| |
Why Does Bush Keep Attacking his Critics?
Posted 4-4-2004
What is it with the Bush administration? If anyone, particularly former
members of the administration, says anything they don't consider supportive,
they go all out to discredit the person. Is this what Bush meant by saying
he was going to be a "uniter" not a "divider"? Is this what he meant by
compassionate conservatism? The mean-spirited nature of this administration
is making previous Republican administrations look like a bunch of
choirboys.
The first guy the Bush crew
tried to destroy was one of their own that dared question Bush's judgment
and attention to detail. That was Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. O'Neill
is the former ALCOA CEO who had served with Cheney and Rumsfeld in the
Nixon/Ford days. He committed the ultimate sin of thinking for himself and
speaking his mind. When he told how convoluted Bush' economic policy is and
that the obsession with Iraq superseded the fight against Al Qaeda, the Bush
administration called him a loose cannon, questioned his possession of
certain documents, and generally tried to destroy one of their corporate
good old boys.
The same scenario was
repeated to a lesser degree with General Eric Shinseki, who dared to
contradict Rumsfeld by saying more ground troops would be needed to truly
gain control in Iraq. He was "retired" shortly after his public statements.
Recently, Richard Foster, a Medicare actuary came forward and said that he
was told he'd be fired if the true cost of Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug
program were made public before Congress voted it on. The difference between
what the Bush administration said it will cost and what the actuary says it
will cost is only $150 BILLION.
Most recently, Richard
Clarke, the counter terrorism czar through four administrations, described
in his book that the Bush administration essentially ignored warnings of
possible terrorist attacks before September 11, 2001. Clarke asserts that
because the attention of the Clinton administration had been focused on Al
Qaeda, Bush's people de-emphasized the importance of the issue. There are
other incidents, such as Bush searching for an Iraqi link to the terrorist
attacks even after experts told him it was the work of Al Qaeda. But, the
interesting thing is how quickly the Bush people turned on Clarke. Not only
did they attack his views on issues, but also made criticisms of him that
are of a personal nature.
I can understand the Bush
administration being defensive, because they screwed up royally. They let
kooks like Wolfowitz, who was even put on the back burner by Daddy Bush,
drive the invasion of Iraq with grandiose ideas of forcing "democracy" in
the Middle East. They put Cold War era guys like Rumsfeld in charge of the
Defense Department even though his world-view is about 25 years behind the
times. And, they let Bush parade around like a fool on the aircraft carrier,
declaring victory long before the job is done in Iraq.
But, their lack of tolerance
for dissenting views is reaching disturbingly totalitarian proportions.
Where is all this headed? The criticisms I've cited aren't partisan attacks
by Democrats, but people who are either career bureaucrats and soldiers or
old Republicans allies like O'Neill. The truth of the matter, in the cases
I've mentioned, the critics are right, and the Bush administration is
attacking rather than acknowledging a mistake.
In public life, like our
private lives, it isn't easy or fun to admit a mistake. But every public
official, from a local mayor to the President, is subject to criticism. The
Bush people not only don't take criticism well, they set out to destroy
their critics. That type of repeated behavior, in a free society, sends an
ugly message about the disposition of an administration that sold itself as
one that wanted to change the confrontational nature of national politics. |
