Paul Krugman today explains what has happened with Republicans in charge of all three branches of the government:
When the world first learned about the abuse of prisoners, President Bush said that it "does not reflect the nature of the American people." He's right, of course: a great majority of Americans are decent and good. But so are a great majority of people everywhere. If America's record is better than that of most countries — and it is — it's because of our system: our tradition of openness, and checks and balances.
Yet Mr. Bush, despite all his talk of good and evil, doesn't believe in that system. From the day his administration took office, its slogan has been "just trust us." No administration since Nixon has been so insistent that it has the right to operate without oversight or accountability, and no administration since Nixon has shown itself to be so little deserving of that trust. Out of a misplaced sense of patriotism, Congress has deferred to the administration's demands. Sooner or later, a moral catastrophe was inevitable.
Just trust us, John Ashcroft said, as he demanded that Congress pass the Patriot Act, no questions asked. After two and a half years, during which he arrested and secretly detained more than a thousand people, Mr. Ashcroft has yet to convict any actual terrorists. (Look at the actual trials of what Dahlia Lithwick of Slate calls "disaffected bozos who watch cheesy training videos," and you'll see what I mean.)
Just trust us, George Bush said, as he insisted that Iraq, which hadn't attacked us and posed no obvious threat, was the place to go in the war on terror. When we got there, we found no weapons of mass destruction and no new evidence of links to Al Qaeda.
Just trust us, Paul Bremer said, as he took over in Iraq. What is the legal basis for Mr. Bremer's authority? You may imagine that the Coalition Provisional Authority is an arm of the government, subject to U.S. law. But it turns out that no law or presidential directive has ever established the authority's status. Mr. Bremer, as far as we can tell, answers to nobody except Mr. Bush, which makes Iraq a sort of personal fief. In that fief, there has been nothing that Americans would recognize as the rule of law. For example, Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon's erstwhile favorite, was allowed to gain control of Saddam's files — the better to blackmail his potential rivals.
And finally: Just trust us, Donald Rumsfeld said early in 2002, when he declared that "enemy combatants" — a term that turned out to mean anyone, including American citizens, the administration chose to so designate — don't have rights under the Geneva Convention. Now people around the world talk of an "American gulag," and Seymour Hersh is exposing My Lai all over again.
Did top officials order the use of torture? It depends on the meaning of the words "order" and "torture." Last August Mr. Rumsfeld's top intelligence official sent Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the Guantánamo prison, to Iraq. General Miller recommended that the guards help interrogators, including private contractors, by handling prisoners in a way that "sets the conditions" for "successful interrogation and exploitation." What did he and his superiors think would happen?
To their credit, some supporters of the administration are speaking out. "This is about system failure," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. But do Mr. Graham, John McCain and other appalled lawmakers understand their own role in that failure? By deferring to the administration at every step, by blocking every effort to make officials accountable, they set the nation up for this disaster. You can't prevent any serious inquiry into why George Bush led us to war to eliminate W.M.D. that didn't exist and to punish Saddam for imaginary ties to Al Qaeda, then express shock when Mr. Bush's administration fails to follow the rules on other matters.
Meanwhile, Abu Ghraib will remain in use, under its new commander: General Miller of Guantánamo. Donald Rumsfeld has "accepted responsibility" — an action that apparently does not mean paying any price at all. And Dick Cheney says, "Don Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had. . . . People should get off his case and let him do his job." In other words: Just trust us.
Worst. Administration. Ever. As a president, as a conservative, as a patriot, as a human being ... George W. Bush is a miserable failure.
Posted by Observer at May 11, 2004 07:16 AMComments on entries can only be made in pop-up windows while those entries are still on the main index page. Sorry for the inconvenience this causes, but this blocks about 99.99% of the spam the blog receives.
You know it's bad when George Will agrees with Paul Krugman:
When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate. Leave aside the question of who or what failed before Sept. 11, 2001. But who lost his or her job because the president's 2003 State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud -- the story of Iraq's attempting to buy uranium in Niger? Or because the primary and only sufficient reason for waging preemptive war -- weapons of mass destruction -- was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning, from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable.
Posted by: Observer on May 11, 2004 08:54 AMI would hesitate to say "worst administration ever", only because I have a healthy respect for the historical excesses that most history instruction doesn't teach you. I have read that the Grant administration was rife with corruption at every level except Grant himself, but I don't know what that means in specifics. Also, I am aware of many interventions done by the US in Latin America, especially in Central America, in the first third of the 20th Century, but I know almost nothing about the details. As an example, for all I know, Iraq 2003/04 is just a latter-day high-tech version of Nicaragua 1907. (Thanks to http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html for a nice list.) It says something, though, when you have to look back to the reviled days of "Dollar Diplomacy" to see anything even remotely like current foreign policy. And, of course, there cant' be even the pretense of appeal to the Monroe Doctrine in any intervention in Asia.
I am pretty solid student of post-1933 history, though, and I am willing to endorse G.W.B.'s as the worst administration in the last 70 years, and allow that "ever" is a distinct possibility.
Posted by: Feff on May 11, 2004 10:59 AMThere is a calibration issue here. A moron with a musket running the America we had 100+ years ago really couldn't be that bad. The government didn't have nearly as much money (as a percentage of GDP) or power (because back then "States' Rights" really meant something) as it does now.
Now we have a moron riding the American Colossus-Bestriding-the-World like some mechanical bull at Billy Bob's. If Grant were alive today, would he be as bad as Bush? If memory serves, Grant's administration was corrupt, but he wasn't necessarily given to a lot of foreign military adventures. Then again, during Reconstruction, there wasn't much we could do.
Here is a quote for your consideration: "He has been profoundly misunderstood in popular culture. Often portrayed as a slovenly drunkard, he was actually a modest and moral man, uncommonly devoted to his wife and children. He was also a complex individual with uncommon virtues. He was a man whose abilities are still misunderstood and underrated. His accomplishments and courage were rare, his personal integrity unmatched."
Is that Peggy Noonan writing a memoir in the future about George W. Bush or is it from a Ulysses S Grant devotional web page?
Posted by: Observer on May 11, 2004 11:35 AMOh, in no way was I trying to compare Grant presonally to G.W.B. That would be comparing gold nuggets (valuable, but not very good structural material) to jackal vomit. Grant's personal integrity is, I think, beyond question, and I think the only 20th Century presidents who could possibly hope to approach that might be Wilson, Truman, and Eisenhower. To be honest, perhaps only Washington -- another general --really is for certain in the same class.
Grant proved himself to be a truly great general, one of those individuals who came from nowhere to rise, deservedly, to the top of his profession. But he was manifestly poor at just about everything else he tried, and I am not sure any president, even Lincoln, could have prevented the scarring of Reconstruction. Grant's inability to control people not in a military situation allowed the worst to come out in his administration.
G.W.B. hasn't proven himself capable of anything except lining the pockets of his fellow rich people, and eroding the rights and well-being of everyone else. The second Bush administration is clearly ***corrupt by design***, that aggrandizement, both for themselves and their social class, is their whole reason for taking the office.
Posted by: Feff on May 11, 2004 12:44 PM