Time Magazine’s Joe Klein Declares President Bush ‘Unfit to Lead’

April 7th, 2007 10:45 AM

In an article that could have been written by Michael Moore, Katrina vanden Heuvel, or any number of “diarists” at the uber-left wing website Daily Kos, Time magazine’s Joe Klein on Thursday declared President George W. Bush “clearly unfit to lead.”

Happy Easter to you too, Joe.

In a hit piece entitled “An Administration’s Epic Collapse,” Klein attacked the most powerful man in the world early and often (emphasis added throughout):

The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons--precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).

Hmmm. So, in November 2004, the American people, for the first time since 1936, reelected a president while giving his Party a greater majority in both chambers of Congress. And they bestowed this rare honor upon an arrogant, incompetent, cynical man?

If this is the case, maybe Klein ought to be spending his time writing about the stupidity of the American people for oftentimes voting for folks and issues that he doesn’t support rather than castigating the intelligence and integrity of those they entrust with power.

Regardless, that was just the beginning of the invective, for next, Klein echoed the insipid left-wing slander concerning the President’s relationship with his Dad:

Iraq comes first, as always. From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had. But never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops and employing counterinsurgency tactics inappropriate to the situation on the ground. "There was no way he was going to accept [its findings] once the press began to portray the report as Daddy's friends coming to the rescue," a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission told me.

How disgraceful. What was the name of that Baker-Hamilton commission member, Joe? Is it too much to require media members that are disparaging the most powerful man in the world to cite the names of sources they’re quoting, and what Party they belong to?

Furthermore, isn’t this whole “Doing it Differently Than Daddy” meme getting old? Why is it that so many of these liberal opinion writers are so devoted to Freudian psychological tenets that they all seem capable of determining what makes others do what they do beyond motives that are substantially more obvious and apparent than stemming from some unresolved angst from their childhood?

Alas, Klein wasn’t done:

On April 3, the President again accused Democrats of being "more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need." Such demagoguery is particularly outrageous given the Administration's inability to provide our troops "what they need" at the nation's premier hospital for veterans. The mold and decrepitude at Walter Reed are likely to be only the beginning of the tragedy, the latest example of incompetence in this Administration. "This is yet another aspect of war planning that wasn't done properly," says Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "The entire VA hospital system is unprepared for the casualties of Iraq, especially the psychiatric casualties. A lot of vets are saying, 'This is our Katrina moment.' And they're right: this Administration governs badly because it doesn't care very much about governing."

Uh, Joe, for how many years nay decades have there been problems at VA hospitals across the country? Is this a new concern facing our nation, or one that dates back several Administrations? With all the resources available to you at Time, mightn’t you have been able to research such questions, and come to the conclusion that this is not something that just surfaced after March 19, 2003?

Oh, that’s right: to folks in the media, there is no history prior to that date. As we have all witnessed the past four years, absolutely nothing that occurred prior to the invasion of Iraq is either important, or to be addressed, unless of course it furthers the legacy of President Clinton or the candidacy of his wife.

How convenient.

Mercifully, Klein was moving toward a typically disgraceful conclusion employing all the usual pejoratives that have sadly become quite commonplace in today’s bash Bush environment:

When Bush came to office--installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore--I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful. He chose the opposite path, and his hyper-partisanship has proved to be a travesty of governance and a comprehensive failure. I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.

No, Joe. What is much more apparent for many who still are respectful of the man and the office is how difficult the next two years are going to be with press members like yourself so clearly unfit to report.