The Administration vs. the Administration

This is from the Washington Post. You'll have to register to read the whole article. (I would encourage you to register. You can always un-register later.)




Is the Bush administration its own worst enemy?

Or are the opponents of the Bush administration mostly to blame for publicizing these apparent gaffes?

Is the Bush administration its own worst enemy?

In my younger years, I used to think "no one can be that stupid and inept and out of touch"- then I got a job, and found out that poeple CAN be that inept and stupid and out of touch.

No- with the 9/11, GW got an ENORMOUS pass no president has had since FDR, and he alone blew it.

Or are the opponents of the Bush administration mostly to blame for publicizing these apparent gaffes?

No, they are just capitalizing on GWs and companies lack of touch with reality. I really don't think that Wolfiwitz or Cheney are stupid, but I do believe they are completely evil, on the Hitler-Stalin scale of evil (though they haven't commited to genocide YET) , and our society doesn't allow the kind of mistakes that Hitler and Stalin made, mostly because of our individuality, and the enemies of GW can see his weakness, and work on those weaknesses,

Is the Bush administration its own worst enemy?

Yes they most certainly are as your post pointed out Paladin Elspeth, I'll take yours and add a few after seeing Farenheit 9/11 it reminded me of a couple of situations that the administration had said before 9/11 that Iraq was basically in a box and that sanctions were working.

THE BIG LIE



Powell '01: WMDs Not 'Significant'

Or are the opponents of the Bush administration mostly to blame for publicizing these apparent gaffes?

No its the Bush administration fault for telling us one thing only to have to change the facts later on when the truth comes out.

Is the Bush administration its own worst enemy?

Or are the opponents of the Bush administration mostly to blame for publicizing these apparent gaffes?

No, I think everyone conspires on this. The Bush Admin makes mistakes, the democrats point them out to the world and the media run them all over the news.

This is no grand conspiracy or backroom deal this is just how the game is played. Democrats capitalize on Republicans mistakes because it helps them promote there own, just as reps do the same to the dems.

The media shows it all on the news, especially the silly gaffes, because it is news that attracts viewers which improves their ratings and their advertising revenues.

Sometimes it looks to many like the major media gets it's talking points from the DNC. For example, when Cheney was added to the ticket every reporter talking about it said he added "Gravitas" to the ticket. Many pointed to this suggesting that the major media gets it's "talking points" from the DNC. In actuality it gets it's talking points from the AP (Associated Press). Looks like the guy / gal that put that story on the wire just happened to have a good vocabulary day.

There does tend to be a bias in the major media. But again, it is not a grand conspiracy. If you have not read it, pick up a copy of Goldberg's book Bias. He was with CBS news for 30 years and points out in his book that the bias is not by design so much as it is just the way many in the networks think. They are liberal in their politics, their friends, neighbors and family are liberal and as a result the tend to be biased towards the left simply because it is what they know.

He had a great example. He asked a producer at CBS why, when a story covers abortion issues did they always go to NOW for a quote, but never to any of the Right to Life organizations? Her answer was really telling. She was surprised, surprised that they never did go anywhere but NOW for a quote. She said, "got an abortion story, get a quote from NOW". It was the way it was always done. She didn't know why and thought it was strange herself even though she had produced several abortion stories that only used NOW for quotes and information. She didn't intentionally slant the stories, it is just they way she sees the world.

This bias does work against the president. But, it this day and age of Internet news sources, Fox news, etc, there are plenty of places to get the story from the other slant.

Best approach: Watch the story on CNN, then watch the story on the same subject on Fox News. Whatever is the same in both stories is the truth. regardless if it about the President, Immigration or traffic jams.

Looking at the big picture, yes it is. This recent 180 degree turn in Iraq tells it all. The Bush admin started out with ideals that simply were not workable, minds that were not thinking rationally, and agendas that had to be supported with fictions. I won't go into the details as these have been hashed and rehashed until the hash has lost all attraction.



Hey, kill the messenger, right? I won't deny that everyone has at least some amount of bias when writing, and I do read yellow journalism from both sides of the isle on a daily basis. Everything written should be taken with grains of salt, or as Twain said, "Believe only half of what you read and nothing of what you hear" (or words to that effect). I think that is good advice.

But the Bush administration cannot hide the results of its own actions. It can try to deny the arguments and statements it has made along the way, or try to rationalize things away, or try to spin out of hammerlocks put on it by the media (news and entertainment) and public, but rational people are starting to notice:

Hey, things just aren't right here!

Again, I won't go into detail, but the polls are starting to reflect this. The public (never the greatest of intellects) is now grappling with the notion that if the Bush administration can't be trusted, what's the alternative? Will it be any better? Should we stick to a known entity even if poorly run?

And as this happens, Cheney uses the F word in Congress (bad form, Dick). The pressure is on the Bush administration, and it's all that stinking press' fault. Also those nagging Demos. Why, it's a culture war! You know, between the have mores and the have brains!

Curses, what a mess. Why don't people just shut the (Dick's expletive) up and behave?

Um, cuz we're sending young men and women into harm's way, have sent them into harm's way, and see no light at the end of the tunnel? Cuz people have been and are being thrown out of work, headed and heading into bankruptcy, looked at and looking at the street with different eyes? Because the stinking 2000 election still stinks to high heaven, and many are still ticked off?

Because this dog got beaten with a big stick and snarls yet, almost four years later?

The Bush administration never had a clue. It still doesn't. It believes in miracles.

The rest of us apparently do not. Or at least a glimmer of this is coming into focus rapidly. When a problem is identified like terrorism, policies set into place and actions taken, and all this results in more terrorism, what do we call this? Failure? I think so. And when failure is denied, lessons not learned, what do we call this? Incompetence?

Yep. You can use other examples like the economy (should have bajillions of jobs by now from tax cuts, as the administration pushed in its first year). The stated goals have not been realized, and maybe the stated goals were never believed in the first place? Ouch. So what are the real goals anyway?

Maybe we can't handle the truth.

The question of this topic is partisan. It also assumes a conclusion. It would be a much better discussion if the questions were:

1. If the Presidential administrations are inept:

a. Are the Presidential administrations their own worst enemy?

b. Or are the opponents administrations mostly to blame for publicizing their apparent gaffes?


Inept administrations have proven to be the norm. Bush is not the origin of shallow policy decision making nor fitting data to support previously made conclusions. Are the administrations as bad as they are made to appear? I tend to think they are worse, as the media has an instinct to not present our leadership in a bad light. We all want to believe our leadership is good.

People do not want to face the fact that both major parties are doing this. They rather have faith that their chosen party is the good guys.

Is the Bush administration its own worst enemy?

I have to say yes. I, like MOST Americans, did not vote for Bush in 2000. After 9-11, I saw an opportunity for America to take the proper stance in the War against radical extremests. I saw Bush standing on the rubble that was once the WTC, and I thought;

"This is the guy to get it done. George and his All-Star administration, with individuals that had been down a similar road in Iraq. Go get'em George, show them what America is really about"

But as the CruisingRam pointed out.......he simply blew it. He blew it in a way that shamed me as an American. He was handed the opportunity to be a GREAT President on a silver platter, and as it turns out, was not up to the task.

Or are the opponents of the Bush administration mostly to blame for publicizing these apparent gaffes?

I was and am an opponent, but I did NOT want to see him fail. Regardless of your feelings for the man, he is our President, and his successes are successes for America. Unfortunately, his failures are America's failures. I still want him to be successful. It is slightly comforting to see him Flip-Flopping on some of his stubborn policies. He is beginning to listen to other points of view, and realize that it doesn't have to be the way that HE wants it. We have seen progress in Iraq, through the implementation of ideas that came form guys like McCain, and Kerry. Things such as:
More international say so. (NATO and the UN)
Sending MORE troops.

These were things that the Bush Administration were opposed to 3 months ago. I think they are doing better now, and the result is progress. I want you to succeed Mr. President. Please don't blame me for apparent gaffes.

Is the Bush administration its own worst enemy?

Yes, Bush doesn't have anyone to blame for his all-time low poll numbers except himself and his administration. You cannot blame the messengers for this (i.e. The Media and Democrats).

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, even though in Texas that was basically throwing my vote away, and honestly didn't really have an interest in politics until 9/11. Directly after 9/11 Bush had an approval rating of over 70% (I believe that is record breaking). I, like most of the rest of the country, supported his response to 9/11 in Afghanistan. In fact the world, the media and last but not least, the democrats supported him.

Why did we all start to disagree with him? Because he took his eye off the ball and started making mistakes. He has no one to blame but himself.

Or are the opponents of the Bush administration mostly to blame for publicizing these apparent gaffes?

No, you cannot shoot the messenger.

The grand conspiracy theory eh? Then answer me this. Why did virtually the whole world support Bush after 9/11 (including the "liberal" media and the Democrats). Why did the Democrats and the "liberal" media support Bush at the beginning of the Iraq war? In fact, both groups were nothing but complimentary to the president for the first part of his term after 9/11.

Clearly they don't support him now, so what happened? Could it be that everyone discovered the country was mislead into the war with Iraq, and regardless of whether we were serving a greater good we were lied to in order to force us into action in the first place? Could it have to do with numerous pieces of legislation passed by the administration and this congress written solely for Republican special interests? Could it have anything to do with Abu Gharib, Guantanamo and prisons in Afghanistan? Could it be that these groups looked around and saw that almost the entire world hated Americans, when only a few months earlier we had a record amount of good will?

Even some of Bush's most loyal talking heads (i.e. O'Reilly and Limbaugh) have at times criticized the President on Iraq.

There is no conspiracy here, what happened is the country finally woke up and realized they didn't want to be lead around by their noses anymore.

As the only Republican to post in this thread (making sure this is not the thread for Democrats) I have to break away from the standard Bush bashing for a second. I keep hearing about all of these "mistakes" by President Bush, backed up with little or no examples. While I'm no ditto head for President Bush, you do have to realize that he has made some hard choices. He stuck his political career on the line by going to war against a tyrant who was a terrorist that aided and abetted other terrorists (included Al Qaeda) around the world. President Bush did it knowing that it would be difficult and that if it went badly it could even cost him the Presidency. Instead of taking the easy road which gains political points but few results, he took the hard road which loses political points but produces significant results. Now that is leadership and patriotism at its pinnacle.

The questions for debate only permit politically liberal responses, so I'll say this about the finger pointing by democrats... It's nothing new. Ever since President Bush took office, the democrats, furious over their loss of power, have been political contrarians to everything he has done. If President Bush says it's cold, they say it should have been hot. If he says it's hot, they say it should have been cold. They swat at gnats and swallow camels, so to speak. They also make mountains out of mole hills (demonstrated by Cruising Ram's comments comparing Bush to Hitler). This was their strategy in the election of 2002 and they lost badly because they offered no clear vision or solution to the real problems facing America. This because they were too busy swatting the gnats.

You can laugh at the 'media conspiracy' theorists, but even the article that you linked clearly illustrates it. This was a pickup of the NY Times poll. That poll had two big findings - Bush ahead of Kerry which was a shift from the previous poll , plus the approval rating all-time low.

So, the San Fransico Chronicle had these two facts
1 - all time low approval ratings for Bush
2 - a big uptick in support for Bush in the past month, and he's ahead of Kerry in a 3-way race.

What title would they choose

"Iraq drags Bush to low point in poll on job rating ."

They then presented the likely voter ratings - Bush 43, Kerry 42, Nader 5 - in the 9th out of 10 paragraphs. And not even the NY Times (it was their own poll) mentioned the big positive shift for Bush in their own story on the data. Not news, I guess.


There is not a vast media conspiracy against Bush, and he sure does enough dumb things like the examples noted above. But I don't think that the media is a complete non-factor either. If they emphasize the gaffes, and don't talk about the positive, that is an example of the news shaping opinion, rather than just reporting facts. Which must have some effect long term.

The kettle is also black.......



Please back that up. The 9-11 commisson differs with you.



Results? 2 ongoing, no end in site Wars??? I would rather have had him take another road. If there are other results, please "back it up".



On the contrary. What we are seeing is Bush's policies starting to reflect the ideas that democrats have been providing all along.

Bush "We have significant troops in Iraq"
Democrats and Republicans like McCain "We need more troops in Iraq"
Result........more troops in Iraq.

Bush "we can handle Iraq with the coalition that is in place"
Democrats and Republicans like McCain "We need the support of the international community, which involves a new UN resolution and NATO support"
Result........A new UN resolution and NATO support.

It is positive to see Bush coming around..........He should have started listening to these "finger pointers" a long time ago.

Is the Bush administration its own worst enemy?

Or are the opponents of the Bush administration mostly to blame for publicizing these apparent gaffes?

Well, I suppose if the news media and the opposition party steadfastly refused to mention any mistakes, we would hear less about them. I'm still not clear on why some partisans think that would be anything less than dereliction of duty in 2-party republic.

Anyway, I think we all suffer under the myth that Bush and his team were, at one point, politically astute. Gore managed to almost lose the popular vote because of a terrible campaign, not Rovian brilliance. The strength of Rove's team is in persistent dirty pool- being able to consistently be a wee bit more nasty than the enemy is expecting. After they took McCain down, Gore should have been on notice to fight back hard against the image they were trying to create with clear explanations and calling them on their numerous exaggerations- instead, he dithered over what image to pick for himself, and ended up reinforcing the tale they told. Gore narrowly won the popular vote he should have won decisively, but pretty much everyone I knew who wasn't a Bush campaign worker thought Bush was an idiot- a perception the Democrats played up to Bush's benefit during the debates.

Then he had the usual bad first year for a Governor who tries to run the US like his home state (see: Clinton). He alienated the Senate and lost his majority. He was taking the blame for the economy in polls and backtracked on enough policies that he was seen as untrustworthy. Then 9/11 happened, and Rove's gutter tactics proved particularly effective matched with the usual, predictable rally-around-the-flag effect following a national tragedy. Everything was related back to critics being terrorists that undermined national security, even if the issue had little to with security.

The rally lasted longer than anyone could have expected, but Bush's tacticians have remained fairly brazen. There seems to be a lack of impulse control, a love for 1984 style propaganda that doesn't work well without a terrified public that loathes all critics. Trust of questionable intelligence reports while ignoring more credible ones; reports doctored to fit political goals, then retracted; fake news casts; ridiculous economic estimates- all of these things are 'smart politics' for the weeks they remain undiscovered by the public at large, then they all explode.

Even if they exaggerated just a wee bit less, I think there'd be less of a hit to their credibility. More restraint would do a great deal; more restraint in the past might have produced less division between the 40% who think supporters are dishonest or stupid in saying they trust Bush, and the 40% who think Bush bashers are making mountains out of common political molehills.

in response to posts made while I was writing this:

deerjerkydave


The article that started this link was about the Administration contradicting it's own political spin when reality makes it hard to support their original position without laughing. The Admin is creating it's own gnats and being forced to swat at them. or are we Dems somehow responsible when the Admin makes the "hard choice" to implausibly spin the official government reports we tax payers pay for and our decision-makers rely on?




Bush's uptick in the three-way race was 2 points, and his 1 point lead in the three way is well within the margin of error. Kerry's fall in the poll is more noteworthy. I'd buy the paper is liberal, as is the Washington Post, and the New York Times. And I'm sure the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, Fox news, etc. are there to insure liberal "spin" (like reporting on the admin.'s mea culpas) is countered.

Polling Report

To a point, certainly...Their handling of various controversies (Iraq, prisoner abuse, CIA leak, misleading and contradictary statements) within the administration has been poor. By not accepting the blame for failures, or pushing the blame on to other departments/administration/congresspersons, or in other cases, not accepting that failures have even occured has been their downfall.



I can't blame the media...I think that the stories (with the exception of the extreme left or right media outlets) are driven by what people want to hear.

I thought Id add a bit or two...



I believe that pride is one of seven deadly sins we should all be familiar with. Pride is exactly why and how the B.A. can be seen as their own worst enemy. They believe in miracles, and their supporters do as well. Bush has always taken the double or nothing approach. Partisan issues aside, Bush's radical decisions with policy has obviously made waves, and brought a number of impressive consequences. Each new consequence is a brick from stronghold of idealism. A wise man acknowledges his failings, admits to them, and learns to do better or at least avoid them next time. The B.A. has not done this in ANY way shape or form. The result is of course present day America, a radical, powerful, essentially Bi-polar state. Bush and company have ignored each and every mistake, and instead made little irrelevant excuses, and relied solely on his idealistic base (the christian right) to ignore them as well.

This is not to say that the "Liberal Media" hasn't over-emphasized some of the B.A. failings. However to criticize ANY media; Liberal or Conservative for reporting negative truths about a ruling administration is to ignore the entire purpose of the media (as expressed by the constitutional freedom of the press). To write off all information given by one source as 'biased' is a severe thinking error.

The Media is not the B.A.'s worst enemy. The public mind is. If Americans suddenly start reading, and paying attention, if they all go to see documentaries and start learning and being engaged, then the Bush Administration and administrations like it are doomed. Heres hoping...

Is the Bush administration its own worst enemy?
Definitely.

Or are the opponents of the Bush administration mostly to blame for publicizing these apparent gaffes?
The supposedly liberal media has given Bush a huge pass on virtually everything he's done since taking office. All we need to do is look at how CBS sat on the Abu Ghraib footage for two weeks at the behest of the Defense Department.

Grendel72,
I've never been one to shout from the mountaintop that the media is blatantly liberal (though I think they lean that way), I am sitting here scratching my head on how in the world the media has given Bush a huge pass on virtually everything he's done since taking office. You quote two weeks of Abu Ghraib footage that was sat on, yet failed to include the 47 front page articles in the New York Times on the same subject, when there really wasn't anything new to report.
The GWB adminstration can certainly be it's own worse enemy, but the media doesn't show any slack.

Coverage of the election theft was strongly biased in Bush's favor (the thuggish behavior of the "Bush supporters" who were bussed into Florida was barely mentioned, in some media outlets not mentioned at all.
Do I really need to mention the attack of flag waving hysteria that followed the September 11 attacks, and how patriotism was deemed to mean "support Bush at all costs" in every media outlet across the country?
My biggest reason for hating George W. Bush is his campaigning at Bob Jones University, which the media treated as a non-issue.
How does that compare to sitting on the information for two weeks? The press is meant to be the eyes and ears of the public, and they fell down on the job- as they have repeatedly done while Bush has been in office.
Only two weeks worth, I guess.

There is no proven link between Hussein and Al Qaeda. You want examples from other people, but you give none on the connections between the two.

Were you ok with the finger pointing and CONSTANT investigating of Bill Clinton by the Republicans for 8 years? Did you really think that after 8 years of special councils, independent investigators, and constat finger pointing that the Dems were going to let Bush just have his way with everything?

Bush is no Hitler, but he is one of the worst presidents we have ever had. After 4 years, we still really don't know where Bush stands on Health Care--because he never talks about it. The No CHild Left Behind Act and the Prescription Drug legislation are the two biggest "in name only" pieces of legislation ever passed.

I answered all of the above. Bush, the Dems and the media. Bush has done and said some incredibly stupid things, the occupation isn't going very well right now. But then you combine that with the Dems and the media. Democrats have made up a very effective lie that the Administration told the public that Iraq and September 11th were linked, which isn't true. But this is where the media comes in, the likes of Chris Matthews, Brokaw and Rather, etc. Haven't done very much to disprove that lie, which alters public opinion. So while I think that Bush has done most of this to himself, the media and the onslaught by the Dems [some of which is justified] doesn't help.

CP

There is nothing patriotic about a leader lying about the reasons for going to war. Its a very big deal because too many families have lost a love one and to me, this President needs to be prosecuted for lying to the American people. If the other 50% of the American people can find a brain to think and understand for themselves instead of believing everyone who disagrees with them is a liberal or unpatriotic, we might get something accomplished in this country.

As far as the answer to the original post, the Bush administration can only blame themselves for the mess they have created in addition to the kiss-up Republican Congress (They have forgotten there role in democracy).

I say the heck with two party rich boy system and lets start having REAL elections where everybody who wants to run for President can do that.

According to the Senate, there were no lies. Perhaps now we can try to look at the REAL reasons for the apparent "chain of assumptions" (someone on AD coined this one I believe, if I remembered who I would credit them). that lead to the war in Iraq and try to address them so it doesn't happen again.

The whole Congress is in Republican control. Well let me go a step further, THE WHOLE GOVERNMENT is in Republican control.

The Republicans are going to stick up for the President whether he lied or not.
I don't believe anything that this Congress produces as so-called facts.

Isn't this the same Congress who gave the President authorization to go to War in Iraq?

Isn't this the same Congress who approved of the intelligence while ANALYZING it for themselves?

So now they come back and blamed the intelligence community for the War in Iraq. Man, I never thought how easy it is to sucker the American people. Tell them anything and they'll believe it. They fell for the War in Iraq and now we are falling for it again by blaming the CIA. Gotta love this country!!

(This is a cut and paste from another topic)

I was watching MSNBC report on the coming election on 7-24-04 at around 11:00 am, and found a perfect example of the left wing bias still infesting all but FOX News.

After showing uplifting shots of John Kerry hugging children and running his “positive campaign” (which he can do because he has his friends doing the dirty work of comparing President Bush to Hitler and similar outrageously dishonest propaganda), they showed President Bush speaking at the Urban League.

They commented on his earlier refusal to attend the NAACP’s conference (which he did because they have been so hostile to him after he opposed the judge’s ruling on the Michigan State case about racist “diversity programs”) and then showed shots of him speaking.

Now I had already seen this live, so I saw the people stand up in roaring applause when he said Democrats take black votes for granted, but that was before they had a chance to edit it..

This time, they showed people yawning while running the sound of him hitting powerful points of his speech. Then they played some sounds of applause while showing video of no one clapping, so it looked like a small minority of the people were the only ones responding to his “Democrats take your votes for granted.” Statement.

Then, they rolled to this command center and said, “This is the Republican spin room, where activists can respond quickly to undermine anything John Kerry says…”

They showed some footage of preparations for the DNC convention in Boston, then the report was over.

This is what conservatives see every day in our liberal activist media. With statistics always showing that 80-90% of newsroom people, reporters and anchors are liberals (except at FOX News), it shouldn’t surprise anyone.

So, my answer is Yes, its really the left wing, elitist media spinning things to give the minority opinion (Dems lose worse every election) a boost at President Bush's expense.

Gee, aquapub, just because you cut-and-paste it from a posting in another thread doesn't make it somehow more true. Wetrz asked you a bunch of follow-up questions there about your sources that seem to indicate that you were watching a completely different speech than the one Bush actually gave.

And in light of the studies that show that people who watch Fox News are significantly more misinformed about current events... do you really want to get all gushy for "conservative news"?

And what the heck does "liberal activist media" mean anyway? Is this another meaningless buzz-phrase like "activist judges", which turn out to be any judge who issues an opinion you disagree with even if it's a proper interpretation of the law?

You'll make more points if you drop the ad hominem attacks on "liberals" and start bringing some facts and links to the table.

"Dems lose worse every election"? I suppose that's why Florida's election results were so disputed in 2000, because Gee Dubya had such a huge lead over Gore...

The left wing, elitist media quotes President Bush verbatim every day. The left wing, elitist media publicized Bush's opposition to forming a 9/11 Commission, his initial refusal to let Condoleezza Rice testify before it, his refusal to testify under oath or without Cheney holding his hand (figuratively, of course--he saves that privilege for the Saudi Arabian monarch) before the Commission. The same media did not show Bush sitting for those seven or so minutes holding the children's book My Pet Goat and looking completely lost in an elementary school classroom just after being notified of the second jetliner crashing into the WTC--they gave him a pass on that--it was Michael Moore who brought it before the public.

Sorry, Bush & Company have brought a lot of this negative publicity upon themselves, without the need for a left wing, elitist media to present it in a partisan manner.

Please, after hearing John Kerry say, "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it", the Bush Administration looks like gold. John Kerry is a human gaffe, a man so unprincipled that he skipped town during the Marriage Amendment debate to avoid having to make his position known. Each day the reelection of Bush looks more imminent. I mena all Bush has to do is run on his record and highlight Kerry's lack of one. It is in the bag

Yeah, I mean look how good it worked in California.

Is the Bush administration its own worst enemy?

Yep. They really do not have a great track record....an avoidable, preemptive war; the most serious security breach on US soil in years; a highly disputed election; a shaky prescription drug bill; repeated rebuffs from traditional, staunch allies; the most un-"unified" electorate in years...I mean, the list goes on and on.

The Bush administration has been largely ineffectual in the foreign policy arena. I think the press picks up on that, as they should. There is no bias when Bush screws up himself.

HeatherRob


Oh, Geez! What about Bush skipping town for the longest Presidential vacation ever--right before we got attacked by terrorists? Really great principles (not to mention work ethic).

HeatherRob


Ya, Bush has an incredible record [/sarcasm]. As I said above....more terrorism than ever before, we're losing allies, economy tanked, avoidable war we may not ever be able to win.....THANKS GEORGE!

Is the Bush administration its own worst enemy?

Yes; there really is no one else to blame, despite Bush's efforts to pass the buck.

Or are the opponents of the Bush administration mostly to blame for publicizing these apparent gaffes?

How could opponents be to blame for Rumsfeld's, Bush's, Cheney's and Rice's incompetency? Yes, they publicized it, but what would you have them do, try to hide it?



I'm hardly this cynical about our process -- and no one wanted the military action (once begun) to fail. But fail it did, and the person to blame is the commander in chief.