Opponents believe that the Bushies are the worst of both worlds: incompetent and corrupt. But I believe they are missing the point regarding incompetence, and understating the corruption aspect.

The Bushies are actually supremely competent, at achieving their agenda. The problem is that their agenda has little to do with the national interest, and often is very much at odds with it. And their very success can and has come back to hurt them also.

They are certainly competent at getting themselves and Republican Congressional members into office, by fair means or foul. They got most of their tax cuts and other welfare for the rich proposals, a drug for the elderly program that is a huge boon to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, drastic reductions in welfare assistance and other measures adopted into law. They are certainly no slouches in garnering power for the president (or vice-president?) All of these measures have already or will adversely affect the nation at large.

But Iraq is the supreme example of their actual competence at work, to the detriment of the country -- and ultimately to themselves.

For whatever reason they were literally obsessed with this war, before even taking office, and were willing and able to do whatever it took to sell it to a skeptical public. That was their agenda, and they achieved it with absolute competence. They would worry about the aftermath when the time came.

They needed a rationale, and Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction were the most logical. But it went further than those lies. They also had to convince the public that it would be easy, quick and cheap. Hence the talk about it being a cakewalk, our troops welcomed with flowers and kisses, the costs to be paid out of Iraqi oil revenues.

General Shinseki warned that at least 300,000 troops would be required. But that could have raised doubts about the ease of the war, and he was ridiculed. As it was, the military pressured Dumbsfeld into sending in about 150,000 troops initially, versus the 30,000 he originally wanted.

The State Department had made elaborate preparations for post military operations in its Future of Iraq project; the military had been making detailed contingency plans for the same thing since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Both were simply ignored by the administration; to even consider them might have raised doubts about the feasibility of the war.

The war was rushed into before the troops could be adequately trained and equipped. Even when Turkey upset plans for attacking from the north by refusing permission at the last minute for use of its territory, the war's start could not be delayed. But the Bushies were working with a small window of time; the anti-war movement was gaining momentum, and any delay could have jeopardized the war.

The point is these were deliberate actions, all absolutely necessary to achieve their obsessive goal: war with Iraq. In that they were supremely competent.

The end results, of course, were -- following an initial military success up to Mission Accomplished day -- an ever growing and still growing disaster for the country; once again we're bbogged down in a war we cannot win and cannot afford to lose. But that was never part of their agenda. Had they performed an honest and realistic assessment of the costs, risk and benefits of the war, they would probably have concluded that it was not feasible. Or at least not marketable.

If I am correct about all of the above, then even the apparent incompetence in failing to heed the prior warnings of 9-11 needs to be reexamined. That, after all, would have been the Pearl Harbor event the Bushies neocon supporters claimed would be necessary for public support of their military adventures.

Even the apparent incompetence following Katrina should be examined. Who is benefiting from it? How significant are those harmed by it to the agenda of the Bushies?

Olbermann's commentary for the most part was right on. But I think he was a mite confused himself here:

"In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.

"That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

"That government was England’s, in the 1930’s."

Right description, wrong country. It perfectly describes the German government, the budding fascist Nazi regime of Hitler. And it is no small irony that the Bushies, of all people, have suddenly hit on fascism as their buzzword of choice, while steadily converting this country to their own brand of fascism.

The Chamberlain government had more than its share of faults. But it was the polar opposite of the Bush regime, and to compare the two is to do an unwarranted service to the Bushies. Chamberlain was symptomatic of, not against, the prevailing opinion throughout most of Europe at the time; the horrors of World War I had been so bad that they couldn't imagine anyone wanting a repetition, and would do anything to avoid it. Hence Munich and then World War II.

But Chamberlain did come around, and it was his government that declared war on Germany following its invasion of Poland in 1939. Churchill became prime minister in May 1940, after the colossal mistakes of Chamberlain -- and the British People -- became self-evident.

There's another ironic parallel with the Nazis. The steady denial, hyped and totally false claims of progress about Iraq, Katrina and other areas spouted by the Bushies are eerily reminiscent of what came out of the German government when its own shit began to hit the rotating blades.

Geolrge W. Bush really is a bold, decisive leader. So is the first lemming over the cliff.