Bush vs. the Truth

If George Bush told me it was sunny and 70 degrees outside, I’d bring an umbrella and wear galoshes before going out. To put it charitably, Bush’s credibility has sunk further than a Russian submarine; it’s just not coming back. This is tragic for the United States. As Winston Churchill observed, “a democratic people can face any adversity, provided they believe their leaders are leveling with them and not living in a fool’s paradise.”

Bush has failed Churchill’s test on both counts. The administration still claims, of course, that it was duped by the same bad intelligence everyone else believed. This is disingenuous; Bush and his underlings confidently asserted there was no doubt whatsoever that Saddam possessed WMD, but the intelligence community was split on the issue.

Put simply, the Bush Administration had no basis for insisting that the case for Saddam’s alleged WMD was an open and shut case. At the very least, Bush did not exercise due diligence in vouching for cherry picked intelligence; at worst he was flat out deceitful.

Bush is so careless with the truth, however, that one has to wonder if he’s opted out of the “reality-based” community for his own Alice in Wonderland alternative universe (where up is down). For instance, at a town meeting forum, Bush claimed as one of the reasons for going to war the “fact” that Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq. This is false; it a matter of historical record that Bush recalled the inspectors, claiming they weren’t working. Subsequently, the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has gone on record saying that had the inspections process played out for just another two weeks the world community would have known with certainty that Saddam’s alleged WMD were non-existent.

The failure to allow the weapons inspectors to finish their job has cost countless lives. This is because U.S. forces refrained from destroying Saddam’s conventional ammo dumps for fear of setting off hidden WMD stashes, but this left stockpiles of munitions for insurgents to loot, weapons that have since been turned on American forces and Iraqi civilians. This is just one example of where the intersection of ineptness and untruth has led the Bush Administration to disaster.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons Jeb Bush Should Run for President in 2008.

10). Jeb used to clean up Dubya’s messes when they were kids, so he’ll know what to do about Iraq, the deficit, Walter Reed, FEMA, the Justice Department, New Orleans . . .

9). Jeb, like his dad, is kinder, gentler, taller, smarter, and more competent than W. An even partially successful Jeb Bush Administration is sure to add sibling rivalry to George Junior’s Oedipal Complex.

8). No need for Republicans to print up new bumper stickers, so long as they can entice Dick Cheney to stay in his secure location for another term (or two).

7). Lawyers, media, and voters in Palm Beach County have been looking forward to a rematch of Bush vs. Gore ever since 2000. Jeb will need more than the Supreme Court to best Gore after eight years of Dubya’s debacle.

6). A Bush has been on the national ticket in all but one election since 1980. It’s the next best thing to having a hereditary monarchy.

5). “A carpetbagger like Hillary vs. a Reb like Jeb. Sounds like the start of a civil war to me. Bring it on.” -- General Karl Rove

4). “Bush vs. Clinton seems like déjà vu all over again. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to relive it” – Yogi Berra (Hall of Fame Historian).

3). It’s seems only natural that Florida – the land of Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Katherine Harris, Anna, Nicole Smith, and Elian’s relatives – would give America its next president.

2). The prospect of another decade with a Bush as president may convince liberals to flock to Canada, thus solving our immigration problem. – Bill O’Reilly (Fairly Unbalanced Blowhard)

1). If you think Jeb Bush should run for president, then you sure have clicked on the wrong site.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons President Bush Should NOT be Impeached

10). Ousting Bush & Cheney would be very bad for late-night comedians and political humorists.

9). Bush has another two years and a stockpile of nuclear weapons to win the war in Iraq. Lets give him a chance.

8). Bush’s first two oil companies went belly up, and now his stint at the White House is a flop. I’m afraid if we fire him now it will damage his self-esteem.

7). Removing Bush will only embolden our enemies, especially the French and the Germans.

6). Keeping the president in office is probably the best chance we have of seeing Bush trying to land the Space Shuttle on an aircraft carrier after the administration catches Osama bin Laden.

5). Impeaching Bush now would only help boost his approval rating above 30%. Let’s leave him in there and see how low his popularity can go.

4). Hey, if we impeach Bush does that mean Cheney will become president? Personally, I’d like to keep the misfiring Veep as far away from our nuclear arsenal as possible.

3). So the president started an illegal war based on false premises that has needlessly killed and maimed tens of thousands while destroying America’s image across the world. It’s not as if he had sex with an intern in the Oval Office.

2). Media sauturation of impeachment trial is sure to interfere with my favorite TV programs.

1). Impeaching Bush would be a tacit admission that Al Gore was right all along (Oops, this is no joke).

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Should Get to Keep His Job.

10). Gonzales keeps all of the administration’s “get out of jail” cards in his wallet.

9). “Those mean and nasty democrats just got Libby, and now they’re picking on another short guy. Why don’t they pick on someone their own size?” – Osama bin Laden (World’s tallest evildoer).

8). As long as Gonzales is Attorney General it would be a blatant conflict of interest for him to prosecute himself for lying under oath before Congress, condoning illegal wiretaps, or crafting torture guidelines that violate the Geneva Conventions.

7). “A truly independent Attorney General that didn’t owe his entire career to George W. Bush, now that’s a scary thought.” –Anonymous high official

6). If Bush fired Gonzales he’d break his pledge to “look out for the little guy.”

5). “First Rummy, then Libby, and now Stubby. This is beginning to look like that Agatha Christie novel, The Ten Little Indians, where someone gets bumped off one by one until there’s nobody left.” -- Anonymous high official hunkered down in a secure location

4). According to torture guidelines drawn up by top democrats, it may be more tormenting to let Gonzales twist in the wind with the rest of the administration for another 21 months.

3). “I’m not in favor of dismissing our Attorney General, but if George does have to let Alberto go I hope we can find a place for him with the Rose Garden landscaping crew.” First Lady Laura Bush

2). Very few experts in the administration are left who could draft new torture memos in case Osama is caught.

1). Hard to find someone of Gonzales’ stature to fill the job.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons Ann Coulter is America’s Sweetheart

With Bush & Cheney's popularity waning Ann Coulter has become the new poster child for compassionate conservatism. Here are the top-ten reasons she's become America's Sweetheart.

10). "There’s something about a female Archie Bunker that makes my head spin." -- Bill O'Reilly (Conservative crumudgeon and host of the No-Spin Zone).

9). "A woman who can talk tax cuts, firearms, and NASCAR sure puts me in the mood." -- Sean Hannity

8). Doesn’t every guy in America secretly desire a towering, tart-tongued, condescending termagant who earns 50 times what he does?

7). Coulter’s cameo as Captain Jack Sparrow’s psychopathic aunt in the upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean: Revenge of the Shrew will make her as popular among today’s school children as Miss Gulch (the Wicked Witch of the East) from The Wizard of Oz was during the depression.

6). With Coulter’s killer body, personal charm, and innate diplomatic skills I’m surprised the Bush Administration hasn’t appointed her ambassador to North Korea. I’m sure Kim Jung Ill would give up his nukes to go one-on-one with Ann.

5). Ann’s innate warmth, self-effacing modesty, and abundant empathy are qualities any prospective mother-in law would appreciate.

4). "It's about time somebody had the gumption to stand up to all those victims of Hurricane Katrina that had the temerity to make Bush look bad." -- Katherine Harris

3). Scientists discover that Ann’s frigid personality single-handedly offsets the effects of global warming.

2). With Brittany Spears in rehab, Coulter remains the only bona fide female conservative intellectual we have in the U.S.

1). “Hey, give Ann a break. She’s no longer the same gal who pulled the wings off butterflies, blew up frogs with firecrackers, and tried to set the homeless on fire.” -- Childhood friend.

Sphere: Related Content

Cheney vs. History

“History is a nightmare from which I am trying to wake,” wrote James Joyce. The Bush Administration’s arch-pessimist, Dick Cheney, would seem to share Joyce’s dour assessment of the human condition. So it is more that a little ironic that the vice-president, a card-carrying Hobbesian if ever there was one, reportedly still believes History with a capitol “H” will vindicate the administration’s decision to invade Iraq. In other words, the gloom-monger-in-chief is counting on a happy ending in Iraq (a land with a 1,500 year history of unremitting Hobbesian strife).

I can understand that a guy who’s endured four heart attacks, a blood clot, the felony conviction of his top aide, and twenty percent approval rating has got to think positive sometime. Did I leave out the incident where the VP shot his friend in the face, the Taliban assassination attempt, and the strain of having to explain to your conservative base that your gay daughter is going to have a baby with another woman? Personally, I’d rather face Taliban assassins than explain to Focus on the Family’s James Dobson why he should read Heather Has Two Mommies.

The Veep maintains that it may be five decades before he’s vindicated. Sure, and my decision invest in lottery tickets to secure my retirement may end up being vindicated too. In the meantime, however, it’s difficult to see how the civil conflagration in Iraq, the decimation of the American military, and the fact that we’ve managed to turn Iraq into a jihadist training ground (dominated by axis-of-evil member Iran) actually furthers American interests.

Actually, the lessons of history – which us liberals supposedly didn’t learn from 9/11 – are completely lost on this administration. First of all, as anthropologist Jared Diamond notes in his book Collapse, pivotal military defeats signaling imperial decline invariably mask ecological catastrophes that are the true cause of collapse. For instance, Mayan leaders resorted to military raids against neighbors in order to maintain their lavish lifestyles and distract the masses from the ecological devastation and economic deprivations that inevitably attended slash and burn agricultural practices at home.

The U.S. faces a similar predicament as reliance on fossil fuels contributes to ecological and political backlashes (global warming and terrorism respectively). The bid to secure American hegemony over Iraq’s oil reserves was intended to address a potentially crippling vulnerability: anti-American forces in the Middle East in control of the region’s oil wealth. American efforts to alleviate this concern have increased this possibility rather than lessened it.

In the meantime, as Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, America’s aging infrastructure and under funded response systems are less resilient than anyone imagined. As historian Arnold Toynbee pointed out, societies go through life cycles: youthful vigor, middle-aged resilience, and aged senescence. Vigorous and resilient societies meet challenges and weather storms effectively, while senescent societies do not direct their energies and marshal resources appropriately.

When historians look back on America’s invasion of Iraq they are likely to ponder the billions (if not trillions) gambled away in a vain attempt to rebuild Iraq while America’s dilapidated power grids, highway system, and public health system crumbled. Whether global warming is manmade or not, or whether we can do anything about it or not, we have entered a period of global climate change that is unleashing more intense and more unpredictable weather patterns. Further, the forces of globalization are all but certain to make natural disasters, pandemics and acts of terrorism more likely. In other words, America’s resilience is likely to be tested on many fronts.

The administration’s panacea for terrorism was predicated on the notion that transforming Iraq would take the air out of the jihadist movement. Instead, just the opposite has occurred. Tellingly, most terror plots (including 9/11) have been hatched in Europe, illustrating how much the Bush/Cheney bet misses the mark. Terrorism is not the only challenge America faces; natural disasters and pandemics are all but inevitable. The prudent course to address all three – terrorism, natural disasters, and pandemics – would have been to invest in America’s infrastructure, health system, and first responders in order to bolster the nation’s resilience. A lesson Toynbee gleaned from his careful study of history is that those empires that try and change the world rather than themselves usually fail.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush vs. Justice (in the trial of Scooter Libby)

The Bush Administration is to politics what Enron was to business – an enterprise predicated on bending the rules until the system breaks. The Bush Administration’s stock, of course, has taken another hit with the felony conviction of Lewis “Scooter” Libby (an aide so close to the vice-president he was known as “Cheney’s Cheney”). But the real crime here wasn’t Libby’s lies, but the offenses his lies were meant to cover up.

“There is a cloud over the vice-president” Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald rightly surmised before the verdict was rendered. But Cheney was not in the dock because leaking classified information, smearing critics, and misleading the public about the war are not criminal offenses if the vice-president or president does it. Lying before Congress may be impeachable, but deceiving the public is not. Fitzgerald, given his narrow mandate, never discovered that a crime was committed when covert agent Valerie Plame’s name was leaked to the media. The administration was clearly either irresponsible or vindictive in the way it casually disclosed classified information, but the law has little to say about negligence or the politics of personal destruction.

It is clear, however, that the administration was not being truthful with the public on this matter or on the war. President Bush promised the American people that anyone from his administration involved in leaking the classified information in question would be fired. If Bush were a man of his word, then Karl Rove would have cleaned out his desk after testimony proved the president’s chief political advisor was one source of the leak.

Critics of Libby’s guilty verdict claim that the administration had every right to discredit their critics, especially Joe Wilson. Prosecuting Libby, they assert, amounts to criminalizing politics. This defense hardly holds water. If no crime had been committed, then Libby’s only motive to lie – and it is now obvious that he did lie – was to protect Bush and Cheney from political damage before the 2004 election. Of course, it’s possible that Libby’s deceptions were meant to cover up activities Bush and Cheney would want to keep hidden from a special prosecutor, actions that have still not come to light.

The prosecution charged that Libby’s lies amounted to “throwing sand in a referees eyes.” This has been the Bush Administration modus operandi since Bush vs. Gore. It’s ironic that lying under oath in the absence of an underling crime can get you in jail, but deceiving the public about matter as grave as going to war isn’t even prosecutable. The jurors intuited this, asking, “Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?” One of the other guys in question is preparing a pardon for Libby. If the script plays out Libby will stretch out his appeal as long as possible and Bush will pardon him the day he leaves office. It’s all as legal as Bush vs. Gore, but the entire farce will be devoid of justice.

The Bush Administration knows how to bend the rules, and they know how to take the refs out of the game. But they’re oblivious as to why the rules matter in the first place. When Enron bent the rules to the breaking point it cost investors their retirement savings. The Bush administration has done much of the same thing, but the costs will be far higher. Unlike Ken Lay, however, Bush has a “get out of jail free” card. In pardoning Libby he really be pardoning Dick Cheney and himself.

Sphere: Related Content

The Libby Verdict

“Justice is nothing more than what is in the interests of the stronger” said Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic. Certainly, the powerful never have to face Justice, though on occasion they may have to toss and underling overboard to keep the ship of state afloat. This probably explains why Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former aide to Vice-president Cheney, became the legal equivalent of shark bait (the chump cast aside to satiate the jaws of the “justice” system). In other words, Scooter ends up getting shredded so that the pirate captain and his first mate can sail away.

Make no mistake the jury in the Libby case believed the defendant was a sacrificial lamb. Libby’s attorneys argued as much, implying that their client was the fall guy in a larger plot involving Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and President Bush. Mind you, if the president or vice-president leaks classified information, even to punish critics, it’s not a crime (since they have the authority to declassify material on a whim). It is a political problem, however, when the president insists he wants to get to the bottom of a leak investigation, but is simultaneously declassifying material that will be used in a campaign to smear his critics.

What did the president know, and when did he know it? We the public will probably never know. But here are some unflattering facts: First, the maligned Joe Wilson was right, the administration was hyping the case for war (and ignoring evidence that contradicted its preconceptions). Second, the administration was playing hardball to squelch, discredit, and intimidate its critics. And third, the administration was hyper anxious about any information that might derail its case for war with the public.

All of this, of course, belies the administration’s continued insistence that it relied on bad intelligence in good faith. From the beginning war in Iraq was spun from a web of lies, but its architects are still spinning deceits in the hopes they can ensnare others in a maze of deceptions rather than face the consequences. Libby, now a convicted felon, and facing jail time, may be more inclined to shed light upon the inner workings of the Bush Administration. For such circumstances president Bush has the ultimate “get out of jail free” card, the presidential pardon. In pardoning Libby he’d be pardoning himself and Dick Cheney. As Thrasymachus discerned, “Justice is nothing more than what is in the interests of the stronger.”

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons I Still Support President Bush

10). “Pretty tough to remove the free Bush/Cheney bumper stickers I used to wallpaper every room in my house.” -- Ann Coulter

9). “Global Warming is really improving the potency of the medical marijuana crop I’m growing out back.” – Grandmother from California

8). “Bush and Cheney couldn’t track a camel caravan traveling downwind.” – Osama bin Laden

7). "I think he’s doing a heck of a job.” – Beelzebub

6). “His steadfast leadership really inspires troop morale.” -- Ali Baba (Recruitment Officer Al-Qaeda 2.0).

5). “I support him because he’s the president, even if he’s wrong.” – noted political observer Brittany Spears

4). “Message: I’m Proud. Beat Ozone Man. Swift boated Kerry. Vanquished Saddam. Read my lips: No more Axis-of-Evil. Spreading democracy, freedom, a thousand points of lights, and all that stuff throughout the Arab World. Now that’s what I call the vision thing. Kind of puts a lump in the throat don’t it? Makes you want to well up. But don’t cry for me Argentina.” -- Former President George H.W. Bush.

3). “I always knew I’d be vindicated someday.” – Andrew Johnson (recently slipped to the second spot in the worst presidents in U.S. history list).

2). “Woof. Woof. I just love the Bushes.” -- Barney (the president’s dog).

1). Sorry, but this joke slot remains empty at the present time because out of 350 million surveyed we could only find nine who still support President Bush.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons to Draft Dick Cheney to Head the Republican Ticket in 2008.

10). It might be nice to have another “Tricky Dick” to kick around again.

9). Dick Cheney is the only leader with enough clout and experience to champion legislation the country desperately needs: A law allowing open season on trial lawyers.

8). Dick’s the guy we need to tell the rest of the world to f@@k off.

7). “The country is on the right track, things are going fantastic in Iraq, and it only took 13 months for FEMA to deliver my new trailer after Katrina blew my old trailer away.” – Ricky Bobby jr. (former NASCAR runner up).

6). “Dick's 4 U.S” will make great bumper sticker. -- Phylis Schaffley (Daughters of the American Revolution).

5). President Cheney will make sure we find Saddam’s missing WMD, even if we have to invade and occupy Iran, Syria, and France to find them.

4). “My shares in Halliburton are sure to quadruple.” – Jeffrey Skilling (former financial wizard at Enron).

3). Eight years of seasoning under the guidance and tutoring of George W. Bush have finally made Cheney ready for the big time.

2). The country needs a straight shooter like Dick to blast a hole in the Bush deficit.

1). Dick Cheney has already dodged the draft enough times already; let’s make sure he answers the call this time.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush vs. the Environment

George Bush is to statesmanship what Britney Spears is to Western music. To be fair, Bush hasn’t shaved his head, checked in to rehab, and been sited in public without undergarments. Nevertheless, it would be hard to think of a more empty-headed and obtuse president than the one we have now.

The story of how George W. Bush managed to make it to the Oval Office, of course, has turned from farce to tragedy. A majority of Americans voted for Al Gore, but legal jujitsu was the deciding factor, not the voters. It would not be the first time Alice in Wonderland reasoning would be employed to hoodwink the public.

Gore, of course, has proven prescient in his critique of the Bush Administration. He argued against the invasion on the grounds that post-war Iraq would be rife with sectarian rivalries that would unleash dangers far greater than the threats posed by Saddam. And Gore was also one of the only major political figures to steadfastly critique the administration’s dubious legal argument regarding warrantless wiretaps and coercive interrogation methods.

Gore, as it happens, has also been decades ahead of America’s politicians when it comes to the perils of global warming. Fifteen years ago, Gore was ridiculed as “Ozone Man” by Bush’s father; today denying global warming puts you in the same company as the flat-earth crowd, those waiting for the Rapture, and those who believe (like Dick Cheney) that we’re making fantastic progress in Iraq.

With Iraq unraveling Bush has taken the line that it will be thirty years or more before his decision is vindicated. It is no small irony, however, that Gore’s visionary stance on global warming, staked out some three decades ago, is being vindicated in the present. Bush has scolded war critics; blithely asserting that hindsight is not wisdom. But lack of foresight is not wisdom either, and apologist for the Bush Administration should be at pains to explain how it is that Bush’s record as a prognosticator is even less reliable than the predictions of Saddam’s former Information Minister, Baghdad Bob.

So, Gore wins the popular vote, an Academy Award, and maybe even a Nobel Prize. Bush loses the popular vote, mismanages two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), and seems destined to displace Andrew Johnson as America’s worst president. Why in the world would America send Al Gore to Hollywood while sending George Bush to Washington? The answer to that question rests with the oracles on the Supreme Court.

There’s a cosmic irony in all this: Gore goes to tinsel town and creates a genuinely edifying motion picture, while Bush goes to Washington and hypnotizes the public with chimeras and sleight of hand (non-existent WMD and spurious connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam). They say we get the public figures we deserve. Speaking for the majority that voted for Gore in 2000, I don’t think that’s always true. But it doesn’t say a lot about us that buffoons like Bush and Brittany Spears are the one’s making the news these days.

Sphere: Related Content

George Bush vs. George Washington

If you are a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur, then very few vocations are likely to provide the psychic rewards your voracious ego requires. Short of commanding your own Starfleet, or founding your own worldwide criminal syndicate (like Dr. Evil), President of the United States is probably the professional slot most conducive to inflating one’s sense of self-worth. After all, as the Decider-in-Chief you get to have the biggest jumbo jet on the planet, your own nuclear blast-proof bunker, and an eager cadre of sycophants and enablers dedicated to making you look good and helping you avoid reality as long as possible. If I wasn’t so busy blogging I might try running for the nation’s highest office myself.

George W. Bush, of course, seems to bask in the perks and paraphernalia of the presidency. His dirt bike is adorned with a presidential seal. And it’s not hard to imagine that he’s got his infamous flight suit stashed away in the same Oval Office closet Bill and Monica made out in. It’s not enough for W. to be a mere president, however. From time to time, Bush feels the need to compare himself to Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Honest Abe, and George Washington. Yes, the man who cannot tell the truth (about Iraq, global warming, or anything else) dares to compare himself with the man who could not tell a lie.

So, on President’s Day, Bush was visiting Mount Vernon to pay homage to himself by associating himself with the Founder himself. As Bush put it, Washington lost more battles than he won, but that didn’t stop him from winning the Revolutionary war. The implication, in case you didn’t notice, is that the mistakes, misjudgments, and failures in Iraq aren’t really mistakes, misjudgments, and failures; they’re just the historical flotsam and jetsam meant to test Bush’s implacable will.

Bush’s superficial reading of history, of course, glosses over numerous pertinent differences that put #1 and #43 at opposite poles on any number of measures. First, Washington made it a point of honor to treat enemy combatants humanely and according the strictly established codes of military justice. Second, Washington recognized that the Colonist didn’t need to win conventional military battles to defeat an imperial army fighting in hostile territory thousands of miles away from home. And third, Washington would have abhorred the idea of waging war in foreign lands to spread liberty, not to mention Bush’s constant attempts to play up the commander-in-chief card. In Washington’s view, standing armies, martial rhetoric, and militarizing public life were the gravest threats a republic could face. If Bush wants to compare himself to an 18th century political figure perhaps he should consider “Mad King George,” the monarch that represented everything our first president detested.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush vs. Reality

George Bush has about as much affinity for irony as NASCAR race fans have for French literature. So it’s hardly surprising our decider-in-chief, in his most recent press conference, would pose the following rhetorical question with a straight face: “What’s worse: that the [Iranian] government knew [Iranian weapons were being deployed to Iraq] -- or that the government didn’t know?”

What’s worse: that the Bush Administration knew it was hyping the case for war against Iraq – or that the Bush Administration didn’t know [Saddam’s WMD and connections to al-Qaeda were chimeras].

The Bush Administration, of course, would have everyone believe that examining its misuse of prewar intelligence could only be an exercise in a partisan game of gotcha aimed at re-writing history. After all, the democrats believed the same intelligence and voted for the war too. Hogwash. The so-called War Resolution gave Bush the authority to use force against Iraq as a last resort. Saying legislators voted for the war is a deceptive simplification that ignores the fact that many legislators believed they were voting for a resolution that would pressure Saddam to comply with intrusive weapons inspections or face a possible war. Congress, however, did end up giving Bush what amounted to a blank check.

Ironically, Saddam agreed to the U.N. weapons inspections, but days before the invasion Bush unilaterally declared they were’nt working and ordered the inspectors out of the country. Hans Blix has since gone on record to say that had inspection continued for just two weeks more the world would have known what it knows now – that Saddam was a toothless tiger without any WMD.

Yet, in defending the war Bush continues to cite Saddam’s decision to kick the weapons inspectors out, as one of the reasons war was necessary! Bush is clearly re-writing history. But is he even aware the “facts” he cites with certitude are fictional?

They say, “Truth is the first casualty in war.” But Bush’s inability to speak the truth has created innumerable casualties. As U.S. troops raced to Baghdad they bypassed countless ammo dumps, but failed to destroy them for fear of setting off possible hidden WMD caches. Today, much of bypassed conventional munitions are being used against American forces. Thus, Bush’s failure to allow the weapons inspectors to complete their mission ranks amounts to either gross incompetence or a complete dereliction of duty. Is Bush aware of this when he tries to shift the blame for the war onto others, or his he keeping the truth from himself? And which is worse?

Sphere: Related Content

To Surge or Not to Surge

Imagine a drunken neighbor borrows your car, runs over your dog, totals your vehicle, and then threatens to sue you for giving them the keys in the first place. That scenario is not unlike the predicament the United States is in regarding the Bush Administration and Iraq. After all, the Bush Administration has wrecked the U.S. military in a self-defeating and futile mission, demolished America’s reputation with scandals like Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, and then slammed critics of the invasion for not having a solution to the catastrophe the administration itself has created.

As if to heap insult upon injury the Bush Administration is now asking the public to give them the keys for another spin around the block in Iraq. The so-called Surge is certain to be no joyride, but it could well end up leading to an “accidental war” with Iran. As usual, there’s less military logic than political logic behind Bush’s latest gambit. An additional 21,000 troops is insufficient to pacify the insurgency, but it may help postpone an all-out civil war until after Bush leaves office. Insisting on surging troops into Baghdad also enables the Bush Administration to portray democrats and war critics as defeatists a little bit longer. And it could help pave the way for what many believe the Bush Administration really wants; a showdown with Iran. After all, upping the ante when you’ve got a bad hand and nothing left to lose fits with the Bush Administration’s modus operandi.

Recently, al-Qaeda tapes have taunted Bush, claiming he is an “addictive” personality. Unfortunately there’s more than a grain of truth to this. Invading Iraq was not a calculated risk -- it was a gamble. And the pay off, thus far, for that risky wager has been: to empower card-carrying axis-of-evil member Iran, feed the forces of radicalism in the Islamic world, and polarize the United States to the point of paralysis. But none of this will stop Bush from doubling down or trying to cure his hangover by getting behind the wheel again. It’s up to others (the public and legislators) to keep Bush from instigating another crackup.

Sphere: Related Content

The Iraq War has lost its luster and George W. Bush’s image as commander-in-chief has been tarnished. Recognizing this the White House has sought to burnish Bush’s bona fides as a born-again intellectual. To this end, eager aides, and even the president himself, have been going to great pains to advertise his reading list. An inventory of Mr. Bush’s recent intellectual adventures includes a little French philosophy (Camus’ The Stranger), and an English comic-tragedian by the name of William Shakespeare. It may be a tad late, but it seems the tough-talking Texan is brushing up on the Bard.

Why would a straight shooter like Mr. Bush bother with the master of nuance? At first I believed Bush would turn to Shakespeare’s lighter fare, comedies like: Much Ado About Nothing (a good title to explicate the fuss over Saddam’s non-existent WMD), The Taming of the Shrew (a guide to handling the new majority leader, Nancy Pelosi), and Falstaff (an excellent guide to understanding one’s predecessor, Bill Clinton).

I tried contacting the White House to ascertain which of Shakespeare’s plays the president had on his reading list, but officials cited executive privilege. As one aide told me in complete confidentiality (so don’t go blabbering this around), revealing any specific titles could help “al-Qaeda types, academic eggheads, and political satirists.” Lest I were to find myself designated an enemy combatant I decided to drop my inquiry forthwith and simply speculate as a private citizen which of the Bard’s tales the POTUS might or might not benefit from.

Julius Caesar, filled as it with political intrigue, might seem an obvious choice for a humble executive looking for pointers on how to get along with fellow lawmakers. However, it contains the famous lines – “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves” – a sentiment that Bush is unlikely to lend his ears to. But If Bush were to spout lines like Marc Antony's, "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war," he might get his approval rating back up over 32%

King Lear, on the other hand, illustrates a lesson Bush would likely be receptive to – namely, the folly of breaking his kingdom into three parts. If ever Bush needs a literary excuse for opposing Senator Joseph Biden’s plan to partition Iraq into a Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite realms he need look no further. Of course, Lear is a story about a leader who loses his kingdom (and his mind) because he ignores the advice of a fool.

Richard III might be more to Bush’s liking. It contains a rather Machiavellian character that, at least in public, appears as harmless as an inhabitant of Mayberry. If nothing else there's that line Richard utters that every commander-in-chief should memorize: "My kingdom for more Iraqi translators," (or something like that).

Henry V. Now, here’s a sure fire storyline Bush is bound love. A rather callow hereditary heir morphs into a formidable wartime leader who leads his countrymen, against stiff odds, in a victorious campaign against the ever-perfidious French. For anyone who wants to see a statesman lead by example, the French eat crow, and happy ending this is the play to see. Too bad life rarely imitates art.

Othello is the play to see if one has to contend with a pernicious and duplicitous underling who plays on the vanity of his boss, offers bad advice, and spends most of his time hatching schemes in the shadows to extend his power. Thankfully, there’s little subterfuge or lack of sunshine surrounding Bush’s right-hand man, the honorable Dick Cheney. The vice-president, as they say, “is as honest as the day is long.”

Hamlet, of course, is not the kind of character Bush would want to emulate. He’s an Oedipal nut case: a man driven mad by the ghost of his father and an unusually attentive mother. Sure the elder Bush’s military accomplishments may hang over Junior’s head like the sword of Damocles, but it pretty hard to imagine Barbara Bush as much of a son seducer. In this case at least, let’s hope that any Oedipal wreckage wrought from the bosom of the Bush Dynasty springs solely from the younger Bush’s desire to excise the demons pertaining to his father. After all, it’s one thing to mishandle a military adventure. But a president with a mother complex might tempt Mother Nature one too many times. We don’t need another Katrina on Bush’s watch.

Macbeth is another title that Bush’s is likely to have little use for. It concerns a usurper undone by paroxysms of guilt over the foul deed he committed to gain power. After all, Bush has nothing to feel guilty about; he became president fair and square as certified by Katherine Harris and ratified by the Supreme Court. The majority that voted for Al Gore “Doth protest too much.”

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is another title that’s not likely to tickle Bush’s fancy. For one thing, it’s a sex comedy, which is taboo for the abstinence only crowd that make up Bush’s base. Second, the main protagonist is transformed from a man into a jackass. This is a feat that may worry some in the administration more than one thinks. After all, history has a way of transfiguring world leaders into figures with feet of clay. Just consider, for instance, what historians now say about the British leadership during the trench warfare of WWI: “The soldiers fought like lions, but they were led by donkeys.”

I’m delighted to hear Bush is seeking to broaden his intellectual and literary interests. Bush – who once boasted that, “I don’t do nuance” – doesn’t appear to have an ironic bone in his body. Reading Shakespeare, if nothing else, should inculcate in the president a greater sense that morality is not black and white, history is suffused with irony, and it’s possible to be both a tragic and a comic figure at the same time. Of course, there’s still time for Bush to prove the Bard is wrong, assuming that the storyline to Iraq turns out to be “All’s well that ends well.”

Sphere: Related Content