Last week I wrote how George W. Bush has perhaps become delusional on the Iraq War and this week provided confirmation of that possibility. As the president continues his bizarre speaking tour across America still trying to sell this war, the Senate Intelligence Commission came out with a report concluding Saddam Hussein wanted nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. Then came the disheartening report Mr. Bush’s new strategy had not reduced the death toll in Baghdad after all. Apparently, Iraqi officials had underestimated the number of dead by three times over. At the same time, in an almost mind-numbing coincidence, the new book "Hubris" claims Mr. Bush was obsessed with getting rid of Hussein in large part because he had supposedly ordered an assassination on the president’s father. But wait, there is absolutely no evidence, according to the "Hubris" authors, Hussein had anything to do with the planned assassination.
Why would a president order his country into war based on skimpy evidence at best and false evidence at worst? Read "The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind, which tells of Vice President Dick Cheney’s incredible underlying rationale for the war after 9/11: If there is a 1 percent chance something is true, we must act upon it. Out the window went the need for dispassionate intelligence analysis or rational debate. The only "evidence" considered was what would support the conclusion already reached: We must invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein. Anyone who disagreed was disloyal. No one ever questioned the obvious corollary to the "One Percent Doctrine": What about North Korea, Iran and all the other countries we suspect are plotting against us? Do we invade all of them? After all, a 1 percent suspicion is really a formula for official state-sponsored paranoia, which begets war and more paranoia.
The Iraq War has now lasted longer than World War II. It has claimed about as many American lives as the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11. But Mr. Bush is in too deep to get out. As his poll numbers dip lower, his call to arms is getting more strident. It is here our form of democracy fails us. In a parliamentary system, the president would have been forced to call for a vote of confidence. Even if he had survived such a request, he would likely be headed for early retirement, as is his strongest international war supporter, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. With the help of new leadership, America would then have the opportunity to find its way out of this mess before more precious blood is shed.
This is not the first time the lack of a parliamentary system hurt our nation badly. Rather, it is almost a recurring theme. After Watergate, Richard Nixon was drinking heavily and for a time Alexander Haig was actually in charge of the White House. If Republican leadership had not convinced Nixon to resign for the good of the country, who knows what mad escapade we would have embarked upon.
Ronald Reagan grew forgetful in his second term, perhaps the result of early Alzheimer’s. He was easily led into trading arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair. It was obvious he had lost the ability to govern effectively, but according to our system, it would have been difficult to prove mental incapacity to get him out of office. A parliamentary system would have provided for a vote of no confidence and a more seamless transition to a new government.
More recently it was Bill Clinton under attack during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Perhaps Clinton could compartmentalize better than most of us. Perhaps he was as focused as the 9/11 Commission reported, based on interviews with his staff. But at the very least, there should have been an opportunity for the voters to determine his fitness for office without the politicized impeachment trial that put the nation through more anguish. If Clinton had survived a vote of confidence, as the polls at the time would seem to indicate, he would have emerged stronger and better prepared to finish out his term, and we wouldn’t be left with the impression a distracted president was unable to effectively go after bin Laden.
In the last 38 years, there have been four times, in this columnist’s opinion, when America was left with a White House either mortally wounded by scandal or without the ability to govern effectively. Yet, while our system so obviously fails us, there is no national debate over whether we would be better served by a parliamentary system. Instead, as each of these presidents have perilously weakened, cries of "impeachment" are heard. Impeachment has not historically been the answer. No president in our history has been replaced by impeachment, not Andrew Johnson, Nixon or Clinton — and only the latter was impeached at all.
America cannot lead with a weakened president. Blair will step down within the year. Our leader speaks, but no one is listening. And it will be that way for two more years while our troops are dying in Iraq.
We need to change the system.
