Utter and Complete Incompetence

At some point language loses all capability to express how thoroughly inept this Administration is. The latest and greatest leap of logical incoherence is expressed by the White House mumbling idiot whose minders have misinformed him to blame Saddam Hussein for Iraq's current sectarian problems, claiming that under his "repressive rule" he encouraged sectarianism. Well, not only is this piece of information contradicted by the fact that Iraq under Saddam was one of the most secular Arab nations in the Middle East, and thus Washington's first response unit against the Iranian invasion, but these descriptions of heightened sectarian tensions are reported by Iraqi women as being an American import, that under Saddam Iraqis often didn't even know other Iraqis' religions.

Yet, lying, what else is new? Bush lies alone shouldn't be enough to elicit a weazl rant. But at the same time Bush is blaming Saddam Hussein, he is also blaming the Shiites, the oppressed majority supposedly liberated by Saddam's removal. But if that's not enough of a contradiction, Bush is supposed to be proud of his new Iraqi democracy that he helped fashion, but yet refuses to accept the Shiite Prime Minister. And to make matters even more complicated, the Iraqis, apparently believing American lies about promoting democracy and creating a functioning self goverment, are actually looking for the United States to cede authority.

So the logical conundrum becomes, who exactly is the US fighting for and with? There are obvious problems with the Shiites, who comprise a majority; there are obvious problems with the Sunnis, who not only were effectively shut out of voting in many areas (for fear of rejecting a fraudulent Iraqi Constitution), were unhappy with the election result, and had been the primary victims of the US de-Baathification purges; and even some of the Shiite "death squads," who have been getting recent blame, have all the earmarks of being a US product. In fact, commentators explicity mentioned this possibility when John "El Salvador and Honduras" Negroponte was appointed to serve as the US Ambassador in Baghdad, and some even predicted the wave of assassinations and terror that we are now seeing. But perhaps not exactly the extent of its brutality and depravity.

So what does this Adminstration do when it is faced with a crisis of mammouth proportions? Does what it always does: blames someone else. First off, Administration apologists have even tried to pass of September 11th as a Clintonian error, even though they tried their damnest to have no investigation and Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath and separately (hmmmm). The Administration blames everyone except his Administration for the disasterous federal response to Katrina including bureaucracy, the Governor, the Mayor, Congress, the media/liberals and even God. In fact the blame was so misplaced that even Bush appointee and Arabian horse show commissioner Mike Brown finally had to throw the Administration under the bus regarding the White House claims that they weren't informed about the threat to New Orleans.

Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that people are starting to wake up to the Bush Administration pathology: two examples here and here. Yet it is also becoming increasingly clear that the world and the nation have too many imminent accidents, the responsibilities of which are patiently waiting to be shifted, especially as attacks that have come close to Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the largest sectarian militia, threaten to escalate an already disasterous US military intervention; an imminent confrontation with with Iran, monumental environmental problems and looming economic storm clouds.

And there appear to be only two sure bets: each and every crisis will be handled with the maximum about of ineptitude. And that after the "sh*t hits the fan," it'll be somebody else's fault.