More on Bush and Giuliani and Al Qaqaa

All you Bush apologists out there always talk about how Bush is a "strong leader." This business with Al Qaqaa and Giuliani proves just how wrong you are.

Let's assume that Giuliani was not speaking for Bush when he blamed the troops for the missing explosives. This means that Bush cannot control even one person working for him. This means that Bush cannot control even one person on such an important issue. That is not leadership, folks. That is a complete lack of leadership.

See, the President has to lead a lot of people. If he cannot lead even one person who is supposed to be working for him, how can anyone expect to lead a lot of people? More to the point, how can anyone claim that he is in fact a great leader?

Also, given that the President is the Commander-in-Chief, a group of the people he must lead is the military. Let's assume once again that Giuliani was not speaking for Bush when he blamed the troops. How can Bush be a strong leader for the military when NOTHING is done to say Giuliani was wrong or to rebuke Giuliani in any way? Furthermore, if--as I argued in the previous post--"there is no way to credibly argue that Giuliani's statement cannot be attributed to Bush," how can Bush be a strong leader when he blames the very people he is supposed to be leading? Again, I turn to Wes Clark for analysis of Bush:

For President Bush to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly.

The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job.

President Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without a sound plan and without sufficient forces to accomplish the mission. Our troops are performing a difficult mission with skill, bravery and determination. They deserve a commander in chief who supports them and understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office, not one who gets weak knees and shifts blame for his mistakes.

As I explained in detail in Official campaign planning doctrine and the post-war period, the President and the Secretary of Defense (the "civilian leaders" mentioned by Clark), are indeed responsible for plans and objectives. By allowing the troops to be blamed, Bush is not accepting the responsibility that belongs to him, not the troops.

That ain't leadership, boys and girls. And anybody who claims otherwise is flat out wrong.

George W. Bush is not a strong leader, and anybody who claims otherwise is flat out wrong.