Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Definition of Insanity

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted June 15, 2005.


Sometimes you look at the people the Bush administration appoints to high public office and the only possible response is, "What were they thinking?"

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Atheism and Diversity: Is It Wrong For Atheists To Convert Believers?
Greta Christina

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Detroit Restaurant Workers Rally Against Wage-Stealing Restaurant Chain
Paul Abowd

DrugReporter:
The Feds Are Addicted to Pot -- Even If You Aren't
Paul Armentano

Environment:
With the Copenhagen Summit Approaching, a Global Climate Movement Emerges
Bryan Farrell

Food:
Don't Be Scared of Food: Are We Being Needlessly Hysterical About Food Safety?
David E. Gumpert

Health and Wellness:
10 Signs Vegetarianism Is Catching On
Kathy Freston

Immigration:
Why Is the Department of Homeland Security Incarcerating Refugees Across the U.S.?
Emily Creighton

Media and Technology:
What Do Levi Johnston, Evangelicals and Oprah Have in Common? They All Blind Us to What Really Matters
Chris Hedges

Movie Mix:
Disney Apocalypse: Why 2012 Sucks
Alexander Zaitchik

Politics:
Obama's Misguided War Speech Shouldn't Be the Last Word on Afghanistan
John Nichols

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Have Women's Lives Improved Globally?
Laura Liswood

Rights and Liberties:
Why Fanaticism Can Be a Good Thing
Rebecca Solnit

Sex and Relationships:
6 Tricks to Sex After a Divorce
Julie Bogart

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Pennsylvania Residents Sue Gas Driller for Contamination, Health Concerns
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Will A Long-Awaited Israel/Palestine Prisoner Swap Finally Go Through?
Jerrold Kessel, Pierre Klochendler

More stories by Molly Ivins

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Zalmay Khalilzad for U.S. ambassador to Iraq? Why not just send Richard Perle? Khalilzad is a second-rank neo-con with all the same credentials as the rest of those bozos -- pre-emptive war, world hegemony, Project for a New American Century... the whole stinking lot of it. Plus, he's been a big booster for Iran's ayatollahs, the Afghani Mujahideen and the Taliban, not to mention an oil company consultant. Isn't that just jim-dandy?

What this tells us is that the administration has learned exactly nothing from the past three years of insurgency in Iraq. The 1,700-dead, $1 billion-a-week mistake will continue to be run in exactly the same way we have already proved doesn't work. We'll keep trying to put out a growing insurgency with too small an army as the country drifts ever-closer to civil war. It's like Ben Franklin's definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

As one who has long argued that George W. Bush is not stupid, I must admit that not learning from your mistakes is a prime signal of stupidity. But of course, in order to learn from your mistakes, you have to recognize you made them. The president assured us just last week he is "heartened" by what is happening in Iraq and, "I am pleased with the progress." The vice president says there is "major progress" and the insurgency is in its "last throes." These folks are in such deep denial.

Chris Cox, now there's an appointment of near-genius level. Hey, is this the man you would put in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect investors from greedy, capitalist crooks? Cox, a Republican from Orange County, Calif., helped produce the Enron mess and subsequent scandals in the first place. Just the guy for the job!

Cox led the fight in 1995 to pass the "Private Securities and Litigation Reform Act," which provided extensive legal protections to corporate executives, accountants and lawyers who make misleading statements. The law paved the way for corporate executives to lie without fear of being sued -- it's the Ken Lay Protection Act.

In 2002, Cox said he "rejected the notion that Enron's meltdown should cause Congress to rethink deregulation." The guy's home state was ripped off for $10 billion by Enron. Here's another one who can't learn from his mistakes.

Of course, the fact that he's gotten more than $640,000 in campaign money from the very people he will now be regulating has nothing to do with his views.

Cox, according to The New York Times, is a devotee of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of unregulated capitalism. On announcing the Cox appointment, Bush said, "As a champion of the free-enterprise system in Congress, Chris Cox knows that a free economy is built on trust." Trust? How about trust but verify?

While working for the law firm of Latham & Watkins, Cox himself was sued, according to the Los Angeles Times, for work that involved him in a business scheme that robbed nearly 8,000 investors of approximately $136 million. The scheme cheated customers out of their retirement nest eggs by enticing them to invest in phony mortgages. High-level officers of the company pled guilty.

The charge against Cox was that he helped write a deceptive plan to sell mutual fund shares. Cox claimed ignorance and said he was only distantly involved, but The Associated Press later uncovered documents that showed him to be more involved with the convicted dealer than he previously let on.

And a new development in the most ludicrous nomination yet, John Bolton, Mr. Diplomacy, for ambassador to the United Nations. It turns out that in addition to trying to get American intelligence analysts who disagreed with him fired, Bolton axed an international civil servant for having the temerity to do his job.

In 2001, Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), says Bolton "telephoned me to try to interfere, in a menacing tone, in decisions that are the exclusive responsibility of the director-general." Bolton was opposed to Bustani's effort to get Iraq and other Arab countries involved in the OPCW.

Bustani aide Bob Rigg of New Zealand said: "Why did they not want OPCW involved in Iraq? They felt they couldn't rely on OPCW to come up with the findings the U.S. wanted."

Bolton then arranged to have Bustani fired in a way a U.N. tribunal has since said was "unlawful." I'll bet they just can't wait to see Bolton's moustache up at the United Nations. How could we possibly make more friends there?

As I'm sure Chris Cox can tell us, in business, "goodwill" is considered an asset.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

You've chosen to turn comments off for the entire site. Would you like to turn them back on?
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement