GWB and responsibility.

[Reeder]

Is Bush allergic to responsibility? Does he not know how to say “I said the words”? Is all he knows how to do is duck responsibility? All we hear is Tenet said it was ok. Hadley “forgot”. We never hear I’m the president I take responsibility for the words I spoke.

Why don’t we?

Whatever happened to “The buck stops here”?

The man has no courage, he has no idea of the meaning of responsibility.

I picture a kid on the playground pointing at another child…“He told me to say it!!”

The debate here is whether or not he should accept it or is it ok that he passes the buck and says it’s all over now.

Of course he should accept it. He is the president, the Commander in Chief.
Perhaps in name only.

[Fear_Itself]

Don’t forget, he was “technically” correct, so that makes it OK.

[rjung]

“During the more than half century of my life, we have seen an unprecedented decay in our American culture, a decay that has eroded the foundations of our collective values and moral standards of conduct. … The changing culture blurred the sharp contrast between right and wrong and created a new standard of conduct: ‘If it feels good, do it.’ and ‘If you’ve got a problem, blame somebody else.’”

–George W. Bush, A Charge To Keep

[John_Mace]

He should take responsibility and say that there was no one piece of evidence, including the Niger stuff, that made him decide to go to war. But I doubt any president in the last 30 yrs would’ve done that. I don’t see Bush as any more or less willing to accept responsibility than other recent presidents. Not that it’s right, just that it’s not unusual.

If you think Clinton had any more willingness to take responsibility, you’re living in La La land.

[elucidator]

Good point! Just when is Clinton going to take responsibillity for all the invasions he led us into under such flimsy pretences!

Ahhh, how I miss the clarity of the Reagan years, so clear, so devoid of doubt. Grenada! Now there was an invasion! Operation Urgent Fury! Now there was a military adventure worthy of the name “fiasco”!

What did Clinton do that even came close? I ask you, what?

[manhattan]

*Originally posted by John Mace *
**He should take responsibility and say that there was no one piece of evidence, including the Niger stuff, that made him decide to go to war. But I doubt any president in the last 30 yrs would’ve done that. **

Carter would have. For better or worse as President, he was that kind of guy.

As it happens, Bush said pretty much exactly what you ask him to.:

First, I take responsibility for putting our troops into action. And I made that decision because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security and a threat to the security of other nations.

I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Because the intelligence – not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country – made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace.

I say that because he possessed chemical weapons and biological weapons. I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. And I will remind the skeptics that in 1991, it became clear that Saddam Hussein was much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anybody ever imagined. He was a threat. I take responsibility for dealing with that threat.

We are in a war against terror. And we will continue to fight that war against terror. We’re after al Qaeda, as the Prime Minister accurately noted, and we’re dismantling al Qaeda. The removal of Saddam Hussein is an integral part of winning the war against terror. A free Iraq will make it much less likely that we’ll find violence in that immediate neighborhood. A free Iraq will make it more likely we’ll get a Middle Eastern peace. A free Iraq will have incredible influence on the states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us. And, yeah, I take responsibility for making the decisions I made.

More people would realize this if they weren’t a) spending their days either examining capillaries on leaves on trees when they should be looking at a forest and/or b) actively defending the Ba’athists and other terrorists merely in hopes of scoring a point against Bush.

[Semp]

Anyone remember the “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice… uh… Won’t get fooled again” quote? I remember after that someone had written an article (no cite, sorry, it seems like forever ago) about how it was indicitive of a self-righteousness on Bush’s part that he could not accept anything even approaching a hint of his own fallibility. My only complaint of the thesis is that he starts out saying “fool me once” which indicated some acknowledged fallibility, but I think there is something there in the argument. I think he thinks that if he allows himself to self-criticize to a degree that goes past superficiality that he’s planting the seeds of his own doom, so instead he deflects such criticisms as he’s getting now. The only problem is that the criticisms aren’t going away, and the deflection is making things even tougher for him. He feels he has to believe 100% that he is the man for the job, and anything like saying “yeah, I’m ultimately responsible for what’s going on and I accept the blame” means that he doesn’t have that confidence in himself, and therefore no one else will. If he were in a second term, instead of facing another election, I think he’d loosen up a bit. But not now, not with the barbarians at the gate.

[John_Mace]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Good point! Just when is Clinton going to take responsibillity for all the invasions he led us into under such flimsy pretences!

Ahhh, how I miss the clarity of the Reagan years, so clear, so devoid of doubt. Grenada! Now there was an invasion! Operation Urgent Fury! Now there was a military adventure worthy of the name “fiasco”!

What did Clinton do that even came close? I ask you, what? **

We’re talking about taking responsibility for one actions, not whether or not either invaded a country. Bush takes full responsibility for deciding to invade Iraq. Clinton wouldn’t even take responsibility for having smoked pot.

[elucidator]

…b) actively defending the Ba’athists and other terrorists merely in hopes of scoring a point against Bush.

well, Manny, since we are all quite aware that crude and insulting innuendo is beneath your contempt, I think you should expand on that remark. Without such an explanation, it might be misunderstood to be a base and repulsive slur.

Can’t have that, now can we?

[Master_Wang-Ka]

Taking responsibility for anything we don’t like might hurt his chances for reelection.

If he wins a second term, he can’t run for a third… so he is free from having to worry about reelection.

He can do ANYTHING HE WANTS.

And THIS term, he went and destroyed the pathetic remnants of our foreign policy, and got us into a questionable war that will quite possibly be going on well after he’s out of office!

Ghod KNOWS what he’ll do when he doesn’t have to worry about pissing off the electorate…

[Jonathan_Chance]

Yeah, that’s a little disingenuous, manhattan.

In paragraph 2 of your quote he states that he acted because intelligence sources indicated theer was a real threat. That’s just another angle on the ‘I was misled so it wasn’t my fault’ line the administration has been falling back on for two weeks.

The amusing thing here is that if GWB took the hit now and just said “I did what I thought was right. If I misled people it’s my responsibility solely. No one else will take the fall for me.” the issue would dissappate.

What most people don’t realize (and politicians seem genetically incapable of realizing) is that the dodging is the story. the misleading is a story, yes. But the dodging and ducking is a bigger one. If he came clean there’d be another week or so of it and then the media wouldn’t have a hook. It would be over.

But having Tenet fall on his sword (twice! Nice trick that.) and then others attempt to take the hit only makes GWB look guilty. And even if he’s completely straight up and was misled it looks like he’s worming away from responsibility.

God, I love being in the press. When I covered politics I loved watching them wriggle on the hook.

Stand back…I may start chuckling evilly at any moment.

[elucidator]

“Misled” aint gonna get it. Just for instance, questions about the “aluminum tube” Bushwah started way back. I read the papers, I knew that. And he didn’t? Not to mention the infamous “report that never existed”.

Its simply not possible that he wouldn’t have heard, at least at some point, that his decisions were based on intelligence that was (lets be generous) questionable. Wouldn’t a reasonable man, or at least any man remotely worthy of the position he currently occupies, be compelled to review everything, to be sure of every jot and tittle. When thousands of lives are at stake?

Ah, but we are assured by Ms. Rice (who has that “soon-to-spend-more-time-with-her-family” look) that our Fearless Leader is not a “fact-checker”.

Just so.

[Fear_Itself]

Originally uttered by George Bush:
First, I take responsibility for putting our troops into action.

Ooh, way to go out on a limb George, admitting something that was never in question. But the question was, do you take responsibility for justifying your decision to the American people with a lie? Or are you still ducking and weaving, blaming others and answering questions that no one ever asked!!

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by manhattan *
**Carter would have. For better or worse as President, he was that kind of guy.

As it happens, Bush said pretty much exactly what you ask him to.: **

Actually, he did no such thing. His response, in which he stated that he took responsibility for so many other things, was in answer to the question:

*Mr. President, others in your administration have said your words on Iraq and Africa did not belong in your State of the Union address. **Will you take personal responsibility for those words? *And to both of you, how is it that two major world leaders such as yourselves have had such a hard time persuading other major powers to help stabilize Iraq? (Emphasis added)

His answer basically boils down to a “no.” He does not take responsibility for his words, nor does he address the questionable inclusion of intelligence that he knew was faulty at best. To suggest that everyone else knew of the problems with the Africa/uranium intel but didn’t bother to inform him of them is ludicrous, especially in light of the stories regarding the changes to wording so that he only pointed at the British report. Sorry, but the only reasonable conclusion I can draw are that he didn’t mind throwing in discredited information so long as it helped him sell his war.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by manhattan *
As it happens, Bush said pretty much exactly what you ask him to.

Oh, spare me. That snippet is so easy to dismantle, I’ll let Joel, Crow, and Tom Servo take a crack at it. Hey, guys?

G.W. Bush: First, I take responsibility for putting our troops into action. And I made that decision because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security and a threat to the security of other nations.
Joel: An infinitely small threat, but still a threat!
Tom: A threat even smaller than his election victory.
Crow: Can’t go much farther than one justice, can you?

G.W. Bush: I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put together a coalition…
Tom: Two’s a pair, three’s a triplet, four’s a coalition!

G.W. Bush: …to remove Saddam Hussein. Because the intelligence – not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country – made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace.
Joel: Paging George Tenet, paging George Tenet. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.

G.W. Bush: I say that because he possessed chemical weapons and biological weapons.
Tom: …back in 1990.

G.W. Bush: I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.
Crow: Because Paul Wolfowitz told me so, and he looks trustworthy to me!

G.W. Bush: And I will remind the skeptics that in 1991, it became clear that Saddam Hussein was much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anybody ever imagined. He was a threat.
Joel: Back in 1991!
Tom: A blink of an eye, in geological terms.
Crow: You don’t have eyes.

G.W. Bush: I take responsibility for dealing with that threat.
Crow: But not the responsibility of the false information I used to justify the “threat.”
Joel: Paging George Tenet, paging–
Tom: Stop.

G.W. Bush: We are in a war against terror. And we will continue to fight that war against terror.
Joel: At least, our soldiers will. I’ll be staying back here, where it’s safe, taunting the terrorists some more.

G.W. Bush: We’re after al Qaeda, as the Prime Minister accurately noted, and we’re dismantling al Qaeda. The removal of Saddam Hussein is an integral part of winning the war against terror.
Crow: …even though he had nothing to do with al Qaeda.
Tom: Even Congress said so!

G.W. Bush: A free Iraq will make it much less likely that we’ll find violence in that immediate neighborhood.
Joel: Pay no attention to the daily casualty counts from CentCom.

G.W. Bush: A free Iraq will make it more likely we’ll get a Middle Eastern peace. A free Iraq will have incredible influence on the states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us.
Tom: Yeah, I hear recruiting among the anti-American terrorist groups has jumped 300% already.

G.W. Bush: And, yeah, I take responsibility for making the decisions I made.
Crow: That’s because Dick Cheney makes all the big decisions!
(Yeah, it’s silly, but I’m missing this year’s TFMST3K production, and the jokes had to go somewhere…)

[december]

*Originally posted by manhattan *
**More people would realize this if they weren’t a) spending their days either examining capillaries on leaves on trees when they should be looking at a forest and/or b) actively defending the Ba’athists and other terrorists merely in hopes of scoring a point against Bush. **

Well said, manhattan. We’ve dicussed point (b) on other threads, but (a) bears repeating.

Some people seem to prefer debating a small aspect, such as whether Bush ought to have said, “The British have told us…” rather than “The British have learned…” Or, an even even smaller issue – Bush’s precise words of apology for including the British intelligence in his SOTU address.

In this type of analysis, failure to act becomes a trivial sin, compared with taking action but using a wrong word. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton left Saddam in power. Bush removed his gopvernment from power. If posters think the world would be better off if Saddam were still ruling Iraq, I wish they’d say so, rather than pussy-foot around with a side issue.

BTW, Dick Cheney made a similar point in a speech yesterday.

Now the regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever, and at a safe remove from the danger, some are now trying to cast doubt upon the decision to liberate Iraq. The ability to criticize is one of the great strengths of our democracy, but those who do so have an obligation to answer this question: How could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat?

Last October, the director of Central Intelligence issued a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s continuing programs of weapons of mass destruction. That document contained the consensus judgments of the intelligence community, based upon the best information available about the Iraqi threat.

The NIE declared, quote, “We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction program in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade,” end quote.

Those charged with the security of this nation could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring such information or trying to wish it away would be irresponsible in the extreme.

[PatriotX]

How did Clinton get pulled into this discussion?

Being better than Clinton at accepting personal responsibility still leaves a great deal of rom for improvement.

[Latro]

*Originally posted by december *
Some people seem to prefer debating a small aspect, such as whether Bush ought to have said, “The British have told us…” rather than “The British have learned…” Or, an even even smaller issue – Bush’s precise words of apology for including the British intelligence in his SOTU address.

Oh, this is grand.
Is this the same December that has started a thread, trying to deflect blame for Kelly’s death on the BBC, because they used the words ‘intelligence official’ ?

[China_Guy]

Originally posted by december In this type of analysis, failure to act becomes a trivial sin, compared with taking action but using a wrong word. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton left Saddam in power. Bush removed his gopvernment from power. If posters think the world would be better off if Saddam were still ruling Iraq, I wish they’d say so, rather than pussy-foot around with a side issue.

Well, December, yes I will go out on a limb and say that this planet is a worse place for the US having snubbing virtually the entire world and gone in on the flimsiest of excuses and contingency plans. Which December plenty of people on this board warned about at the time. How much did this jaunt cost in dollars and cents? Let’s just calculate cold hard cash that the military spent, the occupation has spent (is spending), throw in some conservative numbers around rebuilding the Iraqi base services (never mind a healthy economy). How much oil is flowing out of Iraq these days?

Lessee, you want to calculate international political capital. The US was about the highest it had ever been on 9/12 and although you don’t live abroad I would hope that the average American could see this point.

Oh oh oh, I know, the Iraqi’s a free now. Now the pros and cons of a police state versus anarchy may seem black and white to you, but I’d say it’s not a pleasant choice either way.

Let’s not even go down the road of body bags by coalition forces that seem to be accumulating daily courtesy of a “free people” that welcomed their “liberators” with “open arms.”

I’m going to stop here before I start ranting. Yes, Iraqi “freedom” is not worth the price that we haven’t even started to pay.

[elucidator]

OK, lets just 'fess up. Manhattan and december have nailed us, we might as well come clean.

We hate GWB. And since it naturally follows. seeing as how GWB represents everything that is good and decent in America, we hate America. Purple mountains, amber waves, the whole megilla.

You guys were just too smart for us.