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?