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

Polarbirch says: "As tempting as it is to believe that Bush and his handlers engineered 9-11 as an excuse to act outside the law and reap some of the other political advantages of Commander in Chief status, I think they were genuinely blindsided."

Maybe, but it's not necessarily an either or situation for 9-11 to have been their Reichstag Event (the burning of the German Reichstag, its parliament building, in 1933, generally believed to have been ordered by Hitler but in any event blamed by him on the Jewish and Communist conspiracy and craftily exploited to seize "temporary" dictatorial powers.)

Bush may not have been part of a plot to engineer 9-11, but his handlers could have. That could explain his deer in the headlights stare when informed of the event before those Florida schoolchildren; he could have realized for the first time then that his handlers were actually serious about their crazy ideas to grab power.

It could also have been an act of omission, not commission. Bush and/or his handlers certainly had or should have had more than an inkling that something big was coming up, even if they did not know the actual targets and flight numbers, and purposely did nothing. That could explain the total -- and criminal -- neglect of the many warning signs, aside from that ominous CIA warning on August 6, 2001 that bin Laden was ready to attack the US mainland. Bush's reaction was to go fishing.

The neocons had claimed earlier that only a Pearl Harbor event could cause the American people to support their perpetual war programs. Did they see one coming and made sure no one stopped it?

Or maybe they were completely blindided along with the rest of us. But qwetever the reason, there was certainly no lack of competence or dedication in quickly exploiting the event. If only they had similar qualities for other areas of governance.

George W. Bush really is a bold and decisive leader. So is the first lemming over the cliff.

It's a truly scary thought that this nation is led by a man of such unprecedented incompetence, too incompetent even to recognize the failures of the equally incompetent he appoints to help "lead" the country.

But here's a radical and even scarier thought, far scarier: Suppose W. is NOT as incompetent as he seems? In stark contrast to everthing else, he has shown -- so far anyway -- great competence and utter focus in three areas: getting himself elected president, TWICE (or stealing those elections); getting a Republican Congress elected; and, most importantly, grabbing and consolidating executive power by trampling on the Constitution.

Why is the idea of him actually being competent so scary? Because that would mean that most, if not all, of his many disasters were by design!

Surely he could not have hurt this country and helped Osama bin Laden and other enemies more if he had been secretly working for them. But that, I hasten to add, is a preposterous idea.

Another idea, however, is not so preposterous. It's no secret that he agrees not only with the Evangelical wing of the Christian Religion, but with those of them who not only believe that the Armageddon prophesied in Revelation is imminent but who want to jump start it, because that would assure them of being among God's chosen survivors and enjoying perpetual Paradise on Earth -- without the inconvenience of dying first.

Who could be in a better position than Bush II to help them, if he truly believes their philosophy and is not simply exploiting the believers for political benefit?

That would sure explain a lot of things, not the least his refusal to dismiss obvious incompetents such as Dumbsfelf and Chertoff even when their incompetence leads to major disasters. After all, if you are trying to create disasters, incompent assistants are a boon, not a handicap. And if you believe that your attempts to bring about Armageddon will be successful, there's no need to worry about failed wars and thousands of civilian and military casualties, spiraling deficits, botched relief efforts from natural disasters, pollution, global warming and the myriad other concerns of the non-believers. Or future elections. A nuclear holocaust can be seen as the means to achieve your goal, not the worst possible catastrophy.

Believing that way and acting accordingly would, of course, make him absolutely insane. But insanity and competence are hardly mutually exclusive.

But maybe he is really as incompetent, albeit selectively incompetent, as he seems. That would be the good news.

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

Sen. Reid says: "But see, I've cooled that impeachment [talk] from the beginning. You know why? Who would be the president if the president were impeached? Why would I want Cheney president?"

That's logical. In the short run it would be immaterial; Cheney is already the de facto president, giving Bush as well as others their marching orders. But in the long run the consequences could be profound indeed: unlike Bush he could be elected president again, in both 2008 and 2012. And the anger of Republicans over Bush's impeachment could well assure that.

It's like the impeachment of Nixon, when they first had to get rid of his "impeachment insurance"; Vice-President Spiro Agnew. And impeaching Cheney would probably take up most of the two years between the 2006 and 2008 elections. And even then he would be able to call in his orders to Bush.

And who might Cheney nominate for VP if he ascended the throne formally?

All of this, of course, is assuming that Cheney really intends to give up his power in January 2009.