Wednesday, April 19, 2006
History is Catching Up
When Thomas Friedman abandons your cause, you’re in trouble. Friedman today roasted the administration for its insistence on keeping the military option open with regards to Iran. He also criticized the president for keeping Don Rumsfeld in his post.
The Weekly Standard and the National Review may be publishing articles in support of military intervention in Iran, but that’s about it. When Friedman unleashes a howitzer attack on the administration it serves as more than a red flag: it’s a sign that the administration has already lost the support of the center of the country, the entire center of the country, the center of the country that has been sympathetic in the past.
This is free-market/globalization champion Thomas Friedman we’re talking about. A guy who, a year or two ago, seemed like a shill for neocons.
Some of his criticizisms are truly choice: “…the level of incompetence that the Bush team has displayed in Iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them, make it impossible to support this administration in any offensive military action against Iran…I look at the Bush national security officials much the way I look at drunken drivers.” He goes on, “If ours were a parliamentary democracy, the entire Bush team would be out of office by now, and deservedly so.”
He insists that “at a minimum” Rumsfeld should be removed to provide more competent leadership in the Department of Defense to allow the US to have a good option with regards to military force.
Of course, that isn’t going to happen, which he acknowledges. He maintains this is because of the administration’s refusal to remove people who make mistakes, but I and many others take a darker view. This administration argued that it needed the option to torture detainees. That was no “mistake.” The lack of control of Iraq that helped the insurgency might have been a mistake, but it was a mistake shared by all the top members of the administration. The president is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, not Don Rumsfeld. If Bush was really suddenly concerned with taking responsibility for his actions and holding others accountable also (for the first time in his life) he would fire half of his cabinet and then resign.
It is no “mistake” that this administration’s priority from day one has been to minimize mistakes, lie about the facts on the ground, and hold on to power and get re-elected. Firing Rumsfeld, at this point, would be an effort to throw a subordinate under the bus to preserve the existing power structure mostly intact.
Despite superficial changes in the White House the main players all remain. Even calls to fire the worst Secretary of Defense in living memory fall on deaf ears.
This is one of the hallmarks of this presidency. When Jimmy Carter was facing public opprobrium like Bush is now he asked for the resignation of his entire cabinet. When the Iran-Contra Affair damaged Reagan’s presidency he fired his National Security Advisor implicated and several other White House officials. The Secretary of Defense resigned shortly thereafter. The Bush administration will make no such concessions, even if only to save face.
It shouldn’t be a surprise, at this point in history. Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld have been at the epicenter of the ugliest parts of this presidency, especially Cheney and Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was the guy behind relaxing torture standards, mismanaging the military occupation, and doctoring intelligence, most of which goes through the Department of Defense, not the CIA. Rumsfeld’s pentagon was the institution that gave a voice to the lying expatriates of Iraq before the war, after they had been discredited and dismissed by the CIA.
It is fitting that he should stay on to the bitter end. It will not be pretty one, either.
This administration’s criminality is slowly becoming part of historical record, despite the violent thrashing of right wing blogs and periodicals. Conservatives are abandoning the administration. Journalists are winning Pulitzer Prizes for writing exposés about illegal government programs like the NSA wiretapping scandal. Rolling Stone’s cover asks if Drinky is the worst president ever. Harper’s recent cover advocated impeaching Bush. The New York Times editorial page flagellates the Bush administration like no other I have ever seen. Lawsuits against the scandal continue in the courts, and democrats are threatening to take control of the House in November and gain control of the investigatory powers of the House Judiciary Committee.
Justice is slow in coming, however, due to the stonewalling, criminal complicity, and obstruction of justice of the Republican Party.
And just to give Drinky a kick in the ass on my way out, here are a few quotes from history teachers and professors about Drinky’s aptitude:
I've taught U.S. History for 21 years and this clown puts Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Warren G. Harding to shame. At least they had the wisdom to do NOTHING (other than humiliate themselves).
In 2004, George Mason University polled 415 presidential historians and found 80 per cent considered Bush's first term a failure. More than half considered it the worst presidency since the Great Depression. More than a third called it the worst in 100 years. Eleven per cent said it was the worst ever. Robert McElvaine, a professor of history at Millsaps College in Mississippi, says scores would likely be worse if the poll were repeated today. "When I filled out that survey I said Bush was the worst since Buchanan [1857-61], but things have gotten worse and now I'd have to consider him the worst ever," McElvaine says. "If you look at the situation he inherited, and the situation following 9/11, he had great opportunities and he basically squandered them. He has put the future of the country in a much more precarious position than it was when he became president."
# posted by BitterHarvest @ 7:00 PM 
