Or alternatively, Jim, you could question whether it was really possible to do a bad idea ‘right’. Maybe the flaws we now see in the HS dept are because it wasn’t a very good idea to begin with (particularly putting FEMA under it’s umbrella).

Oh, please. Have you forgotten “Brownie”? The concept was and is a good one because 9/11 made it blindingly obvious that overcoming the turf wars and just plain lack of communication between agencies. What is the main problem? In case you haven’t noticed this Administration does far more things wrong than right. But then I forgot that far more often than not you refuse to acknowledge that.

Chris, I agree. That is their biggest abuse of the office of the president. What mystifies me is the extent that the conservative media has gone to to defend their actions at every turn. When the president attacked conservatives over their stand on immigration, the wall of support cracked, and you started seeing columns claiming Bush was not a real conservative.

My point is that if these agencies don’t function well because they’re staffed by incompetent flunkies, doesn’t it affect everyone, regardless of political persuasion? Trent Lott was just as upset with the federal response to Katrina as the poorest resident of the 9th ward in New Orleans. Its in everyone’s best interest to have the government work competently.

The Snarky Shark says hello to TMV commenters, the others…

One way to do that is to destroy all faith in the institutions of government, therefore making tax cuts that destroy those institutions more palatable.

But the execution was typical Bush administration modus operandi: Put Republican Party favorites with little or no experience in key positions and leave others unfilled (25 percent at last count), cut off FEMA at the knees (one of the few federal agencies that got high marks to begin with) and then cry poverty in providing homeland security funds to states (because of that gosh darned $400 billion-plus infrastructure improvement project in Iraq).

With the creation of Homeland Security, Bush oversaw the most fundamental reordering of the federal bureaucracy since the creation of the national security state in the 40s. As in that case, it took more than one administration to iron out the kinks, but it was an event of immense historical consequence.

In spite of those who argue about it I believe that there were very good reasons to create the DHS. But when you speak of Bush overseeing this reordering it should be remembered that he didn’t want to do it and was basically forced into it by public opinion and Congress. Thus like many things this Administration has done it should be questioned whether there was really any interest in doing it right since it “wasn’t invented there”.

A minor correction. Rumsfeld did not run the DoD like a CEO. He ran it like a very bad CEO.

With the creation of Homeland Security, Bush oversaw the most fundamental reordering of the federal bureaucracy since the creation of the national security state in the 40s. … it was an event of immense historical consequence.

And yet Bush opposed the idea of it. He of course took credit for DHS after he was all but forced to create it. Not only that, but the new monster that is DHS was partly to blame for the slower than slow federal response to Katrina.

I’ve been at my angriest, not because I disagreed with the President, but because I’ve felt so disappointed and frustrated with the manner in which he presents his presidential persona. In my imagination, I’ve edited every one of his major speeches in a way that, without altering his basic meaning, would have made his message palatable amd even interesting to me, despite my political opposition. I was often eager to extend understanding, but felt rebuffed every time he stepped up to the podium.

Looking at the candidates, I almost feel sorry for the winner. He/she will not only inherit the most horrific combination of numerous challenges in remembered history but will also face our pent up dreams and expectations of leaderhsip.
I’m not sure if any mortal can measure up adequately to avoid a fresh avalanche of disappointment.

With the creation of Homeland Security, Bush oversaw the most fundamental reordering of the federal bureaucracy since the creation of the national security state in the 40s. As in that case, it took more than one administration to iron out the kinks, but it was an event of immense historical consequence.

Contra-Obama, Bush did “launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support”. After all, recall how AQ used the Muslim diaspora’s financial network to move money covertly? That has been shut down. Despite the best efforts of the NYT to inform AQ about the US financial and electronic surveillance of AQ, the program remains sorta in existence.

Rumsfeld fundamentally transformed the Pentagon. Unlike the sainted Bill Clinton – who never had the guts to cancel a single weapons program, or close a domestic base – Rumsfeld redesigned the armed forces from a Cold War to a post-Cold War model.

By all accounts, Rumsfeld was also following the Powell Doctrine on Iraq – it was Bush himself who changed the game during the invasion itself to nation-building, and Rumsfeld had to go along with it. I think history will regard Rumsfeld as one of the most transformative Defense Sec. in the history of the Republic.

One has to give credit and blame where it is due, I feel.

Bush has screwed the pooch on Iraq, undeniably. He has also been transformed by the office into a very arrogant, close-minded leader by all accounts (in contrast to presidents like Truman, FDR, or Reagan, who transcended the office). There is no point in going on about the AG, as that is a supernaturally stupid business entirely. The only reason the AG has not been impeached, I think, is that the Democrats like having him around. I doubt the Administration could get more than a handful of votes to defend him.

Also, I would ask folks to cast their minds back to the ends of previous adminstrations. Isn’t the feeling of exhaustion and vague disgust common to all? Read, for example, media accounts at the end of Reagan (the WashPost was unpleasant, I recall dimly). Bush 1 was empty of new ideas. Clinton left everyone with a bad taste.

Anyhow, that is my two cents on Shaun’s thoughts.