- The word incompetence has been used to describe George
Bush so often that it's beginning to have an anesthetic effect. People
are being numbed by the frequency of its use and brush it off as "Bush-bashing,"
which it turns out is a convenient and clever expression coined by Bush
supporters that allows them to dispense with all criticism of Bush and
his policies.
-
- I've used the word incompetence in my own writings, titling
one piece, "The Price of Incompetence." But there is something
unsatisfying about the word. It doesn't really cut to the heart of who
and what George Bush is about. There is no question that Bush is incompetent,
grossly so. And if his name weren't Bush and if his father wasn't once
president, the most George W. could have hoped for career-wise would have
been something like night manager at a Kentucky Fried Chicken. But here
he is, president of the United States, and we are stuck with him. We have
Karl Rove to thank for that, who saw in George W. the perfect Manchurian
candidate, witless and passive, and Rove had the resources and backing
from strong-willed and wealthy conservatives to pull it off: President
George W. Bush, now soiling the White House daily.
-
- A revelation of sorts hit me recently after reading an
article by Jonathan Schell in The Nation. Schell begins by listing some
of the most egregious of Bush's failures, of which we are all familiar
with now the Iraq war and the failure to plan for Iraq reconstruction,
the Hurricane Katrina bungling, the God-awful Medicare prescription drug
plan, the relaxing of power plant pollution standards. The list goes on.
Schell's conclusion is right on target:
-
- "We all keep referring to the 'Bush Administration,'
yet administering seems to be the last thing on its mindBush officials
turn out to have had a minimal interest in actually running things[So]
if the Bush outfit is not governing, what is it doing? The answer comes
readily: It wishes to acquire, increase and consolidate the power of the
Republican Party."
-
- And what better way to bring this about than by rewarding
those with the big bucks, corporate America-Merrill-Lynch, Exxon Mobil,
Merck and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, etc.-without whose money Bush would never
have gotten reelected. They have been given generous tax cuts and financial
incentives and a relaxation of government controls on pollution and other
inspections. And if these corporate giants want to pay bottom-end wages,
provide no health care insurance, ship their work to India or Malaysia,
that's OK too. Bush's only directive is to just keep filling up the Republican
Party war chest. The country can take care of itself. And so what if New
Orleans was destroyed? We can blame it on one bungler, Michael Brown, just
as we blamed Abu Gharib on "a few bad apples." The American middle
class will never notice. Our rhetoric and spin are just too clever for
those dumb bastards to ever catch on.
-
- A recent New York Times' editorial echoes Jonathan Schell's
thinking. Commenting on the recent Dubai Ports World fiasco, the Times
writes that while the United Arab Emirates is an American ally in the fight
against terrorism,
-
- "The money to finance the Sept. 11 attacks flowed
through that country [and] Abdul Qadeer Khan, the rogue Pakistani nuclear
scientist, sent equipment to Libya and Iran through Dubai, helping to create
nuclear weapons capacity for those two regimes. And while port managers
have little if anything to do with inspecting cargo or checking manifests,
they are responsible for hiring guards, securing the areas under their
control and working with Customs and Homeland Security officials.
-
- "One reason for the current uproar is the halfhearted
way the Bush administration has dealt with the issue of port security The
president's main budget priority continues to be tax cuts, and he has not
fought for the money needed to keep the ports secure. The administration
has [even] worked to eliminate a port-security grant program from the budget."
-
- "Halfhearted" as in leadership-- is the
key word here. In a separate Times editorial, we learn that,
-
- "The [Dubai Ports World] deal was approved by an
obscure committee of second-level officials. The committee is headed by
a Treasury official whose department focuses on promoting trade rather
than on security requirements. When [security] concerns were raised, they
were never flagged for higher-ups. And the committee itself may never have
been warned that the Coast Guard was initially worried that gaps in intelligence
made it impossible to assess the potential threat of terrorist operations
through the Dubai company."
-
- So much for George Bush working diligently ("It's
hard work") to protect the country from terrorism.
-
- And let's take a look at the recent nuclear pact that
Bush signed with India. India is one of only three countries that have
refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. By international agreement,
any country that refuses to sign the NPT is ineligible for nuclear technology
assistance. This has been the United States' stance toward India for 30
years. But Bush signed an agreement with India last week that will give
India access to top level atomic energy technology. Under the agreement
only 14 of India's 22 nuclear reactors will be placed under international
supervision. You can guess which ones will be supervised those dedicated
to energy production. Those dedicated to nuclear weapons material production
are off limits.
-
- What a great deal for India. News articles were full
of analyses about the need to "counter the threat of China" and
the need, as Steve Holland of the Washington Post put it, "to do something
about rising gasoline prices, which have contributed to American worries
about the U.S. economy." What utter nonsense, as if Bush is capable
of thinking at that kind of level. What a horrible job Holland and others
have to write their mainstream articles where they are forced to pretend
George Bush is a real leader, a real president, as if his words had real
meaning. The real answer is found in an obscure sentence in an article
in the March 5th Los Angeles Times about the India nuclear deal: "U.S.
firms stand to reap billions in profits from the deal, administration officials
said." Enough said.
-
- The truth is that George Bush has no leadership skills
whatsoever. He is completely incurious and has made it clear to his staff
that he doesn't care to be bothered with details of governance. But worse
much worse -- like his comrade in vileness, Dick Cheney, Bush's only
concern is power and some vague idea of a neoconservative revolution in
America with the Republican Party at the helm for decades to come.
-
- This great country can no longer stand a total hack for
president. Americans can still wrest some semblance of democratic government
and accountability by making the 2006 elections a referendum on George
W. Bush and the cowardly Republican Congress that has acquiesced to his
every misguided goal. Republicans up for reelection are already distancing
themselves from Bush with his 34% approval rating. They want the elections
to be "local." Forget local. These are not ordinary times. The
country is in crisis mode. If you really believe in America's greatness
you will use the sole power available to you as citizens in a democratic
society, the power of the vote. May the Force be with us.
-
- Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked in aerospace industry
for 22 years. He now teaches in the California Community College system.
He can be reached at grellick@hotmail.com
|
