Bush is still in charge
To The Editor: I was at a newsstand the other night and saw a paper with a photograph of George Bush and Nancy Pelosi. The headline was “Who’s in Charge?”
I am not a George Bush man. I resent his complete lack of dedication and honor to duty during Vietnam and I also resented his recent treatment of the V.A. Hospital. However, I feel the perception that George Bush is not in charge is erroneous.
He certainly is in charge. In the first place, it was a great political move to call Pelosi into his office. It showed that he is willing to meet with and work with the dominant party. Clinton certainly did and he got a lot done while the Republicans were in charge of the Senate and House. In fact, he had a Republican secretary of defense who served with great distinction. Like him or not, Clinton was in charge then and George Bush is in charge now.
As for Rumsfeld, well let’s face it, Rumsfeld was fired. Call it what you want, but whatever you call it, he was canned. Flat out. The results of the election dictated that he simply had to go and that was that. This again shows Bush is in charge. He appointed Bush Sr. pal Bob Gates to be the new secretary of defense. George Bush Sr. and Gates are both C.I.A. men and have a long history of working together. This is no sign of a lack of power. It is Bush’s positive way of dealing with the devastating blow of election results that were extremely negative for him. Pretty smart.
Whatever you or I think of him, it would be a huge mistake to underestimate this president. He may be foolishly inarticulate and clumsy at times; he is certainly capable of making huge blunders that affect us all; and he has shown unabashed willingness to oversee one of the largest pork feeds in our country’s history. But in no way is he out of control. That is just who he is and he is not going to change. Not now and not through the next two years. He is doing it his way, and the Democrats had better keep that in mind.
Lawrence White
