I agree it is not simple incompetence. I think it is inevitable that new extreme movements exclude lots of prior groups that have resources and capacities. Either they consolidate their power and the others come on board, or they fall short and appear as "incompetents". [e.g. did the Mullahs have the "competence" to run Iran?] It is odd to see them excluding people who would come on board, with their competence, for a small, even symbolic price. But I attribute this to the internal dynamics of true believer groups trying to stay pure in what they hope is their early phase. The point is not that the Bush people are so incompetent, but rather that they are so extreme that what could be an "easy" job has now become hard.
Foolishly, I missed Radio Henwood so I can't comment on Parenti's view until I listen on the archive. But offhand I don't see the logic. The Bush crowd really see Iraq as a first step, a "demonstration effect" redefining the position of the 3rd world as well as relations within the richer nations. They have even said so. Why would they blur their own message of U.S. power with a mess? Not to mention the domestic embarrassment.
Paul