Evil geniuses? Or, not giving a gnat's ass?

The five years of the Bush II reign has, for keen observers like ourselves, had one overriding question hanging over it: Are they complete fuck ups, or, to misquote some ol' playwright, "though this be madness, there be method in't"?

I was thinking about that the other evening while watching yet another episode of the Scottie McClellan/Perils of Pauline show. McClellan appears unbearably unsuited for his job. He lacks the polished assurance of the late, great Ari Fleischer, who could lie about the color of the sky and, looking out upon his reportorial charges with a look of patient dismissiveness, only smirk as one after another tried unsuccessfully to get him to admit that it is, in fact, blue. McClellan can neither lie convincingly nor tell the truth. He obviously does not have the confidence of his employers, who would have us believe that they've long forgotten that he even conducts daily press briefings. And he has no credibility among reporters. He cannot love his job, unless he has a penchant for serial dissembling accompanied by self-mutilation. And yet, there he is each day.

Is it because Bush & Co. find his ability to stonewall effective, or is it because they just don't care what he has to say or what White House correspondents report?

In that he is a perfect icon for this administration and, indeed, for the modern Republican party. McClellan provides the semblance of engaging in a ritual of governing -- the press briefing -- while making sure that the ritual is perceived as hollow, immaterial, and irrelevant to the powers that be.

McClellan is only the most visible face of an administration rife with people who, to the most casual observer, don't quite seem up to the task. It boggles the mind. How can this administration find its way to the bathroom each day? Why doesn't it simply crumble under the weight of its own failure? Or is there something else going on here? It has indeed gotten to the point where we no long know whether what we perceive as unbelievable screw-ups are, in fact, all part of a plan; an evil, scorched earth plan, but a plan nevertheless.

I know I'm not the first in the blogosphere to raise these questions, but indulge me as I conduct a small thought experiment.

Bin Laden: A devastating failure to capture the leader of a terrorist group responsible for killing more than 3,000 innocents on American soil? Or is he an effective instrument for keeping the populace terrified of further attacks while his timely communiques (warrentless-wiretapping "kerfuffle" = Bin Laden video) gives Bush a platform to do his steely-eyed rocket man routine?

Okay. That one's an iffy proposition. But here's some more obvious connundrums.

Iraq: A quagmire that is drawing down resources, crippling the armed services and making a career in the military about as desirable as do-it-yourself gall bladder surgery? Or is the devastating occupation an effective way to accomplish Rumsfeld's goals of "transforming the military" into a leaner organization, operationally incapable of performing the distasteful role of "nation-building" that so many in previous administrations have asked it do?

Iran: A low boil that would have been relatively easy to contain had this administration had the cognitive facilities to simultaneously chew gum and cross the street? Or has ignoring this for so long merely been a means of creating a full-blown international crisis for which the rest of the world -- fearing a madman with a real nuclear warhead -- would be forced to act, while also creating another campaign issue just in time for the midterm elections during a lame duck president's second term?

North Korea: See above, "Iran," but this time just in time for the Cheney '08 ("He ain't dead yet") campaign.

Medicare drug benefits: A politically disastrous failure that satisfied constituents in the Pharma and HMO industries at the expense of the nation's seniors? Or a calculated strategy for convincing the nation's most reliable bloc of voters that, see, Big Guvmint can't get nothin' right, Republicans were right all along?

Katrina: A disaster that illustrated why putting politically well-connected, but ultimately incompetent people in charge of vital response services is a bad idea? Or, like the drug benefit, an opportunity to show that government should not be in the disaster response business, and, as a special bonus, clear out the population of a stronghold of the Democratic party at the local, state, and federal level?

There are many, many other examples where the incompetence and complete disinterest in even feigning a semblance of good governance and policy making defies belief. Can they really be this bad? The alternative explanation can only force us to don our well-worn tinfoil hats and begin jabbering about a conspiracy of lunatics bent on "destroying America in order to save it."

UPDATED: For coherence.