After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long.
—NY Times editorial

Though it's nothing less than astonishing to read this in the Times, the reader should note how carefully this condemnation is worded. The editorial refers to a "presidency," an "administration" and a "government." No blame is laid at Bush's feet.

In a sense, of course, the editorial is correct. Bush has nothing to do with this greatest of national disasters other than to be the necessary rubber stamp of official Washington policy. But that is not the writer's intent, as can be easily seen in the editorial's conclusion—

Second terms may be difficult, but the chief executive still has the power to shape what happens. Ronald Reagan managed to turn his messy second term around and deliver - in great part through his own powers of leadership - a historic series of agreements with Mikhail Gorbachev that led to the peaceful dismantling of the Soviet empire. Mr. Bush has never demonstrated the capacity for such a comeback. Nevertheless, every American has a stake in hoping that he can surprise us.

The place to begin is with Dick Cheney, the dark force behind many of the administration's most disastrous policies, like the Iraq invasion and the stubborn resistance to energy conservation. Right now, the vice president is devoting himself to beating back Congressional legislation that would prohibit the torture of prisoners. This is truly a remarkable set of priorities: his former chief aide was indicted, Mr. Cheney's back is against the wall, and he's declared war on the Geneva Conventions.

Mr. Bush cannot fire Mr. Cheney, but he could do what other presidents have done to vice presidents: keep him too busy attending funerals and acting as the chairman of studies to do more harm. Mr. Bush would still have to turn his administration around, but it would at least send a signal to the nation and the world that he was in charge, and the next three years might not be as dreadful as they threaten to be right now.

Now the editorialist writes directly of "Mr. Bush." Comparing Bush with Ronald Reagan, the writer suggests some actions the President might take. While acknowledging that Dick Cheney is "the dark force behind many of the administration's most disastrous policies," he implies that George Bush is (a) not responsible and (b) capable of taking action on his own. If George were capable of taking independent action, then he would most certainly be responsible. But the truth is that we have as close to a mentally challenged individual occupying the Oval Office as I ever hope to see.

The NY Times should know this by now and stop trying to mislead the American public into believing that a legitimate government either exists or can exist under the current regime. Let the impeachment proceedings begin. Even when the king is only a figurehead, he still must go.

Related post
The Duumvirate (9/3/05)