Oy, oy, that wacky Bush: he's ruining us, he's ruining himself, and he's ruining his own family franchise

1. Is the Rocking Horse King Riding into the Sunset? -- by Beth Quinn/The Times Herald-Record

The recent, testy exchange between our president and Virginia's Senator-elect Jim Webb raises an interesting question about Bush's state of mind.

Either he doesn't care that the majority of Americans don't agree with him — or he doesn't know. I think it's the latter.

Something's wrong. Bush is out of touch with reality. And I don't think he wants to be president anymore, either, because suddenly people are saying upsetting things to him.

For those who don't recall the Webb-Bush conversation, which took place at a recent White House reception, Bush asked Webb, "How's your boy?"

Webb's "boy" is a Marine serving in Iraq. Webb answered, "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President."

Bush got snarly at that. "That's not what I asked you," he said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy," Webb said.

Webb got the blame for this banter-gone-bad. Some even described him as rude.

Rude? Since when is it rude to remind the man who has put your child in danger that it's time to bring the troops home from a pointless war? Rude?

Well, perhaps it seemed rude to Bush because he's unaware that most of us think he's made a mess in Iraq. Maybe he thinks Webb is the rare exception.

After all, he doesn't read newspapers. And he seems to think the mid-term election results were a joke, as though his frat house got beaten in a drinking match against another frat house, all in good fun.

And he seems to think we still have a mission to "complete" in Iraq (as opposed to the one we already "accomplished"). This, despite last week's Iraq Study Group report, which was a stunning indictment of the president's war. It's not outside the realm of possibility that Bush hasn't even bothered to read it.

And there is other evidence that he's really not all there. Consider:

*He recently named Dr. Erik Keroack — a vocal opponent of family planning — to the government post in charge of family planning. What mission is he trying to accomplish here? Operation Virgin?

*He was actually stunned that Congress had no plans to reappoint John Bolton to the sensitive post of ambassador to the United Nations — an organization Bolton has contempt for. Bush, who personally opposes diplomacy himself, said Congress' failure to endorse Bolton "disrupts our diplomatic work." What's that? Operation Bull in a China Shop?

*His White House lawyers are now arguing before the Supreme Court against taking steps to address global warming. His argument? That the danger is not imminent, so the government has no obligation to address it. Operation Change the Coastline?

I don't know what's wrong with the guy, but none of this suggests he's connecting to reality.

He reminds me of a character in a short story I once read about a CEO who never appears in public. An employee wants to meet him, so he sneaks into the house where he finds the CEO in a playroom, riding a rocking horse. The guy is entirely out of his mind but quite happy in his own simple way.

At least in the story, the CEO had a benevolent, competent staff running the business for him.

There are 771 days left until Jan. 20, 2009. Hang in there, America!


2. Bush and the Family Franchise
How George W. Bush has ruined the family franchise.
By Eleanor Clift/MSNBC

On the eve of a report that repudiates his son’s leadership, former president George H.W. Bush broke down crying when he recalled how his other son, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, lost an election a dozen years ago and then came back to serve two successful terms. The elder Bush has always been a softie, but this display of emotion was so over the top that it had to be about something other than Jeb’s long-ago loss.

The setting was a leadership summit Monday in Tallahassee, where the elder Bush had come to lecture and to pay homage to Jeb, who is leaving office with a 53 percent approval rating, putting him ninth among the 50 governors in popularity. The former president was reflecting on how well Jeb handled defeat in 1994 when he lost his composure. “He didn’t whine about it,” he said, putting a handkerchief to his face in an effort to stifle his sobbing.

That election turned out to be pivotal because it disrupted the plan Papa Bush had for his sons, which may be why he was crying, and why the country cries with him. The family’s grand design had the No. 2 son, Jeb, by far the brighter and more responsible, ascend to the presidency while George, the partying frat-boy type, settled for second best in Texas. The plan went awry when Jeb, contrary to conventional wisdom, lost in Florida, and George unexpectedly defeated Ann Richards in Texas. With the favored heir on the sidelines, the family calculus shifted. They’d go for the presidency with the son that won and not the one they wished had won.

The son who was wrongly launched has made such a mess of things that he has ruined the family franchise. Without getting too Oedipal, it’s fair to say that so many mistakes George W. Bush made are the result of his need to distinguish himself from his father and show that he’s smarter and tougher. His need to outdo his father and at the same time vindicate his father’s failure to get re-elected makes for a complicated stew of emotions. The irony is that the senior Bush, dismissed by Junior’s crowd as a country-club patrician, looks like a giant among presidents compared to his son. Junior told author Bob Woodward, for his book “Plan of Attack,” that he didn’t consult his father in planning the invasion of Iraq but consulted a higher authority, pointing, presumably, to the heavens.

The father also consulted a higher authority: family fixer James Baker. The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Baker, pulls no punches in calling Bush’s policies a failure. It’s a statement of the obvious, but when you have a collection of Washington wise men, plus retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor (perhaps doing penance for her vote that put Bush in the White House during the disputed 2000 race), it’s the equivalent of last rites for Bush’s Iraq policy, along with his presidency. It’s not a plan for victory because that doesn’t exist except in Bush’s fantasy. The recommendations Baker and company offer—of more international engagement and shifting U.S. troops to a backup role to Iraqi forces—may help the administration manage and mask defeat. Even so, that may be hard for Bush to accept. His body language when receiving the report, while polite, was dismissive, thanking the eminences assembled for breakfast at the White House for dropping off a copy.

This president has lost all capacity to lead. Eleven American servicemen died in Iraq on the day Bush was presented the report, which calls the situation there “grave and deteriorating.” Events on the ground threaten to overtake even this grim assessment. And we’re left to analyze Bush’s tender ego and whether he can reverse course on the folly that is killing and maiming countless Iraqis along with U.S. troops. Historians are already debating whether Bush is the worst president ever, or just among the four or five worst. He has little choice but to accept the fundamental direction of the Iraq Study Group. He’s up to his neck in quicksand, and they’ve thrown him a rope. It’s trendy to make fun of the over-the-hill types in Washington, but they’ve done a noble thing in reminding us that war is not just about spin and a way to win elections. It’s about coming together to find a way out, however unpalatable.

Bush was asked during the campaign in 2000 what would happen if he lost. He said he’d go back to Texas, watch a lot of baseball and have a great life with Laura and the girls. He’s an accidental president, a man who was vaulted into a job he wasn’t prepared for, and who treated war like a lark. Bush’s father observed between sobs in his Florida speech, “A true measure of a man is how you handle victory and how you handle defeat.” He was talking about Jeb, but surely it’s his first-born who triggers the tears.


3. Impeachment Is Not a Partisan Issue; It's a Democracy Issue -- by Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III/truthout.org

As we look toward January 3, 2007, the day that the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, one of the issues that must be addressed is whether or not the impeachment of President George W. Bush and others in the Bush administration should take place. Regarding the invasion of Iraq and the manner in which information was presented to the American people, did the president and/or members of his administration commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors?

Many see this as a partisan issue. Most if not all Republicans are against the idea. Some Democrats support impeachment. All Americans who believe in democracy should support it. Impeachment, in this instance, is not a partisan issue; it's a democracy issue.

First, a quick definition of what it means to "impeach." Article III, Section 4 of the US Constitution states the following: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." It is important to understand that impeachment is not removal from office. It is charging (a public official) with misconduct in office before a competent tribunal. After the individual is charged, a trial takes place and, if convicted, the individual is removed.

If America is a nation of laws and not of men, the US Constitution calls for, at minimum, a full investigation of possible negligent and criminal activities of President Bush and others in the Bush administration. Were the American people deceived by the Bush administration into believing that an invasion of Iraq was necessary? Why was the Office of Special Plans (OSP) set up in the Pentagon by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and run by Douglas Feith? Did the administration use the OSP to manipulate intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam Hussein? Were thousands of Americans sent to their deaths and many more thousands wounded, based on lies and deceit? Have hundreds of billions of dollars been spent to support an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation?

I believe these are valid questions that have yet to be honestly investigated and analyzed by an impartial investigatory body with subpoena powers. These questions and many others are not partisan in any way, shape, or form. These questions get to the crux of the issue: Did the president and other members of his administration "cook the books?" Also, has the Iranian directorate, which was established in 2006, been set up to replay in Iran what was done in Iraq?

Some may say, "Well, the mistakes were unintentional." First, evidence indicates that these were not mistakes; second, even if they were, Americans hold their elected officials to a higher standard, especially when invading sovereign nations and when the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are concerned. Their negligence should be no defense.

Start your own investigation! Do your own research!

Read Congressman Henry Waxman's report, "Iraq on the Record." This report chronicles 237 statements made by the five administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. All of the statements included in the report were drawn from public statements, speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials.

After reading "Iraq on the Record," read Congressman John Conyers's report, "George W. Bush vs. The Constitution: The Constitution in Crisis." This book is replete with evidence that the run-up to the Iraq War was laced with administration lies and distortions to make it appear that the US was threatened.

Even though Waxman and Conyers are Democrats, their research is of the highest caliber. They are public servants who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's exactly what they have done. Read the documents for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Information is power, but it's what you do with the information that makes you powerful!

It is the epitome of hypocrisy for the United States to invade a sovereign country in order to bring about democracy, and turn its back on democracy at home. Some will say America will be distracted from the so-called war if it pursues impeachment. Trust me; Americans can walk and chew gum at the same time.

These are not partisan questions, issues, or reports. In a representative democracy, it is imperative that the individuals that you elect to represent you and your interests actually do so. Impeachment is not a witch hunt and it's not retribution. It's called oversight; it's called accountability; it's called Democracy in Action!

I can understand Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi working toward cooperation and bipartisanship with her political adversaries - but not at the expense of accountability. Holding your elected officials accountable is the cornerstone of democracy! Impeachment is not a partisan issue; it's a democracy issue!

(Dr. Wilmer Leon is the producer/host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program "On With Leon" on XM Satellite Radio Channel 169; producer/host of the television program "Inside the Issues With Wilmer Leon," and a teaching associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, DC. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com .)