- It is disquieting sensing the back-pedaling on the part
of some political observers who formerly blamed the Bush administration
totally for its horrific failures. It would seem that only a short time
ago these very same observers understood the basic aura, as well as the
specific responsibilities of command and leadership conveyed to George
W. Bush, whom they formerly so vociferously vilified for his egregious
failures. Some of these former critics are now entertaining the possibility
of President Bush's innocence.
-
- His shortcomings, a depredating foreign policy fostering
the gratuitous Iraqi War, as well as his actions and practices generating
a growing international animosity towards America, are now being relegated
to either his complete innocence or his vulnerability in relying and trusting
those around him, suggesting that they took full advantage of his unsophisticated
world view to routinely fool him into consistently making all the wrong
moves. Such thinking is wrongheaded considering the two aspects of executive
leadership.
-
- Let's start with the private sector as an example. The
chief executive of a large and successful publicly traded stock-funded
company, appointed as its top manager and identified as the "president"
of the corporation, is really in effect, responsible to all the stockholders
who have invested in the business. The stockholders, via their votes,
select a board of directors, the latter headed by a chairman. It is the
chairman that is the real head of the corporation because of either his
support by the majority of stockholders, or the fact that the chairman
controls the majority of voting shares. The primary power of the chairman
of the board makes secondary and subordinate that of the corporate president.
-
- The corporate president is secondarily responsible to
the stockholders and primarily responsible to the chairman of the board
because the latter is primarily responsible to all the shareholders, jointly
and severally, elected by them to ensure the success of the corporation
for a profitable return on their investments. The corporate president oversees
and manages the day-by-day business operations of the organization. A
chairman, therefore, acts less in a management role, seeking only overall
investment results. The president, on the other hand, must concentrate
on operational results.
-
- Any large operation, certainly those of Fortune Five
Hundred status, as well as the government of the United States, requires
careful supervision, a total impossibility for one individual. It is for
this reason that a president is directly responsible for surrounding himself
with knowledgeable, experienced, professional, as well as personally reliable
people upon whom he can depend to help carry out successfully all the entity's
operations. As such, the president, whether in a private or public sector
backdrop, is directly responsible for his "administration."
His twofold responsibilities are operations and administration management.
-
- Considering President Bush's responsibilities to the
voters and taxpayers and his performance managing his operational chiefs
of staff and executive department heads, he has failed miserably.
- He is required by his oath of office to protect, preserve
and enforce the Constitution of the United States. In short, the President
of the United States has very little wiggle room allowing him to dodge
his highly visible responsibilities. So what has happened?
-
- The Downing Street memo proves that President Bush planned
to invade Iraq even though there was no need to. The Downing Street Memo
fingers Bush directly for demanding intelligence to be fixed around his
personal policy targeting Iraq - no other direct reference accusing anyone
else for originating this policy was mentioned. The Memo was clearly stamped
to ensure maximum confidentiality, a "for-your-eyes-only" warning,
and other warnings to ensure its secrecy. It is only because of the political
in-fighting surrounding British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election
that this document was made available by its basically unlawful passing
to the London Sunday Times, which published it on May 1, 2005.
-
- The Plame-Wilson CIA leak confirms that the non-partisan
assessment set forth in writing in the Downing Street Memo is true. Plame
could have been outed by the Bush administration in retaliation for her
husband's New York Times op-ed piece refuting the Niger yellowcake uranium
lie, or simply because Plame's CIA operation was targeting Iraqi alleged
weapons of mass destruction and on the verge of reporting the falsehood
of such "intelligence."
-
- But certainly, the Bush administration was not tricked
into ramming through the destruction of the Bill of Rights via the USA
PATRIOT Act, nor in the unilateral abolition of the Geneva Conventions.
As President, George Bush is directly responsible for both his personally-originated
policy and those he surrounds himself with.
-
- Not choosing to single anyone out, nor desiring or intending
to disparage the commentary of others, especially writers I have always
admired and whose work I frequently rely heavily upon, I will cite some
nevertheless disturbing commentary that I feel is completely wrongheaded
in terms of evaluating the role of George W. Bush. Here's an example:
"The Bush administration neoconservatives who assembled the 'intelligence'
knew that it was false. The neoconservatives had their own agenda. They
used the terrorist attacks of September 11 to turn the Bush administration
to their agenda. As the leaked top secret British government Downing Street
memo made clear, the agenda was to invade Iraq, and 'the intelligence and
facts were being fixed around the policy.'"
-
- But as I have already made clear, the Downing Memo identified
no one other than Bush. Its content was clear: Bush wanted the war! This
coincides with what former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported
on 60 Minutes, confirming that the Bush administration was hell-bent on
invading Iraq from the very beginning of its assumption of power. How
could George Bush not be in on it - how could he have been "fooled?"
-
- And then there's this: "President George W. Bush
seems determined to take himself down with his sinking administration,
declaring in the face of strong public opposition to the ill-conceived
Iraqi war that he will accept nothing but 'complete victory' in what he
characterized as the first great war of the 21st century." But with
the polls tanking rapidly below those that trashed the administrations
of LBJ and Nixon, what precisely is Bush thinking? This doesn't show resolve
based upon false input and loyalty; in fact, neither does it show stupidity!
It smacks, rather, heavily of a god of war that shouts the command: "Damn
the polls and our military defeat, and faster please!"
-
- Now check this out: "There is still time for George
W. Bush to take his medicine and clean the alien intrusion out of our system
of government. Yet the turning point is fast approaching, and the moment
of decision is nearly upon him: he can save Cheney, or he can save his
party. He cannot save both." Are you beginning to get that same
eerie feeling I have that these former Bush critics believe there is still
some socially-redeeming value to this politically hobbled and immoral Mad
Chancellor?
-
- How about this?: "Will Bush get smart, follow through
on his pledge to cooperate with what he described as Fitzgerald's 'very
dignified' investigation - and throw the vice president overboard? And
what, I wonder, is Karl Rove telling him to do? As I have been saying
for two years: get out the chips-and-dip, start popping that popcorn, and
pull up a chair. This is going to be more fun than even I had anticipated"
-
- I find these observations, coming from an outspoken true
Republican and a libertarian [note the small "l"] as downright
disturbing. Slice the cakewalk any way you will, consider please the mountain
of technical and logical anomalies and impossibilities we Americans have
been asked to swallow as regards 9-11. Reflect also upon the obvious cover-up
perpetrated by the 9-11 Commission. How soon these have been forgotten!
And the head of the world's most powerful administration conferred upon
others decision-making and execution powers that were not his to give,
but were instead his alone in terms of assuring rightful, just and constitutionally-sanctioned
authority.
-
- Bush has jettisoned his responsibilities in precisely
the same manner as Congress has jettisoned theirs in terms of war-making
decisions. Everyone inside the Beltway is doing everyone else's job for
which there is absolutely no constitutional justification. Yet where Bush
must take full responsibility, correctly running the executive branch of
American government, he can now be excused because the executive branch
has been invaded by a neoconservative cancer or untrustworthy individuals
personally picked by Bush that simply didn't work out.
-
- It is Bush's job to run the operation and to manage his
administration. The reason we have a failure is because of all the buck-passing
that has been, and continues to be, totally ignored by the MSM. They have
been co-conspirators in this statist scam to enforce allegiance and dependence
on a New World Order established after the fall of the United States and
Islam. The Fitzgerald grand jury investigation is America's last chance
to impeach America's most dangerous evildoer - anything less will require
multinational force to overpower the world's most dangerous nation!
-
-
-
-
- Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
-
- ©2004-2005 All Rights Reserved
|
