THE BUSH TRUST DEFICIT
US, Global Problems Require Sense Of Duty, Not Entitlement
"Transformed/Honorable and Dignified" Bush Mythology Crumbling
MWO Commentary
mediawhoresonline.net
Judging from Frank Rich's Saturday NYT article ("The Waco Road To Baghdad") and many other references by even members of the mainstream media regarding Bush's true motivations for an Iraq attack, it seems as though the media are beginning to see a need to openly acknowledge their suspicions regarding Boy King and his judgment.
So just what is it about Bush that is nagging at the media whores, and has caused so many of them to openly admit his Waco summit was a fraud? What is it that is making them question the "official line" (all of them) coming down with regard to Iraq, the danger Saddam presents, and our ability to contain it without another war?
There is no denying there are growing (or perhaps just more frequently-acknowledged) "trust issues" between Bush and the media and public that are becoming more evident every day in coverage of Bush, Inc. But why?
The stakes are higher than they have been in decades. Perhaps the media, like everyone else, are both losing their savings and recognizing real life and death issues are in play now. They are starting to realize it matters what motivates the person calling the shots. And they understand that on such critical issues as war and recession, that person must be trustworthy. He must be trusted act with the people's best interests in mind, and not those of his cronies, contributors, and father's friends.
And they don't trust Former Texas Governor Bush. Because the overwhelming evidence suggests Bush's decision-making process does not involve considering what is best for our country. The Bush Doctrine, applied to anyone who disagrees with any policy of the Entitled Regime: "Who cares what you think."
This is well understood, and was the reason his inviting "ordinary people" to his fake economic summit ostensibly so that he could "listen" to their concerns and ideas drew unanimous laughter even from some of Bush's most ardent shills in the press.
Bush has taken not a single action since beginning his White House occupation that demonstrates he is more concerned about the American people than his own interests. He has advanced no policy that was not the result of a political calculation that his action would either "appease the base" or satisfy the cronies and the contributors.
The initial response to the 9/11 attacks for which Bush received much overblown credit was dictated by the event, and no president would have responded differently. But now that we are past the time when leadership requires more than simple answers and actions, Bush comes up incompetent at best, corrupt at worst and most probable.
Ordinarily, one could argue that a Republican president's tax cut for the greedy, his isolationist foreign policy, his judicial appointments -- though all utterly disastrous -- were nevertheless well-meaning and representative of an ideology he believed in. Even pursuing policies on all of these fronts despite a shifts in public opinion against them would not provide sufficient proof that a president cared more about enriching his cronies, or, say, rehabilitating his father's failed presidency, than he did the people. It could be said he was doing exactly as the people had entrusted him to do.
Except in Bush's case, they never entrusted him to do it. Instead, they entrusted Al Gore not to do it. And therein lies the fundamental reason for the in increasingly obvious Bush trust deficit among the media and much of the public.
Election 2000 matters. Election 2000 provided the answer to the single most important question one would ask in evaluating whether Bush's judgment on the economy, Iraq and other world affairs, and all other critical issues should be trusted: "Is George W. Bush's priority the American people, or his own interests and agenda?"
Election 2000 matters, because Bush provided us irrefutable evidence throughout that controversy that he does not consider the people's interests or American principles to be paramount, but instead his own political ends.
Bush -- whose most obvious character trait is entitlement -- knowingly, deliberately, and without apology mounted a brutal and vicious battle against American citizens and principles throughout November and December 2000. He knew then that Al Gore was elected by the people. He knows it now. Mr. Gore knows it, and every journalist in America knows it.
But Bush's mission at that time was to do anything and everything in his and his Poppy's appointees' power to prevent the outcome he knew the American people had chosen for themselves. (No one can forget that creepy scene election night, with the Bush Crime Family sequestered together in a small room, insisting the Florida call was incorrect. And no one to this day can quite explain it either.)
Once he had stolen the election as a result of requesting an abuse of power by the Supreme Court that was ultimately granted, Bush proceeded to knowingly abuse his own ill-gotten power by ramming a rejected agenda down the throats of the American people.
Is there any justification for Bush's actions in Election 2000? None. That's why the topic is taboo in the Whore-American community. No one can defend those actions, or their own complicity in the theft of an election from the American voters. And no one dares contemplate what they mean in the current context of domestic and global crises.
"Wait a minute. Wouldn't Al Gore have done the same thing?"
Just as there is no evidence supporting that Bush places the interests of the people and country above his own political interests, there is overwhelming evidence Al Gore does --many claim to a fault.
Al Gore would certainly not have acted the same. When faced with the opportunity to risk for political gain what he believed (contrary to what many other Democrats believed and continue to believe) were the best interests of the nation -- either by continuing the election fight when his legal options were exhausted, or urging revolt over the theft -- he chose not to.
Al Gore's most obvious character trait is his sense of duty -- a trait for which he was mercilessly mocked by the media whores. They sneered that it was oh so sad that this poor hotel-dwelling child grew up believing his role was in public service, performing a duty his family expected of him. Oh how very terrible, yet what amusing script fodder. What an awkward geek. Not one of us. Duty is so pathetic. Al Gore would never roll oranges down the aisles in his campaign plane. Too unstatesmanlike for the (dutiful) know-it-all who thinks he's so much better than us.
Throughout campaign and recount 2000, it was all fun and games for the media whores. The economy was rocking and no one could possibly screw it up, even Bush. Skirmishes in hotspots around the world that threatened our national security were under control, thanks to President Clinton. There was peace and prosperity as far as the eye could see. Oh, the Clinton administration was sounding alarms about al Qaida, but that was probably just grandstanding and dramatics from someone who tried to kill Osama bin Laden to show how tough he was. Put those files in a FEMA draw, Dick Cheney. As Newsweek Sex Reporter Spikey Isikoff said, the Marc Rich story was more "fun."
How much has changed since then. And now that the stakes are perceived as "life and death" (as they should have been all along) -- now that trust and character suddenly matter (that is, genuine, demonstrated character, not hollow, media parroted declarations about "honor and dignity") -- a sense of duty to the American people on the part of national leaders not only would be a refreshing change of pace right now, but is critical not only to solving the country's economic troubles but to the nation's very survival.
A "sense of duty" is believing one must act in a particular way because he believes he is obligated to do so for the betterment of others, regardless of what might be most advantageous to himself. In order for a president to be trusted to consider the best interests of the American people, he must be seen as having a strong sense of duty. And in order for citizens to regard their leader in this way, they must have evidence supporting their belief. But there is none when it comes to GW Bush. Zero. Zilch. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The opposite of duty is entitlement.
"Come on. Nobody trusted Clinton and he did a good job."
"Wag the dog" was fun to say in the Clinton years. The prepared Clinton-as-scoundrel script dictated it should be said. But it is unlikely many in the media or in the public realistically did not trust President Clinton at the most fundamental level when it came to whether significant policies were made with the best interests of himself or the country as his primary consideration.
Clinton was a brilliant politician and from time to time tweaked a policy to conform to public opinion when he recognized he had gone as far as he could with an issue. But he was, as David Gergen said, "not venal." He was void of the vindictiveness and the ruthlessness that characterizes the Bush Crime Family, had a history of idealism and curiosity about America and American history, and no one had legitimate reasons to wonder whether doing the bidding of powerful contributors over the people was behind the successful, well-considered progressive economic and foreign policies that marked his presidency and seem so long ago. (Oh, to have the adults back in charge -- and a media that did not equate sanctimonious snarling from a non-voting Chickenhawk like Dick Cheney with maturity, wisdom, or competence.)
Why even a fib about a consensual sexual affair and a $70 million marathon abuse of power by conservatives did not translate into genuine concern about President Clinton's trustworthiness when it came to considering the best interests of the country (though it translated to poor ratings on the simplistic all-encompassing poll questions regarding "trust").
George W. Bush does not enjoy the same level of trust. The media are suspicious of important decisions he makes. They know he makes them solely out of self interest. The formula is simple: appease the (wingnut) "base" and please wealthy, corrupt contributors. This has always been accepted as a matter of fact and suggested in coverage of Bush regime. Anyone who pointed it out was derided for their political naiveté. The media whores even treated it as cute and clever.
How smart and shrewd that Karl and Karen were to calculate that move so precisely so as not to alienate the religious right. How brilliant they are to assign seating at the WHCA dinner to secure positive coverage. How they "control the message" with such "discipline." Doesn't Dubya have a remarkable "emotional intelligence," the way he nicknames us?
Somehow, reconciling questions of character and trust with Bush secrecy and unaccountability was never attempted, even as Bush demonstrated his cynicism and fraudulence on a daily basis, right before their eyes. It just wasn't in the script.
But events are now dictating a more sober approach. A few in the media have discarded their script into the trash heap where it belongs, and have begun taking a cold hard look at the harsh economic and global realities.
Suddenly, Junior strutting into the room all dressed up in his cowboy outfit is not as cute anymore. He's 56 for God's sake. And Karl's schemes are falling flat now as the Waco photo op flop shows.
The protection Bush "won" when, lucky him, he "hit the trifecta" on 9/11 is wearing off. He has no reservoir of trust or confidence on the part of the American people from which to draw. It's time to acknowledge it, and time to worry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK RICH NAILS IT
Karl's Lost His Mojo
Bush Not Trusted on Economy, Iraq
Media Wising Up to Cynical, Fraudulent Regime?
The Waco Road To Baghdad
Frank Rich
George W. Bush tossed the nation's press a softball and they hit it out of the park. There was not a single good review, not even from his minions at The Wall Street Journal editorial page, for the White House's feel-good-about-your-401(k) jamboree at Waco. It was a "forum," the critics suggested, in the sense that the Politburo was a "legislature." Only Mr. Bush, who is on record as having loved "Cats," pronounced the event a "great show." ...
What makes the morning-after outrage of the nation's commentariat seem a bit over the top is that the preordained hollowness of the Waco show is not news. This is how this administration always governs. Mr. Bush has two inviolate, one-size-fits-all policies (if obsessions can be called policies): the tax cut (for domestic affairs) and "regime change" in Iraq (foreign affairs). Everything else is a great show designed to provide the illusion of administration activity when it has no plan. ...
The only mystery is when D-Day will be. Given the administration's history, I'd guess that it will put on the big show as soon as its political self-preservation is at stake.
-------------------------------------------------------- |
