The Bush Administration is now trying to save its reputation. Having realized that the American people have come to their senses, and concluded that our leadership has brought "shame to our nation", Bush is in damage control mode. His ratings are in the basement, a majority of Americans do not trust him or his leadership, the Democrats are making gains at GOP expense in local races, and his assistant and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, has been indicted for lying about his central role in the Plame leak. In a parliamentary system, Bush would have already been forced to step down or call for new elections. As is, we are not a parliamentary system, and don't want to be, so how best to proceed with a lame duck president who nobody trusts?
This is a tricky issue, because obviously one can look favorably at 2006 prospects for the opposition party to bring some balance to Washington, but ultimately we are conducting an occupation in Iraq and pursuing a campaign against terrorism, and the stakes are high. Are we really to pursue and conduct these activities with a stained, corrupt, and incompetent president unable to lead and govern effectively? To be short, that looks to be the case, but by changing Washington in 2006, and keeping the pressure on the Bush Administration, we can likely demand more accountability and hopefully influence a change of course in our pressing global challenges, which includes far more than neutralizing terrorism, especially in the case of urgent action needed in the global commons as regards climate change, dwindling rainforests, and other ecological crises.
I will be focusing on these issues in my latest return, which hopefully lasts longer than a few days.