Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote an interesting article in the Washington Post on cronyism with Coalition Provisional Authority(CPA). The CPA ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, the critical period immediately following the "cessation of hostilities". adapted from "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, copyright Knopf 2006.
This is just the lastest in a growing number of reports on cronyism, fraud and waste by the Bush administration. Mike Brown of FEMA fame and Halliburton are couple other examples. President Bush has been consistently willing to do business with companies that violate federal laws and regulations.
The performance of the CPA was a dismal failure. The lives of ordianary Iraqis were impacted negatively, the operations were rife with croynyisn, fraud and waste and, most importantly, it cost additional deaths and injuries to American soldiers. At a critical time for "winning the peace" the CPA alienated Iraqi citizens.
Iraq is slowly moving into a civil war. That will only escalate as time goes on. The U.S. can not send many more troops to Iraq. The military is being stretched thin - not just with personnel but with the little discussed problem of equipment.
The Taliban is strengthening in Afghanistan and becoming bolder. The record production of opium assures continued financing for the Taliban. The U.S. is loosing the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan people.
Our borders and ports remain wide open. A measure to protect for port security has been recently passed - sponsored by a Democratic Senator. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent for cameras on the Mexican border. Only a small percentage of them are installed - and many of those do not work. The administration was prepared to enter into a contract with Dubai Ports for operations and security of our ports. When congress threatened to halt the deal, President Bush threatened to veto any congressional action to halt the transfer to Dubai Ports. At BEST, it was a PR fiasco. At worst, incompetence and arrogance beyong comprehension. BTW, Dubai Ports still has not divested itself of U.S. operations as it agreed to do.
President Bush now says that pursuit of bin Laden is not the best use of our resources. The promises immediately following 9-11 to "get those responsible" are now forgotten - as have been so many others.
President Bush and his administration are unable to enter into any insiteful, thoughtful discussion when questioned on issues. They discount any dissenting viewpoints, parroting stale innuendo and name calling. Colin Powell wrote a letter to the Senate leadership regarding the Bush Administration's attempts to pass legislation to to circumvent Article III of the Geneva Convention. Mr. Bush's response was to disavow the logic of Colin Powell's statements and to find it unacceptable. Colin Powell was the one member of the President's advisors who had credibility nationaly and internationaly. Tony Snow, the Presidents press sectretary, called Colin Powell "confused" on the issue. I somehow doubt that Colin Powell is the one "confused" on this issue.
Many other organizations are on record as opposing President Bush's attempts to circumvent Article III. These include IAVA, the oldest and largest organization of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans; 29 retired admirals and generals, military leaders and department of defense officials.
The Bush administration has consistently tried to deceive the American people and the world about intelligence data. During the run up to the Iraq war, President Bush told the country and the world there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This is when I began to have serious doubts about the President's credibility. Anyone who had even the least knowledge of the area and its culture would know that was patently false.
The CIA found there was no connection in 2002. Reportedly, the report was not passed to the President. Evidently, the President and all of his advisors did not ask - incredible as it sounds. Condaleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld did not know and did not ask. Donald Rumsfeld met with Suddam Hussein more than once back when we were supplying Saddam with poison gas and other weapons to fight Iran. No one in the Senate or House asked the CIA about the connection before voting for the war?
The attempts at deceit continue with the latest being the state of Iran's uranium enrichment program. When the U.S. should have been finishing the job in Afghanistan, dealing with Iran and North Korea, we were going to war in Iraq.
The Bush Administration has not limited its deceit to intelligence data. The FCC ordered its staff to destroy an important FCC report on the negative impact to local news of concentrating media ownership. The 2004 report surfaced during a Senate confirmation hearing for FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. Senator Boxer of California has received a copy of the report.
President Bush has refused to engage on critical issues. He has refused to engage with the Israel and the Palestinians, with Iran, with North Korea. His approach has been my way or the highway. The actions and arrogance of this administration have cost us dearly. The U.S. has lost much of the international good will other countries had for us, especially the moderate and secular Muslims who could be a major force in combating radical Islam.
A quick summary of the performance for President Bush's administration -
Fiscal discipline - Failure
Economy - Success if you are in the upper 10%, Failure for the rest
Shrinking government - Failure
Securing our borders - Failbure
International relations - Failure
Winning the "War on Terror" - Poor, will probably become a failure.
Education - Failure
Environment - Failure
Human Rights - Failure
Compassionate Conservatism - Failure
Energy - Failure, unless you are a major oil company or a stockholder in one.
Improving the election process - Failure
An increasing number of conservatives realize the Bush Administration is an abysmal failure. Conservatives such as Joe Scarborough, Christopher Buckley, Richard A. Viquerie and Thomas Eddlem.
The Republican party, under the leadership of President Bush and fallen precipitously from its zenith in 1994 when is was engaged and energized, in touch with majority of Americans.
President Bush came into office with 2 goals - to remake American into his image of what it should be and to remake the Middle East into his image of what it should be. He has failed miserably at both and, in doing so, has left a legacy of cronyism, fraud, waste, arrogance and failure.
Whether you are conservative, liberal, progressive or libertarian, it is time to recognize the failures of this administration. If you analyze and evaluate the performance to date, the Bush administration can only be called a failure. Historically, it may be viewed as badly as the administration of President Grant.
A change in control of the House and Senate is a logical step to control this administraton. It worked pretty good during the Clinton administration. Neither side was able to move too far from center with the Republicans controlling Congress and the Democrats controlling the White House. We could then turn to the next Presidential election and evaluate the candidates with a cooler head.
I do disagree with Colin Powell on one point - we are not in danger of loosing the moral high ground. We have lost it. It's time to start regaining it.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
Let's look at that same litmus test you just ran on the President and those democrats in power.
When Liberals Had Power/Control
Fiscal Discipline: Failure
Economy: Horrible Failure
Shrinking Government: Horrible Failure
Securing our Boarders: Completely absent from discussion
International Relations: Poor to failure (unless you were a terrorist)
Winning the war on Terror: Horrible Failure (A handful of tomahawks was absolutely worthless)
Education: Horrible Failure
Human Rights: Failure
Compassionate Liberalism: Failure (all who disagree with them are called either idiots or racists.)
Energy: Horrible failure (unless you are an Arab country)
This is what Progressive leadership in Washington brought us when they had power.
I love partisan politics... Don't you?
--Charles Marcello
I'm not partisan. I actually voted for Bush - twice. And during the Clinton administration, I was equally critical of him. I haven't claimed any success in this for the Liberals.
Being analytical and critical isn't partisan or unpatriotic. It is very necessary and very American.
I welcome thoughtful, insightful discussion on any of the points. Rants and flames contribute nothing to greater undertanding of the issues.
If as you claim you are being analytical, doesn't that demand you mention all sides of this debate?
Seeing how I saw none of that, I would say your opening statement falls within the same parameters you just offered for mine. "Rants and flames contribute nothing to greater understanding of these issues".
Which was the underlining point of my response!
--Charles Marcello
I've presented an analysis and a position on this administration, including links throughout the story. The debate will occur when you, or someone else, chooses to refute the points made and the evidence or background provided.
I'm well aware of problems with the previous administration - and several before that.
What I've taken a position on, and am interesting in debating, is the success or failure of this administration.
If you would like to debate the success or failure of the previous administration, I'd be happy to. It wouldn't be much of a debate, though, as I felt pretty strongly it was a horrible failure, though my reasons may be different than yours.
Regards,
Father Wolf
Instead of debating the same issues here, that I have been defending throughout this website, and others... Allow me to try a different tactic.
Please inform me a way to solve all the worlds' problems while at the same time making everyone happy. Can you do it?
Let's start with the last part of your opening statement.
"I do disagree with Colin Powell on one point - we are not in danger of loosing the moral high ground. We have lost it. It's time to start regaining it."
Please explain to me, how do we (Americans) go about regaining the moral high ground that we have lost? (Your answer must offend none and work flawlessly.)
Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy... Lead us to the path of victory father I beseech you!
--Charles Marcello
I am not critisizing the administration for failing to make everyone happy or solve all the worlds problems. That is not the point of my post.
As far as regaining the moral high ground, nothing ever works flawlessly or offends no one, but some actions that would allow us to gain the moral high ground are -
1. By being honorable, open and honest. I refer you to the point I made about the statements tying Al Qaeda to Saddam in the run up to the Iraq war.
Also, the attempt to shape the information about Iran's nuclear program.
Finally, the FCC ordering the destruction of an internal report regarding the impact of media ownership on local media.
These are just a few of many examples that are known. It leaves one to question how many others are not yet known.
Actions such as this not undermine credibilty in the U.S., but internationally as well.
2. Engagement with those who have different views. Immediately following 9-11, the largest international demonstration in support of the U.S. and against Al Qaeda took place in the streets of Tehran. It was a wonderful opportunity to begin talking. Eventually, all problems that get solved do through discussion.
3. Consistency. Communist China ignores all trade agreements, follows policies that harm U.S. business, runs a huge trade deficit with us but we coddle them and roll over for them. The small country of Cuba on 90 miles off our shores has a trade surplus with us and we won't even speak with them.
That's a few points to start with. I have to go run some errands but will finish this evening.
by contrast, the Clinton years were marked by economic success and comparative peace and security
but, you got to hand it to the Clinton hating right wingers for their consistency in criticizing him despite the success of his years!
No matter what the problem, the simple minded right says, It's as simple as ABC =
ALWAYS
BLAME
CLINTON!
I would probably turn around what you said. The apathy of the our citizenry is responsible for the government we have.
I didn't say "voting". Voting is just the culmination of one process and the start of another.
We as citizens must do more than vote. We must take an active role in selecting the candidates before the vote. Then after the vote we must continue to take an active role by contacting our Senators and Congressman on issues and legislation.
I do not believe it's quite as cut and dry as you state it. I don't believe that prosperity you talk about with Clinton would have been possible if Reagan had not brought down the iron curtain and ended the cold war.
Then President Bush 1 took the blame for the inevitable economic shifts that occured from adjusting our economy as a result of the cold war ending.
Another important aspect was Congress being controled by the other side of the isle - so they had some checks and balances going on. The two sides had to work together to get things done. That resulted in compromises which kept either side from getting everything they want - and probably gave us the best possible solutions to many problems.
The problem when you automatically label everything conservative as bad and Charles automatically labels someone who critisizes the current administration as partisan is that communication ceases. Thier is no attempt to understand the other positions and stagnation results.
I would much rather have insightful discussion with someone who holds views different than mine than someone who agrees with me. I already know what my position is and why. I don't pointless discussion to reinforce my views. I'd much rather read or discuss for understanding than to reinforce my own views.
You can see the results of that right here and on other similar web sites - everyone forms their own little groups and all communication is just to reinforce their view points.
I am not interesting in converting anyone to my position on any issue. I am interested in discussing that issue with people who have different positions on the issue. People who, hopefully, have something to contribute to gaining a better understanding of a particular issue.
Your reconciliatory remarks are commendable, but do not excuse myths.
"if Reagan had not brought down the iron curtain and ended the cold war."
This is an inexcusable overstatement of Mr. Reagan's role in this matter. It can only be supported by belief in the highly exaggerated propaganda fed to us to justify massive defence spending increases. Such expenditures were wasteful and pointless, as the Soviet Union had been in steady decline for decades, and was totally unprepared to attack anyone, as Mr. Carter, and Mr. Nixon before him where well aware.
Mr. Reagan's remarks were timely, and he had the "intelligence", to know that.
But it will be a part of his legacy. He saw the weakness and exploited it, not just through the economic pressure but through engagement.
As a result of that, the point I was making, was the Clinton Administration entered office with nearly a fully transitioned peace time economy - the first the U.S. had known in decades.
No, I'm not saying Reagan left us in good shape, at least not immediately. But I would like to see a cost/benefit analysis - I think the results might surprise us.
My point was that Clinton entered office with the first peace time economy the U.S. had seen in decades.
The transition from a war time economy to a peace time economy occured during the administration of Bush 1 - the base closings, the restructing of military contractors, etc. He paid the price of that as people voted their pocket books.
OK, I have to agree with the content of your last post, Bush 1 did the last fiscally responsible thing a Republican President has done for our country, which was recognize the seriousness of our economic situation and raise taxes to patch it. Reagen, for all his foreign policy success was a dismal failure fiscally, and left him in a lurch. Whoever wins the next presidency is going to face the same thing to the tenth power. Still Bush 1 didn't raise them enough to fix our problems, because he ran the risk of being run out on a rail by his own party, and to balance the budget, something Republicans had long wanted to do, and then hated Clinton for, they had to be raised again. You make some good points though. I have always believed in something I have noticed down through the years, no good comes to our country when both houses of congress and the presidency are held by the same party. Even one house has a negative effect. Johnson was an example. Just as conservatives will forever give Reagan high marks, liberals will always worship at the throne of Clinton. Neither was totally responsible for their success in their separate realms. I do know this though. Over the last three Republican Presidents, we have had high deficits and an unbalanced budget. Only two presidents presided over a budget surplus in recent times, and one attained it, the other squandered it. The one that squandered it also squandered our reputation and integrity in the world, and our moral compass, not to mention a few of our constitutional rights. Both Clinton and Bush failed us on terrorism. As far as polarization of the electorate, I'd ask which you think worked better with the opposition? Much got done under Clinton that pleased the conservatives. I can't think of one that pleased liberals under Bush 2. He has repeatedly offered the olive branch and given the whip. The great decider is truly the great divider. I honestly believe that is what the conservatives like about him the most "now those liberals are going to get theirs!". This is a sentiment not held in liberal ranks about conservatives UNTIL Bush 2. At least not among the ones I know. Maybe Ted Kennedy. Certainly not the whole country.
Thank you for the elucidation, well said.
I see this matter of "dividing" to be most crucial to understanding our current political quagmire. That it was intentionally done seems so obvious as to become historical "fact" quite shortly. I believe the goal in the case of the current Admin. was to render the legislative branch impotent, allowing the executive free reign.
In other words, we been taken.
You make some good points. Republican presidents do not meet the expectations of their supporters. Once in office, the realities of the position and governing the nation set in, world events have their impact. They do not shrink government or show the tough fiscal discipline the conservatives want.
The largest difference between President Clinton's administration and President Bush's, IMHO, has been the Congress. President Clinton had a Republican controlled Congress. Each had to compromise to move forward. If either party had controlled both the Executive and Congressional branches, the results would have been far different and, probably, not nearly as good.
President Bush's administration shows us the problems of having both branches controlled by the same party. There is a sharp contrast between the two.
9-11 turned the Democrats in passive observers. The Republican party's most conservative wing wanted to use their control to put their agenda in place without compromise. President Bush surrounded himself with advisors who thought alike. The one dissenting voice, Colin Powell, was used then ousted. The results vary from questionable to disastrous on many different levels.
John makes a good point about the Congress. The Bush administration used the hammer of 9-11 and terrorism to keep Congress in line - and Congress allowed it happen. Congress shows some signs of awakening now but it is very late in the game.
You are EXACTLY Right. I think they recognized a willingness by their most radical followers to totally discount reality in support of their leaders, and decided the more they used division, the more even rational followers would end up emulating that. Then, as I've said elsewhere, those of us on the left got good and tired of it, and ended up polarized ourselves. I personally got tired of turning the other cheek somewhere in the range of Gingrich, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh's ascendancy. They also know that the more polarized we get, the further out on limbs we will go, and the opportunity to make us look foolish increases exponentially. That is Karl Rove's genius. He sets us up, then pulls the rug out, endlessly. On congress, I'm not sure that 911 having been used against them is valid, as he never used, or had to use, the veto before that. I think it's more that most are ideologues and support him no matter what, unless, of course, their approval rating goes in the tank, and midterms are coming up ;). If they win this fall, I fully expect a more or less full reconciliation. Some exceptions, maybe, but generally.
Father wolf,
To really understand the fiscal policy of the last three Republican presidents, Bush 1 to a much lesser extent than the others, you have to understand the dogma of "starve the beast" theory, a product of conservative think tanks. Reagan managed to basically end welfare with it, Bush 2 is laying the foundations for a real comeuppence for us, in the future. Entitlement programs, which were rammed down Republicans throats clear back to Roosevelt, are the target. Bush 2 has lied about the cost and gotten the popular drug program for seniors passed, which will bankrupt medicare and medicaid. He tried to get us to change social security to embrace investment accounts, even though the figures that proved those could even work were based on the economy continuing to grow at recent levels, a thing that no economist, not even conservatives, will tell you is even likely to occur, due to the mass retirement of baby boomers we are sliding toward. That should suffice to prove his intentions, but the starve the beast hammer is that they figured out that the only way we will ever give up entitlements is if we just flat cannot afford them. Massive deficit, major tax cuts, it all contributes.
I tend to think that in this congress, the democrats had no chance to become anything but passive observers, no matter what, but their voice was stifled for a long time by 911. Now at least they are voicing opinions again. Hopefully even picking up a few seats will help, and they can get a little support from a few maverick republicans, but I'm not holding my breath. The hope I held for midterms seems to be being frittered away by the Dem's in large chunks, daily. As I said before, if the midterms favor them, I think everything will be buried, and it will be business as usual for republicans. I used to admire Colin Powell, and John McCain, but both toadied up to be used, and only after being discarded, to a point, have they become their old selves again. Minus my respect. The image of Colin Powell in front of the UN, and the image of John McCain on Bush's arm during the campaign, sort of sickened me. I hope that McCain can persevere on the Geneva convention issues, but I no longer believe in his unshakable integrity, something I always admired before.
The McCain shift was indeed odd. I suspect something from the darker side of "old school" politics happened. Some "dirt" dug up, or fabricated a la Rove et al. Some promises about 08. Probably a combination. Presidents have tremendous resources for such "muscular" maneuvers.
I see a far darker reality moving behind the scenes than what we've become accustomed to in this country. I believe "the powers that be" are making a play to become THE POWER that is, and we are witnessing a major assault on our republic. The door stands all but wide open for the end of the form of government we dream of having in America.
What is there to stop the neocon hardcore from instigating a series of black ops and phony near misses to push us over the marshal law threshold? Honor? Patriotism? Faith in the system? And realize, the current push for the change in Geneva Convention protocol is not vehement for no reason; these guys have crossed the line. They are playing for keeps now, especially if they think they're going to loose one or both houses. I think we are at a very serious crossroads in history.
I could have written your post, myself. There is a reason that in every presidential race since I have been alive the Republicans have had a marked advantage in money. Bush appeared at one gala fund raiser and started his speech, "I'm Glad to be here with my base, the haves, and the have mores." He has right wing Christian support in elections, but his true agenda has nothing to do with terrorism, abortion, gays, or anything but an agenda for the rich. His policies seem to indicate an alliance of the corporate, the Military industrial, and the just plane filthy rich. George has sold his soul, and congress and the senate have been bought piecemeal. I think we live under that old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times" Fitting, since they are financing our economy right now.
Doesn't it seem to you like maybe George is sort of worried that he may have committed war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, and scuttling the Geneva Conventions is the only way to not have to worry about that? The other things you speak of are interesting as well. Gold is a good place for money, I think, when the Chinese uncouple their cash from our dollar, or cash in a load of the bonds they hold.
I often wonder whether I live in the twilight zone - a place where strange people at one time saw something good about George Bush and then they actually voted him in - TWICE!!!!! Then I read an article like this and reality comes back and I have hope that others are as fed up as I am with this crooked crowd in the White House.
Thanks for writing it - it made me feel that I was not alone in the twilight zone of the Bush Administration era!