The origins of my extended rant

My extended rant is about much more than the response to hurricane Katrina. It concerns a topic that goes way beyond that situation. The subject is this: George W. Bush is a sorry excuse of a leader.

Before continuing, I will repeat a few things I have said elsewhere on this blog. When Bush ran for re-election for Governor, I--a lifelong Democrat--voted for him. Part of the explanation for my vote is that in the Texas system, the Governor is not that important. The Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, Attorney General, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court all have more actual power and responsibility than the Governor. Also, every judicial office and almost every executive position in Texas are elected offices. Given these facts, the Governor of Texas is not in a position to do a lot of harm. Another part of the explanation for my vote is that Bush did a good job in his first term as Governor. He succeeded in reducing partisanship in the state government, and helped facilitate productive results in the legislature.

There was no way I was going to vote for Bush in 2000. As shown above, the office of Governor of Texas does not compare to President of the United States. Even so, as the election unfolded, my one hope was that Bush would conduct business the way he did as Governor. Well, folks, he has never come without shouting distance of that. And as President, he has been in a position to inflict harm on this nation, and he has done so.

In the Fall of 2003, I formulated an explanation of why the Iraq war showed that Bush was not a leader. I actually wrote this explanation in a December 1, 2003, letter to someone I greatly respect. What follows is what I wrote in that letter. I also note that I have made generalizations about war supporters and Republicans in what follows. While those generalizations might not be justified in all cases, my perspective is that of someone in Texas who also lived in Dallas (the most Republican place in the country), and I assert that those generalizations are 95% applicable in this part of the country.

*******

War supporters like to portray President Bush as valiant, noble, and great for protecting America and freeing the Iraqi people. To those supporters, I would ask a series of questions.

1. Would you consider great a man who went to a faraway place to perform good deeds for the people there?

I assume their answer would be “yes,” which would lead to the second question:

2. Would you still consider that man great if, in performing these good deeds in a faraway land, he left his family (wife and children) and neglected to provide for their basic needs such as housing, education, medicine, and security?

My guess is that this question would produce some consternation among Republicans since they are the self-proclaimed champions of “family values.”

I feel unfortunately certain that the first response of many Republicans would be not to actually answer the question, but to ask “What does this question have to do with Bush and the Iraq war?” I would then explain to them why this question is so important.

By going to war--and conducting it and the aftermath as he has--Bush has neglected his family, the United States of America.

• The GOP’s rhetoric says that party is loathe to engage in big government spending and deficits. And yet this war will be the single largest contributor, in a spending sense, to the largest government deficit in our history--and the spending is going to continue for years to come.

• Had we not gone to war, much of the money spent on Iraq could have been used in this country in many ways.
  

* Some of that money could have gone to help out the states with their budget shortfalls.
* Some of that money could have been used to create jobs.
* Some of that money could have been used for education.
* Some of that money could have been used to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
* Some of that money could have gone to fund the additional personnel and training needed by the FBI and CIA to fight terrorism.

And so on and so on...None of those things have occurred, and instead Bush gives us massive tax cuts that reduce revenue. I am generally not in favor of massive deficit spending, but if it occurs, I would much rather see it go towards helping at home.

The statements in the previous paragraph show the connection between the second question and Bush.

Assuming that the war supporters would still answer “yes” to the second question, they might find the third question difficult.

3. Would you still consider that man great if, in undertaking his good deeds in the faraway land, he failed to provide for the basic life necessities of the people in the faraway land?

There is no question that Bush utterly failed to provide the basic necessities for the Iraqi people after the war. The lack of security is well documented. The problems with looting are well documented. The lack of electricity and water is well documented. And the list goes on. While there have been improvements, there are still major problems, which raise several additional points.

• All of these problems could have and should have been foreseen.
• These problems could have been largely addressed and resolved in a timely manner.
• It was the responsibility of the National Command Authorities (Bush and Rumsfeld) to
  see that these matters were provided for in the overall plan for the war.

The latest evidence of these facts is the recent interview Lt. Gen. Garner gave to the BBC.

Some might argue that these matters are not typically undertaken by the military, and I would have four responses...The responses are as follows:

• The Joint Chiefs’ published doctrine which was in effect at the time all the planning took place contains lengthy discussions of Military Operations Other Than War.
  
• Said doctrine makes it explicitly clear that any major campaign plan must have as its primary feature the ability to meet the political objectives as determined by the National Command Authorities.
• The lack of planning to address the aforementioned problems is the fault of Bush and Rumsfeld (the NCA).
• Bush handed over the entire Iraq operation to DoD and completely shut out the State Department, meaning that all the postwar activities were necessarily the responsibility of the military.

So, we have a situation where the “great man” not only neglects his own family, he does not even adequately provide for the people for whom he is performing good deeds. I would like the war supporters to then explain how Bush is a “great man.”

*******

The Bush administration has displayed an astounding combination of stupidity, delusion, and arrogance. As a result, we started the Iraq war (on false pretenses--and there was plenty proof of that before the war), turned the aftermath into a cluster f*** the likes of which have never been seen in our history, did not finish the job in Afghanistan, neglected homeland security and other things, etc., etc.

I will be addressing these matters (some for the second or third time), and I have a word of advice for anyone who wishes to claim I am incorrect: come prepared.