I don’t believe Bush thinks there’s anything to take responsibility for. The plan for US.Inc went absolutely according to plan (apart from now) and the US re-aligned itself in the Middle East – extracting itself from the shit in Saudi, acquiring new oil resources, etc. You might not agree with the plan, but he’s not going to apologise cos you don’t agree with the Neo-Cons interpretation of the big picture. He and his team painted it, you can shove the palate where you like.
If you want him to apologise for misleading the public, well, it may take a while and I refer you to the big picture; the national long-term interest justifies the means.
But why do you want him to apologise, anyway; are you promoting some kind of abstract frame of ethical and moral code that politicians of all persuasions should adhere to – in short, are you sure this isn’t about you and/or disillusionment ?
L_C, it’s not about apologies or about abstract ethical codes; it’s about real consequences and accountability. That George W. Bush doesn’t see the point of the question regarding “taking responsibility for what he says” is less an indication of moral failing so much as it is an intellectual and philosophical failing. -GW just doesn’t see accuracy and honesty as necessary components of a Chief Executive’s public pronouncements.
Democracy (in GW land) is only the mechanism by which Nature’s appointed leaders are (with a little help from the USSC) given high office; once there, it’s important that they follow their own beliefs, regardless of inconveniences such as legal justifications or public opinion. If the facts don’t support the Leader’s preferred plan of action, spin the public some plausibilities. After all, they deserve certainty and confidence, don’t they? Telling the truth would just grey up that lovely black and white picture drawn to illustrate The Plan.
Who created the so-called “Office of Special Plans,” packed it with neocons, waited for them to sift out “evidence” to meet their expectations, and then gave a speech – actually many speeches – relying only on this distorted view of the situation from the people who he hired?
Who could that be?
I’m glad somebody started this thread, because I’ve been thinking about this lately. There’s this constant buzz from the right that “people” need to take responsibilities for their actions these days. The Dittoheads of the world want us to know that this nation is in a bad way because there’s so many people out there who just keep making bad decisions and looking for other people to blame.
I agree with them, actually. Except, I see the worst, most damaging decisions constantly made by the people in power. Enron. Worldcom. Charter. The White House. You’ve got so-called respectable people doing far more damage than a single parent on foodstamps. Especially the White House, which just sold a war and cared little about the peace.
Just because other Presidents didn’t fess up to the truth, why should we continue to accept that? Didn’t Bush sell himself as the “take the moral path and accept responsibility for your actions” guy? Shouldn’t we expect Just That when he’s elected?
Point of fact: You, and others, have been soundly roasted whenever you brought “point (b)” up in other threads. Why you can’t seem to get the idea that there are more possible positions than “pro-war” and “Baath apologist” is a mystery.
Ding! You set the trigger off there, Xeno. Must have been the use of “moral” in relation to a Neo-Con Administration. Does not compute, sorry.
Actually, I’m worried about a straw man, there. Does he really not “see the point” or is it that he’s learned that, in politics and as a general all-purpose principle , you only take responsibility for the ‘good’ stuff ? Contrast and compare with that consummate political professional, his immediate predecessor.
I take your point about his personal and philosophical regard for ‘intellectual honesty’ and Bush may well be capable of the failing you characterise. I’m just not clear how one discerns the difference with sub-standard businessmen/politico’s like the present incumbent . . . and, ultimately, isn’t it simply academic ?
This creed lives by another entirely capitalistic code, it has no regard for honesty, tradition or any of the other niceties of, say, the Nixon era.
Clearly, John Mace and elucidator have noticed the same phenomenon I’ve seen: the skin of a true Bush-hater usually also contains a true Clinton-lover.
With GWB, we have to pick a mountain of nits to try to “prove” that a single falsehood passed his lips. With WJC, we needed only to note that his lips were moving to know he was lying. Though the counterpoint is refreshing IMHO, any discussion of dissembling presidents is bound to include Clinton, in much the same way that discussions of sin tend to include Satan.
A “discussion of dissembling presidents”? Ah, but these are amatuers, mere children playing at the feet of the Master, the Collosus of Cant, who did for lies what Gibralter does for rocks. Lawyers speak his name in tones of hushed reverance, adulterous spouses search his works for references (“I accept the responsibility, but not the blame…”) Small boys invoke his aid when trying to explain the sudden disintegration of household furnishings (“That lamp is non-operational…”.)
If Baron Munchausen’s grave be found, he should be turned out so that proper dignity can be conferred upon the Maestro of Mendacity, the Jehovah of Jive-ass Motherfuckers everywhere…
But you already know of whom I speak, no one could doubt it. Why stain the page with his name?
7/30/03
So, does anyone think that these 9 words are powerful enough to wash away the sin of 16 ? I always considered responsibility to be an action rather than a talk sort of concept. Haven’t seen any action.
Continuing the Nixon tangent in relation to taking responsibility, this cropped up last week. Perhaps it caught your eye ?
*”A former aide to Richard Nixon has said the president **personally ordered **the Watergate break-in which would ultimately lead to his downfall.
Jeb Magruder said he heard a telephone call in which President Nixon approved the plan to break into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate hotel and bug the offices. “*
I’m dumbfounded ! ish
Is it a coincidence that Mr Magruder looks like Al Capone’s right-hand man in that photo . . . I think not, Hercule Poirot !