President Bush: The Blamer-in-Chief

There are exceptions, but one of the classic marks of a right-wing conservative is their tendency to blame everyone but themselves. Since the members of the Bush Administration keep trying to wear his mantle, it's worth noting that one of those exceptions was Winston Churchill who, though not quick to blame himself, still managed to accept responsibility for some of his blunders. Actually people with a record of successful decisions and actions can afford to accept responsibility and that may speak volumes about today's Republican Party: they have a well-financed and well-oiled noise machine but their record of accomplishments is not good. And none have accomplished so little as our president.

Dan Froomkin of White House Watch notes Bush's latest attempt to blame someone else for his particular fiasco in Iraq:

President Bush says that he should be trusted on military issues because he listens to his commanders. But he has a tendency to celebrate his generals when they're providing him political cover -- then stick a knife in their backs when they're no longer of any use to him.

Last week, Bush rejected any blame for the chaos that ensued in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. So whose fault was it? Bush pointed the finger at Gen. Tommy Franks, the Central Command chief at the time. "My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes," Bush said.

As we know, Bush does not listen. It is amazing how many untruths Bush can squeeze into his statements. So far, Bush has blamed any number of people for his fiasco in Iraq. He has blamed the Iraqis themselves, the Iranians, the Syrians, al Qaida and any number of others, including his fellow Americans. It's curious to note that President Bush has not blamed his partner in war, Dick Cheney. The vice president is, in some ways, more responsible for the fiasco than the president, but he gets a free pass from Bush. Others have noted Bush's reluctance to hold his vice president accountable, presumably, as the all too biting humor goes, because Cheney knows where all the bodies are buried.

We know the president is incompetent. We know he adheres to an ideology that blinds him to advice from experts who know what they're talking about. We know Bush cannot blame the generals for his fiasco in Katrina. We know Bush cannot blame the generals for the lack of an energy policy or the high gasoline prices. We know Bush cannot blame the generals for the reams of right-wing nonsense coming out of the various departments of the government as the president ignores science, the law and history. We know Bush cannot blame the generals for the outing of a CIA operative. The list of blunders and nonsense for which the president is responsible is long. Even in Iraq, Bush seems to have a conveniently compartmentalized memory of events. The generals did not insist on no-bid contracts. The generals did not send twenty-year-olds to set up stock markets. The generals didn't waste time on lucrative privatization schemes for Bush cronies. The generals did not come up with the preemptive strike princile. And it was not the generals who set up Paul Bremer as a viceroy. Blunder after blunder can be traced directly to decisions made by the Bush inner circle and there were no generals in that inner circle.

In my opinion, Bush is an authoritarian corporatist. He believes that business knows best—and deserves the most (certainly far more than was prevalent from the 1930s to the 1990s)—and I suspect he and his closest associates believe stockholders, business ethics and democracy are 'quaint.' But even Bush's business friends, cronies, campaign contributors and associates must all be astonished at just how grossly imcompetent the president has proven to be. It's a shame that Bush's real supporters, the same business class, fail to realize how much they themselves have lost their way and how much of Bush's failures stem from their own flawed ideological view of the world. I have no problem with competent people earning more than the rest of us but today's business world needs to explain how mediocrities like Bush keep acquiring so much wealth, power and authority to do the harm they do to our country.

I Support the Troops and Oppose Bush's Fiasco

I support our troops and oppose Bush's reckless and arrogant war in Iraq. I'm tired of the way Bush's many and various reasons for war fall apart. And I'm tired of the latest mindless drivel from right wing Republicans that if we don't fight them there, they'll come here. That's an old line from emotional and baseless arguments that were used by the John Birchers of the Cold War era. During the Cold War, the John Birchers were considered the lunatic fringe by both Republicans and Democrats. Today's Republicans ought to know better.

Despite the hysterical shrillness of the American right, it is no contradiction to say I support the troops and oppose Bush's war in Iraq, and I'm tired of the deliberate distortion of such a simple and straightforward view. The right wingers even fail to note that an overwhelming majority of Americans, myself included, agreed with the necessity of dealing militarily with Afghanistan. But when did we begin accepting the nonsense of starting a second war, a war we obviously did not need, before finishing a war that needed to be finished in the first place? The bottom line is that George W. Bush must be held accountable by the legal means provided by the US Constitution. It is time.

Let me offer an analogy. Keeping in mind that no analogy is perfect, that their purpose is to illustrate a point rather than playing broad word games (Ah! You're really talking about 9/11! (actually no)), consider a crooked mayor of a major city. The mayor has financial reasons for wanting to replace the current city hall but he can't say that to the voters. He tries this and he tries that and the voters don't buy it and he has to be careful that he doesn't get in trouble with the voters, so he backs off. But he still wants a new city hall—with a his name on it—and plenty of contracts for his cronies.

Like I said, this mayor is not particularly honest and he comes up with the bright idea of moving his office to the Hilton because 'city hall is no longer safe: it is old and decrepit and a fire hazard.' Or so the mayor says. The critics take issue with the mayor; it's a perfectly fine building and maybe the critics concede an improvement or two may be necessary (aha! say the mayor friends, see, see!) but certainly not the complete replacement of city hall. The critics, despite the noise of the mayor's supporters, start making headway and the mayor gets nervous and comes up with another bright idea: he calls in his inner circle and he tells his henchmen to burn down the city hall during a parade when no one's looking too closely: the city will have no choice but to replace the city hall!

Now for all practical purposes, the mayor doesn't actually light the fire but he's the one who owns the box of matches. Anyway, the city hall's on fire and he's satisfied that his plan is moving along. He'll have the voters in his hands in no time. But his henchmen didn't know what they were doing. They made such a mess of burning down city hall, that nearby blocks are now on fire. It's a lot bigger fire than the mayor intended. The firemen, who have nothing to do with the mayor's crooked decision to burn down city hall, are doing their job. But it's such a huge fire that firemen are getting injured. Some are getting killed. And people are finding out that the mayor has been diverting funds for fire equipment and training. But the mayor's behind the firemen and when people start suspecting what a crook the mayor is, he tries to say that his critics don't support the firemen.... Bull.

It's a no brainer that people would support the firemen in such a situation. They're just doing their job and they're putting their lives on the line. But somebody started that fire and if you have your eyes open, it's not that hard to notice that the civilian guy in charge is responsible for the fire, and is a crook.

Bush is a crook. He started a fire in Iraq. The fire is a lot bigger than he ever thought it was going to be. He screwed up royally. Our troops are trying to put out the fire that Bush started and the incompetence and ideological rigidity and the budget cuts of the Bush Administration aren't helping our troops. A crook needs to be held accountable. Some argue that Bush is merely incompetent, and not a crook. But these days, not many Americans buy the argument that we can trust Bush, and they're just now beginning to realize that Bush is a lawbreaker and dishonest—I call him a crook, for short. That assessment has nothing to do with our troops. They're doing their job and putting their lives on the line. For all practical purposes, they've done their job and yet they're still on the line. Prolonging the war doesn't make sense. It's time for the Iraqis to put out their own fire. Yeah, we made a mess and we'll have to help them somewhat and no doubt we'll have no choice but to leave some troops nearby and even our air force and navy will have to keep flying overhead, but the Iraqis themselves have been adding fuel to the fire and now have some responsibility for the fire in Iraq. Keep in mind there are no good solutions to Iraq. That is an indication of how badly Bush and his neocons advisers have mucked things.

Congress doesn't have a lot of tools for making a president accountable for his mistakes, his lies, and his dishonesty once a war we did not need is launched. One of those tools happens to be funding. If you want to stop the killing of our soldiers, you have to stop doing the same thing over and over without purpose. And about the only way to do that is to get the president's attention by cutting off funding. There are plenty of ways to protect our troops as we draw down but funding a war whose purpose has been reduced to putting our troops on patrol so they can get shot at is not exactly good for our troops. Sending our troops on tour after tour is not good for our troops. Failing to train our troops is not good for our troops. It doesn't make sense.

Right wingers who say Democrats don't support the troops don't know what they're talking about. And Bush's continuing refusal to listen to the Iraq Study Group in a timely manner, say six months ago instead of six months from now, is inexcusable. Kicking the can down the road is not an acceptable policy. It would make more sense for Cheney and Bush to resign than allow Bush's war to drift for another 20 months in the hands of these two incompetent crooks who have botched things so badly we're now in the middle of a civil war.

And then there's the issue of that box of matches that Bush and Cheney are still holding. They've still got them. They're still capable of starting another war we don't need. Does any conservative at this late date believe another war will be 'supporting our troops'? Or are they just playing politics? Or both? I'm tired of the charade that Republicans know what they're talking about. We've had six years of Republican domination to find out that their philosophy, for what it is, isn't worth a pile a beans.

I repeat: I support the troops and I oppose Bush's fiasco in Iraq. We don't need more excuses and photo ops from Bush, we need accountability. If we are still a democracy, legal procedures must prevail. It's time for responsible Republicans to join Democrats instead of defending Bush. Congress can cut funding for Bush's war. Congress can continue investigations. Congress can appoint special prosecutors. And if these fail to hold Bush and Cheney accountable, there is always impeachment. But it's time to take care of business so our nation can move forward.

Oil Companies Launch $100 Million Campaign

The December issue of Scientific American has sixteen pages of ads about a cleaner environment or alternative energy that various companies are apparently providing or promising to provide. Chevron has seven pages alone. Perhaps these companies mean it this time but that's not the record of the last 30 years which has led to sluggish improvements. In recent years, there have been some areas of the country where things have been going backwards. Texas is the nation's energy state and the news is not good. The pollution around the greater Houston area, particulary on the southeast side, is a scandal but it's not the only story in Texas. Daniel Mottola of the Austin Chronicle News has the story on the dirtiest secret in America—coal is back:

Though plans by various Texas utilities to build 19 new coal-fired power plants have drawn widespread criticism for increases in smog, ozone, fine particle, and mercury pollution they'll pump into the air, most acrimonious is the plants' contribution to climate change – the impending catastrophe caused by fossil-fuel combustion gasses (namely carbon dioxide) building up atmospherically and keeping heat from radiating into space. Texas is the nation's foremost CO2 emitter (If we were a country, we'd rank seventh globally, according to an Environmental Defense study), and the new plants would double our output. The good news is that there are viable alternatives to meet the state's growing energy needs. The bad news is that our state honchos, awash in utility cash, lack the leadership to pursue them.

As George W. Bush has taught us in the negative sense, leadership is doing, not talking. But the oil companies are set to give us a $100 million campaign that resembles the talk of 30 years ago; here's one story from Potomac Flacks (hat tip to Think Progress):

With congressional Dems looking to take on the oil industry next year, the industry's lead trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, is planning a $100 million PR "image and education effort," National Journal reports.

Here's a more oil-friendly version from CNN:

Facing mounting public pressure over high gasoline prices and now a potentially less-friendly Democrat-controlled Congress, the oil industry is mounting its first-ever major ad campaign, according to a report Thursday.

The ads will attempt to convince Americans that high energy prices are not the result of some industry conspiracy but rather an effect of tight supply and high demand, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The goal, according to the paper, will be to avoid higher taxes on energy companies and make it easier for them to drill in areas like the Rocky Mountains or off the coasts.

But that message will be softened by calls for greater conservation and investments in alternative technologies, the paper said.

"I know and you all know that you're in the oil and gas business," the Journal quoted Jean Statler, head of the public relations agency working on the campaign, saying at a recent oil industry conference in Dallas. "But the fact of the matter is there is just a driving, overwhelming desire" by Americans "for the industry to start diversifying" beyond fossil fuels.

For the record, I'm not clear about what the 'first-ever ad campaign' line is all about. In the 1970s, we were treated to a barrage of ads about alternative energy and a clean environment by the oil companies, whether they were coordinated or not. There were some important improvements in the 1970s and then the oil companies lost interest during the Reagan years, particulary when the federal government, thanks to conservative politicians, backed off from further improvements and sometimes looked the other way.

The oil companies could help themselves by explaining honestly how it was that oil and gasoline prices dropped sharply in the two months before the election and have since bounced back up (oil reached $63.50 a barrel yesterday, a gain of $5 since the election). Failure by Bush to add oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the lessening chance of war with Iran had something to do with the price drops and yet that doesn't seem to explain the whole picture. Also, the trends over the last thirty-five years have been plain for all to see in oil reserves and oil production and yet for years the oil companies insisted on turning a blind eye to the longterm picture. Whether they like it or not, the oil companies have some explaining to do.

Our country will continue to need oil and it makes sense for the oil companies to be involved to some extent in ethanol, hydrogen, coal to oil, or coal to hydrogen methodologies since a lot of that involves their technologies. But the monopolies in other countries suggest it would be in the interest of all Americans to see real energy diversification this time. And a much more consistent commitment to clean technology, including reduced carbon dioxide emissions. Many small to medium companies can handle various alternative energies, energy efficiency methodologies and environmental technology if they get the nod and some help from the government. Part of that help might involve keeping the oil companies from getting their hands on some of these companies until the oil CEOs show they mean it this time (I'm sure some already do mean it, but they need to show a real track record). As for the $100 million ad campaign, Americans are catching on to public relations. This time Americans want to see proof through action rather than words. Words have become very cheap during the Bush years.

Iraqis Don't Like Phony Photo Ops Either

Bush still thinks the war can be won with photo ops. Average Iraqis, caught in the middle of a civil war, are not impressed with Bush or even with their own leaders. Here's Kirk Semple of The New York Times with continuing coverage of the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history:

Even if Sana al-Nabhani had cared about the summit meeting in Jordan on Thursday between Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and President Bush, she would not have been able to watch the news. As usual, Iraqis went without electricity from the national grid for most of the day and she could not find any gasoline to run her personal generator.

Told by a reporter later in the day about the meeting’s outcome, Ms. Nabhani, a 34-year-old homemaker, scoffed: “Is that all? Was that even worth the fuel consumed by their airplanes?”

(snip)

At a news conference after the meeting, Mr. Bush said he had agreed to speed up the transfer of authority over the security forces to the Iraqi government, as Mr. Maliki has wanted, though the two leaders did not spell out a timetable. Mr. Maliki reassured Mr. Bush that his government was committed to cracking down on outlaws and stabilizing the country.

These assurances amounted to nothing more than hollow promises in the opinion of Ahmed Khalaf, a 34-year-old Shiite who works as a taxi driver in Baghdad.

“It’s useless!” he roared as he inched through the traffic-clogged streets of central Baghdad after dusk. “It’s wasting time!”

It has become apparent to everyone in the world that George W. Bush is wasting everyone's time by refusing to deal with his mess; it's time for him to listen to outside advice (but please, anyone besides Kissinger and John McCain). Anthony Cordesman has a few thoughts and hopefully the James Baker report, depending on which version is the one we'll hear next week, will offer more concrete advice. It's time for Bush and Cheney to give up their delusions of grandeur and it's time for a bipartisan effort to rebuild our military and our foreign policy. It's also time to rediscover real diplomacy rather than 'staying the course' with the usual empty gestures for the TV cameras.