Bush: "Treaties Are From Liberals, Convenants Are From God"

Once again the New York Times (below) accuses the Bush administration of incompetence in an editorial today.

This is like accusing a fish of not being able to walk.

The Bush administration is not about competence. It is about the assertion of power in ways that benefit itself and its friends in miltary-industrial-energy-infotainment complex. It is about getting enough votes from their disparate factions so that that can stay in power and loot the Treasury.

Treaties like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or the Geneva Convention were made to be broken among this crowd. And when it comes to supporting allies like Pakistan who have taken great risks by proclaiming themselves US allies, this administration only supports them for PR purposes and only until they can be quietly moved to the backburner.

Like Krugman yesterday, the Times' editors think this gang can be brought low by pointing out their incompetence. And perhaps it's true that over time the drip, drip, drip out of their venality and maladroitness may undermine the adinistration.

But it isn't competence that their followers are looking for. Their followers are looking for the the stimulation of their resentments, the vindication of their beliefs and ideas.

Right on time for the mid-term elections, their followers on the cultural side are being whipped to a high froth as they anticipate the consternation the new anti-abortion law in South Dakota will cause the evil liberals.

For the fiscal conservatives, the administration is endorsing the line-item veto so Bush and the Executive can cut "government waste." Never mind that they have spent the US into a massive deficit and that Bush has never vetoed anything from the Republican Congress. It's appearances and rhetoric and "ideas" that count among ideologues.

In a few months the national media will be reporting on the latest cynically deployed manisfestation of the usual Republican wedge issues, and the only incompetence we'll hear about will be liberal incompetence: e.g., Liberals who can't run wars, who can't run governments without spending the public's hard-earned money on quixotic schemes to promote racial equality, Liberals can't say no to people who don't deserve help, who can't keep their pants zipped up, who kill babies, etc.

I will, however, predict it's going to be really, really ugly this time around for the very reason that the Republicans are losing some moderate and independent voters who are troubled by their incompetence.

But when push comes to shove the Republicans, led by Rove, are going to go to the mats and use their biggest anti-Liberal guns to scare these undecideds back into the enfolding, paternalistic arms of the Family.

The New York Times, March 7, 2006
MR. BUSH'S ASIAN ROAD TRIP
There is a lot of good a president can do on a visit to another country: negotiate treaties that enhance American security, shore up a shaky alliance, generate good will in important parts of the world. Unfortunately, President Bush didn't do any of those good things on his just-completed visit to Pakistan and India and may have done some real harm.

The spectacularly misconceived trip may have inflicted serious damage to American goals in two vital areas, namely, mobilizing international diplomacy against the spread of nuclear weapons and encouraging Pakistan to take more effective action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters operating from its territory.

The nuclear deal that Mr. Bush concluded with India threatens to blast a bomb-size loophole through the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It would have been bad enough on its own, and disastrously ill timed, because it undercuts some of the most powerful arguments Washington can make to try to galvanize international opposition to Iran's nuclear adventurism.

But the most immediate damage was done on Mr. Bush's next stop, Pakistan. Washington is trying to persuade Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani military dictator, to defy nationalist and Islamic objections and move more aggressively against Pakistani-based terrorists. This is no small issue because both Osama bin Laden and the Taliban's leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, are now believed to operate from Pakistani soil.

But sticking Mr. Musharraf with the unwelcome task of explaining to Pakistanis why his friend and ally, Mr. Bush, had granted favorable nuclear terms to Pakistan's archrival, India, while withholding them from Pakistan left him less likely to do Washington any special, and politically unpopular, favors on the terrorism front.

It's just baffling why Mr. Bush traveled halfway around the world to stand right next to one of his most important allies against terrorists — and embarrass him. India and Pakistan are military rivals that have fought each other repeatedly. They have both developed nuclear weapons outside the nonproliferation treaty, which both refuse to sign. When India exploded its first acknowledged nuclear weapons eight years ago, Pakistan felt obliged to follow suit within weeks.

So when Mr. Bush agreed to carve out an exception to global nonproliferation rules for India, it should have been obvious that Pakistani opinion would demand the same privileged treatment, and that Mr. Musharraf would be embarrassed by Mr. Bush's explicit refusal to provide it.

Mr. Bush was right to say no to Pakistan. It would be an unthinkably bad idea to grant a loophole to a country whose top nuclear scientist helped transfer nuclear technology to leading rogue states. Granting India a loophole that damages a vital treaty and lets New Delhi accelerate production of nuclear bombs makes no sense either.

Mr. Bush should have just stayed home.

Technorati Tags: India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bush, Bush's Road Trip, Wedge Issues, South Dakota Abortion Law ,Line-item veto