David Broder has a column on Gore’s indictment of George Bush based on Bush’s pattern of vastly overstepping his authority, perhaps criminally so. Broder notes that Gore is hardly objective on the topic of the Bush presidency, but credits Gore for laying out a clear and copious case of Bush’s ventures to (beyond, imho) the limits of executive power.
Broder mostly dismisses Gore’s criticism of Bush’s decision to rush into a war of choice based on sketchy intelligence. According to Broder, this was mere incompetence rather than malice aforethought. Broder seems more in agreement with criticism of Bush and his adminstration over the torture at Abu Ghraib and the adminstration’s resistance to setting and enforcing clear prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. Broder notes Bush’s “oddly equivocal” signing statement on the McCain anti-torture bill, suggesting that he could simply ignore the law.
On the warantless wiretap searches of American citizens, Broder states:
Gore’s final example — on which he has lots of company among legal scholars — is the contention that Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant from the court Congress had created to supervise all such wiretapping. If — as the Justice Department and the White House insist — the president can flout that law, then it is hard to imagine what power he cannot assert.
Broder concludes by writing:
When [Gore] challenged the members of Congress to “start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you’re supposed to be,” he was issuing a call of conscience that goes well beyond any partisan criticism.
I’m fascinated by the “was he uninformed or misinformed” debate. Either GWB is a dupe and easily fooled, or he was given poor advice… but somehow none of this is his fault. Whatever happened to “GWB knew what he was doing and did it anyway” – ?
I definitely don’t think Bush gets a pass for failing to properly inform himself. If you’ll recall, his proponents countered claims that he was inexperienced and unprepared for international affairs with assertions that Bush was a businessman and a master delegator. He would surround himself with good people.
So, if his failure to do a good job with delegating caused him to think that there was a need to rush into Iraq rather than investigating further, the blame ultimately falls at his feet.
Of course, I think the premise that the decision to invade was based on faulty information is incorrect. My opinion is that the desire and the decision to invade Iraq came first and the justifications came later.