to be exercising oversight on everywhere their funds are being spent, which obviously they failed to do as well. It was a failure of 2 branches of government.

Dude, seriously how is the president supposed to know about something like that? You know damn well they totally go batshit insane when he comes to the hospital. The only way the adminstration could have known would have been to conduct unsolicited audits from someone in the admin. Until now there has never been a need for such action.

Don't get me wrong Walter Reed is a cluster, but blaming it on the president is absurd.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Dude, seriously how is the president supposed to know about something like that? You know damn well they totally go batshit insane when he comes to the hospital. The only way the adminstration could have known would have been to conduct unsolicited audits from someone in the admin. Until now there has never been a need for such action.

Don't get me wrong Walter Reed is a cluster, but blaming it on the president is absurd.

Talk to the troops they are sending and have sent to war?

Originally Posted by thomez

Talk to the troops they are sending and have sent to war?

I would agree with that. But again until now there's been no reason for such inquireries.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I would agree with that. But again until now there's been no reason for such inquireries.

I think a perfectly logical argument could be made that there is always a reason for such inquiries.

Originally Posted by thomez

I think a perfectly logical argument could be made that there is always a reason for such inquiries.

I agree with you. But it hasn't been government precedent to do it. So it wasn't done. This could have easily happened under Clinton and it wouldn't be his fault either.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I agree with you. But it hasn't been government precedent to do it. So it wasn't done. This could have easily happened under Clinton and it wouldn't be his fault either.

I look at it the opposite way. I'd say that it was partially Bush's fault, partially the Congress' fault, and if it had happened under Clinton it would be partially his fault too

As the Commander in Chief your job is to run, from the top down, the military operations of the United States. This includes taking care of your troops in peace time, in war time, and when they come home. Taking care of them means planning appropriately to limit their casualties and doing everything possible to give those unfortunate injured ones the best of care we have to offer. In the end, it is about taking care of your troops Mr. President, and you have failed both them and us. I have no problem putting a piece of the blame on the Commander in Chief under those circumstances.

[grembert]

Bush's rhetoric is the biggest problem. He needs to get the American people behind him, and just " drawing lines in the sand " is not going to get it.

If I was going to do something that I knew a lot of people didn't like, I think I would choice my words more carefully

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I can not believe they're tieing walter reed to Bush. That was a wider federal government failure, blaming that on Bush is ridiculous.

The othher two issues have some real legitimacy, but walter reed? man it's hard to grasp anyone who takes their journalism career seriously would peg that on him.

Ever hear, "The buck stops here"?

Was he that stupid and close minded that he thought the Iraq war wouldn't put a strain on veterans hospitals from tens of thousands of new wounded veterans?

[Scrum]

Bush certainly has to share in the blame over Walter Reed.

He constantly uses the troops and their well being as a weapon against political opponents. He should be even more careful about things like this because it makes him look like a huge dick. If you honor those people who fight for our country so much, why weren't you paying closer attention to the situation they were coming home to?

It's like their views on abortion. They only really care about the fetus until it's born.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by grembert

Bush's rhetoric is the biggest problem. He needs to get the American people behind him, and just " drawing lines in the sand " is not going to get it.

If I was going to do something that I knew a lot of people didn't like, I think I would choice my words more carefully

It's hard to get behind a man who has all but crowned himself King of the US.