Frank Rich Delivers a Sterling Analysis of BushCO

Today’s NYT column by Frank Rich, Iraq Is the Ultimate Aphrodisiac, is a gem of analysis on the multiple fiascos in the history of the Bush administration, beginning and continuing with a scale of cronyism that Boss Tweed and others never dreamed of. Rich leaves almost no scandal unmentioned and brings back the oft forgotten nomination of Bernard Kerik as secretary of homeland security in December 2004.

Many of us have mentioned the overload of scandals to keep track of in the Bush Administration, let alone the GOP. Rich provides a very useful and perceptive examination of them, plus the underlying political and ideological connections. Rich starts with this astute observation:

PRESIDENT BUSH has skipped the funerals of the troops he sent to Iraq. He took his sweet time to get to Katrina-devastated New Orleans. But last week he raced to Virginia Tech with an alacrity not seen since he hustled from Crawford to Washington to sign a bill interfering in Terri Schiavo’s end-of-life medical care. Mr. Bush assumes the role of mourner in chief on a selective basis, and, as usual with the decider, the decisive factor is politics. Let Walter Reed erupt in scandal, and he’ll take six weeks to show his face — and on a Friday at that, to hide the story in the Saturday papers. The heinous slaughter in Blacksburg, Va., by contrast, was a rare opportunity for him to ostentatiously feel the pain of families whose suffering cannot be blamed on the administration.

My writing is not worth more of your time. Go to Iraq Is the Ultimate Aphrodisiac, read it and shudder.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Frank Rich Delivers a Sterling Analysis of BushCO

  1. Darrell Prows says:

    If there was room in the coffin of the Bush administration failed Iraq adventure to pound in another final nail we just got it. I received the information in the form of a rather routine report in my newspaper the other day. A consulting firm that specializes in this sort of thing announced from Houston that the oil reserves of Iraq have been underestimated by some 100 billion barrels. And the only thing that could top the announcement that the stakes between the parties over there just got increased to the tune of an extra six trillion dollars (at $60/barrel) is the fact that this bonanza is said to exist in western Iraq.

    Western Iraq is Sunni territory, and, previously, not oil country. The 100 or so billions of barrels of oil thought to be at issue before this are contained, roughly, 20% in the Kurdish north, and 80% in the areas where the 60% Shia majority are largely concentrated. Needless to say, not having any of the oil, and not being guaranteed any of the revenue from it was a bone of contention with the Sunnis.

    The Kurds had always been happy with their 20 billion barrels, being 20% of the population. Meanwhile, Al Sadr, etc. have never felt much like giving up any of their 80 billion barrels, and the Sunnis were only fighting for a piece of it. What do you think that the odds now are that the parties are going to just say “We don’t care that the hated Sunnis are going to be far wealthier than any of us, let’s just make peace”?

  2. Ginny Cotts says:


    I am glad for the Iraqis. I hope this does not interfere with the current acceptance that we need to curb our addiction.

    I suppose it would be too much to think that America and some of the big oil companies could go in and help develop those fields WITHOUT getting any profit – just turn it over to the Iraqis that would help develop it.

    Sort of a ” we’re sorry we illegally invaded and ruined your country” move – that might help restore some confidence in American foreign policy and alleviate the rampant fear that we are the loose cannon superpower on Earth?