Cross posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing and Patriot Daily
The Bush administration has a pattern of ignoring warnings that its proposed policy, action or inaction will have deleterious consequences. After the negative consequences occur, a Bush official then professes that no one could have predicted that such an event could have occurred until it is publicly revealed that it had been precisely warned beforehand. The public and lawmakers then shout incompetence. But, are key officials incompetent or do they use this label as a shield to protect themselves from accountability while they continue to pursue similar “incompetent” policies? After all, if Bush officials are not incompetent, what is the alternative when a government official intentionally ignores warnings, does not take action and then a disaster occurs: Would that not at least constitute negligence or malfeasance that may trigger legal and political consequences?
(1) The cyclical incompetence strategy: Commit a “mistake” – Negative event occurs and is publicized – White House spin that no one could have predicted consequences – Public disclosure of prior warnings – Public and lawmakers declare incompetence – Sham probe, scapegoat named and reform measures proposed – Failure to implement or fund reform measures – And then rinse, hit button to start cycle anew.
The incompetence strategy has a cyclical pattern and history. The Bush officials adopt a policy despite warnings of deleterious consequences and inability to accomplish the publicly stated goal(s). The warnings are ignored in favor of implementing a plan that generally has financial benefits for corporations and/or achieving long-desired political goals. Once the policy and negative consequences are well-publicized, the initial knee-jerk response is to pass the buck on blame or proclaim that no one could have anticipated at the planning stages this precise disaster, which is then defined in very detailed terms to make an accurate prediction seem all the more unlikely. The public buys the spin until it is publicly disclosed that Bush officials had been warned beforehand. At this point, the public and lawmakers shout in unison that the Bush official(s) is incompetent, and shake their heads in frustration. Perhaps some probe of the event is conducted slowly to extend its conclusions to a time far away from the initial temper of the public, and then some scapegoat is selected for some “mistake” and recommendations are made for measures to prevent such a disastrous event from occurring again. So, the public is mollified sufficient to prevent any passionate, determined demands for a probe of the official. Bush then does not implement the recommendations for reform to prevent another such disaster, or he withholds funding needed to implement the measures. And, Americans resume their daily lives, not realizing that the next disaster is just lying in wait for the appropriate circumstances to harm more innocent Americans.
This cyclical pattern is seen in many of the “mistakes” that have occurred on Bush’s watch — 9/11, multiple aspects of the Iraq war and Katrina. The key issues are why does the Bush administration essentially accept without question the very unflattering designation of incompetence and why do lawmakers and the public proclaim that Bush administration officials are incompetent when negligence or malfeasance may better describe their conduct?
(2) Bush officials appear to embrace the incompetence label with open arms and use it as a shield to prevent probes that may conclude that the conduct was negligence or malfeasance for which legal or political remedies may exist, such as impeachment.
An incompetent person is defined as one who is “devoid of those qualities requisite for effective conduct or action” or not possessing “intellectual ability or qualifications.” While undisputed that Bush is a bumbling, inarticulate speaker, he did assemble an administration power team of intellectuals, not idiots. Notwithstanding disagreement with the political views of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice and others, these officials are intelligent and experienced. And, while Bush may lack book smarts, he is reportedly a smart lad who has been quite effective with dirty tricks when campaigning.
There are some indications that the Bush team is all too pleased to accept the “incompetent” label and then use it as a shield to prevent an independent, thorough investigation of their inaction. This need not be some Rovian scheme hatched beforehand, but after obtaining the benefits of the first incompetence cycle, it may have been just too enticing to not use the incompetence shield again.
First, incompetence is not part of the American ethos that people strive to achieve. Parents and schools do not socialize children to become the next incompetent on the block. Far from being an asset, after each “mistake” the polls show increasing number of Americans rating Bush as not just incompetent, but also as an “idiot” and “liar.” If for no other reason, the perception of Bush as incompetent would have a negative impact on one issue consuming Bush’s time recently, his legacy. Yet, the Bush administration quietly accepts this negative trait.
Second, typically a well-oiled machine of players from the administration and private sector hit the airwaves to refute negative claims about Bush officials. No such political machine is triggered by the incompetence label. The White House does not even issue its talking points memos which it has used in “Setting the Record Straight” on issues of far less personal concern to Bush, such as claims that media reports were misleading on medicare facts or the beneficiaries of tax cuts. Why no memo to set the record straight that Bush and his team are not incompetent?
Third, the political and legal benefits of accepting the incompetence label show that the Bush team is really crazy like a sly fox. Acceptance eliminates the need for public debate or point/counterpoint, thereby intentionally shifting the issue to reforming “mistakes” rather than accountability. It has the same effect as the public declaration of “I take full responsibility” so frequently uttered by politicians that also cuts off debate and the imposition of actual consequences. In addition, the incompetence label frees the Bush team to pursue any policy regardless of expert opinion or intelligence data, knowing that they will achieve a goal otherwise not attainable if they had to pursue the normal route of making a case beforehand to the American people based on true facts and vetted evidence. Pursuing policies not supported by facts has proved quite financially rewarding to Bush’s corporate buddies who are often awarded no-bid government contracts to remedy the mess created by Bush and/or to implement the policies that created the mess.
And, most importantly, acceptance of the incompetence label avoids potential liability for malfeasance or negligence in office. If the public outrage over Bush’s “mistakes” were not extinguished by promises of review and reform, then an actual independent probe may be conducted. Such a probe may issue findings that administration conduct was something other than incompetent. A finding of negligence or malfeasance would likely trigger legal or political consequences, such as impeachment.
(3) The public may be willing to designate highly intellectual and experienced Bush officials as incompetent because the alternatives are contrary to our socialized views of an American president and democracy.
If Bush officials failed to take action despite warnings of harmful consequences, the more obvious alternatives to classifying this conduct as incompetent are negligence, malfeasance or some intentional crime. In negligent conduct, the actor’s action or failure to take action is contrary to what a reasonably prudent person would have done in the situation. In malfeasance, the actor intentionally does “something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons.” Malfeasance and negligence both appear to better match the nature of the conduct overall than does incompetence.
In the case of Iraq war, Katrina and 9/11, the logical harmful consequences were deaths, injuries and maiming. Our socialization cues say no reasonable person would have intentionally or consciously ignored warnings about these events, which is why our society considers criminals to be social deviants. Our socialization norms are so strong that regardless of political affiliation, many people stated prior to war that while they disagreed with Bush, a US President would not lie about the grounds for war and assumed that Bush must simply be privy to information that could not be disclosed publicly. That presumption sounds like Civics 101, minus the Nixon and Johnson years.
Clinging to socialized norms affects all Americans. For example, Bernie Ward of KGO radio in San Francisco is an intelligent liberal who practices critical thinking, logical analysis and is very politically astute as well as assertive of his positions. Yet, on his May 22nd show, Bernie raised the hypothetical of whether Bush used his NSA spying program against Sen. Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign to tap his e-mails or telephone conversations, but could not bring himself to believe that Bush would stoop that low. Bernie was hoping that Bush had not spied on Kerry because it would “turn America into anything but America.” If someone as politically and intellectually astute as Bernie is clinging to hope that Bush would not engage in such low conduct, can we understand why millions of Americans — both politically informed and uninformed — may similarly cling to the same hope and even refuse to believe that a US president would pursue inaction predicted to harm Americans?
The problem is that in the short term, it is a quick fix to conclude Bush is incompetent, and we can move on with our daily lives. But, consider the long-term implications for our democracy. If intelligent persons like Rice, Cheney, and Rumsfeld who have years of experience in government can make these same “mistakes” repeatedly on numerous grave issues, then how do we select our next leaders of government? If education, intellectual capacity and experience — factors which are used in the private and public sector for employment decisions — are no longer relevant indicia of how that person may perform in office, what do we use?
(4) How many times can Bush officials hide behind the shield of incompetence to escape accountability before the American people say no more?
There are 3 primary events which caused the public and lawmakers to call Bush incompetent in situations where lives were at stake but Bush responded with inaction: When it was revealed that Bush had been warned a month before 9/11 that bin Laden may hijack planes to attack landmark buildings in specified cities in the US; bad leadership, management and policy for the Iraq war; and Bush’s slow response and inaction while TV showed Katrina victims dying or dead in the streets caused Americans to question his “competence in a crisis.”
It is also important to remember that not all inaction decisions complete the incompetence cycle because, for example, the consequences are not well-publicized. For example, it was recently reported how “US inaction led to rise of militias.” For more than 2 years, US officials were warned that “Shiite Muslim militias were infiltrating Iraq’s security forces and taking control of neighborhoods, but they failed to take action to counteract the threat, Iraqi and American officials said.” There were a number of missed opportunities on this issue alone. White House and Pentagon officials “ignored a stream of warnings from American intelligence agencies” about the danger. “Officials in Washington said alarms about the growing power of the militias began in late 2003 and were raised throughout 2004 and 2005 by a variety of agencies, including the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.” In addition, in 2004, high-ranking Iraqis were appointed to persuade militia leaders to disband, but the group never received funding, which rendered it “almost completely ineffective.” Then-Secretary of State Powell and then head of Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer wanted to “dismantle Sadr’s militia in 2004,” but the Pentagon and military rejected the idea. Now, the US concludes that militias are the primary security concern in Iraq and more dangerous than the Sunni Muslim insurgency. How many lives were lost because numerous warnings were ignored in favor of US policy to not take action to counter the threat?
As Harold Meyerson stated, incompetence does not explain the number of times that serious “mistakes” were committed by Bush officials:
“How could a president get these things so wrong? Incompetence may describe this presidency, but it doesn’t explain it. For that, historians may need to turn to the seven deadly sins: to greed, in understanding why Bush entrusted his new drug entitlement to a financial mainstay of modern Republicanism. To sloth, in understanding why Incurious George has repeatedly ignored the work of experts whose advice runs counter to his desires.”
The public now questions whether something more than benign incompetence may have occurred prior to 9/11 when so many warnings were ignored and even simple measures — such as warning airlines, warning security at previously identified targets, or preparing our military to defend the US with planes and weapons — were not implemented. In a May 2006 Zogby poll, 42% of Americans agree that the “US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up.” And, 45% say so many “unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.”
Democrats respond by saying the new slogan to win the midterms is “It’s about the incompetence, stupid.” But, it’s the Democrats who are both incompetent and stupid to highlight the claimed incompetence of Bush which he has so successfully parlayed into maintaining his office without probes. Democrats should pay attention to the wise proverb: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Or, as Bush likes to try to say:
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says fool me once (pause), shame on….. (long, long pause) shame on you. (pause, then rapidly) … and fool me we can’t get fooled again.”
Patriot Daily: News of the day, just a click away!
