Tomorrow's Weather: Blood, Frogs to Fall From Sky
O.k., that's the end of my snarkiness over President Bush taking responsibility for the sub-optimal response to Katrina. Look, few people are more cynical about Mr. Bush than am I, but he's right in this case, and he's doing the right thing. It's easy of course, to say a bunch of bad things about the guy--that there are many other failures that he's failed to own up to, that he should have learned to take responsibility for his actions long ago, that, given his record, we should conclude that this is another cynical and poll-related ploy, that taking responsibility won't bring back those who died as a result of his errors. This list is not a sneaky way of putting these criticisms on the table; it's just a way of acknowledging that I recognize them and feel their force.
But consider, just for a moment, that Mr. Bush may be an actual human being, and treat him like one. It's possible that he's learned some valuable lessons from Katrina. It's possible that this acceptance of responsibility--though not quite an apology, and not quite as obviously heartfelt as one might like--is sincere. Bush is an important man with an important problem--an inability to recognize his own weaknesses and acknowledge his mistakes. We should reward him for making progress on this front at least by not ridiculing him for it. If ordinary human compassion doesn't motivate you here, perhaps this will: a very efficient way to make him worse would be to ridicule him whenever he starts to get things right.
My good thoughts, for what they're worth, go out to the President today. Admitting that you were in part responsible for an error of this magnitude is not an easy thing to do, and I wonder how many of the people who will be ridiculing him today would be able to admit such an error themselves.
O.k., that's the end of my snarkiness over President Bush taking responsibility for the sub-optimal response to Katrina. Look, few people are more cynical about Mr. Bush than am I, but he's right in this case, and he's doing the right thing. It's easy of course, to say a bunch of bad things about the guy--that there are many other failures that he's failed to own up to, that he should have learned to take responsibility for his actions long ago, that, given his record, we should conclude that this is another cynical and poll-related ploy, that taking responsibility won't bring back those who died as a result of his errors. This list is not a sneaky way of putting these criticisms on the table; it's just a way of acknowledging that I recognize them and feel their force.
But consider, just for a moment, that Mr. Bush may be an actual human being, and treat him like one. It's possible that he's learned some valuable lessons from Katrina. It's possible that this acceptance of responsibility--though not quite an apology, and not quite as obviously heartfelt as one might like--is sincere. Bush is an important man with an important problem--an inability to recognize his own weaknesses and acknowledge his mistakes. We should reward him for making progress on this front at least by not ridiculing him for it. If ordinary human compassion doesn't motivate you here, perhaps this will: a very efficient way to make him worse would be to ridicule him whenever he starts to get things right.
My good thoughts, for what they're worth, go out to the President today. Admitting that you were in part responsible for an error of this magnitude is not an easy thing to do, and I wonder how many of the people who will be ridiculing him today would be able to admit such an error themselves.
33 Comments:
I have to say I'm shocked. However, I do suspect that this claim of responsibility, like the "resignation" of Mike "Drownie" Brownie would not have happened if the immediate Bush spin (It was all Blanco and Nagin's fault!) had taken hold successfully.
How wise.
Probably my favorite book is The Caine Mutiny. The villain is not the deeply flawed Captain Queeg, but the snarky Lt. Kiefer (and the other officers who were swayed by him), who withheld their loyalty and assistance from the captain because they deemed him unworthy of it.
In the climactic moment of truth, they realize that the mutiny would never had happened if they had helped the crazy old bastard.
(It is my opinion that Bush doesn't "come clean" on his errors because such admissions will invariably be used against him politically. He doesn't have the charm of a JFK [few do], who was given a pass on the Bay of Pigs with a token, "oh well, I screwed up," even though that screwup likely precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis.)
oh please. Let the light break forth and all heaven sing: Dear Leader has uttered a qualified, hedged, and consequence less act of public contrition.
Now people, Can we all get past the silly questions and mean spirited finger pointing while those of us in power get on with our post-modern Stalinist revolution? I mean really, if only the Mayor was really in charge! lets get to work on that.
It is my opinion that Bush doesn't "come clean" on his errors because such admissions will invariably be used against him politically
Like when Chimpy opined that telling the insurgents "Bring it on!" might not have been the smartest statement in the world for him to make?
Even when Bush has made misstatements of facts(Like in June 2003 when he said that Saddam had kicked out the UN weapons inspectors before the invasion, when no such thing occured), he doesn't get called on it by the media.
This was a mistake too big to "sweep under the rug" and perhaps future presidents will have the wisdom not to have a photo op with a musical instrument while a major American city is flooded and in need of succor.
Yeah, Tom, I really don't think we can attribute Bush's refusal to admit error to fear of criticism by political opponents. It's not like he used to admit error but then, after repeated harsh criticism, stopped doing so. This guy has NEVER admitted error--remember, in the debates he wouldn't even own up to ONE mistake--and he refuses to fess up even when criticism is already about as vociferous as it could be, as re: the fabricated WMD evidence.
I mean, I DO think that the viciousness of the current political climate and the prevalence of "gotcha" politics makes everybody hesitant to admit error--but there's good reason to believe that that isn't Bush's only--or even his major--motivation. His aversion to admitting error goes far beyond that of the average American politician.
WS, I hope you're Capek's Witness if my sins ever have to be judged.
WS, I think it depends on the implacability of the opponent. For Bush to admit error in foreign policy I am convinced would be taken for weakness by al-Qaeda. It is not a stretch to say JFK's mea culpa on the Bay of Pigs incident (and the incident itself) were taken as a lack of will by the USSR, and emboldened them to move missiles into Cuba.
Even in The Caine Mutiny, there's a scene where Queeg sorta kinda admits a mistake and asks that his officers try to work with him.
He is mocked.
As for the debate question, I took it as a trap for Bush, and any admission would turn up the next day in a Kerry campaign ad. Neither was Kerry asked a similar question about his votes in the senate. I'd think that if it had, an honest answer would have been similarly exploited by the Roveans, feeding the flip-flopper meme.
I myself am not that big on formal confessions of wrongdoing in my personal relationships. (It seems like a girl thing [ducking for cover here]}. There are other ways of signaling that um, "mistakes have been made."
Well, if it's a girl thing, it's a damn good girl thing, and, IMHO, one of the many things guys could learn from girls.
I gotta say, learning to freely admit my errors has been one of the most important things I've ever done to do. It made me a much better person and a better teacher.
Incidentally, I grew up in a home in which every mistake was judged very harshly, and that's where I think I developed my early habit of denying my errors. I also learned to be an extremely tricky and intellectually dishonest debater. It is, perhaps, these experiences that have made me so averse to error-denial, trickery, and intellectual dishonesty. Anyway, they've also made me sensitive to the pernicious effects of such an environment.
and my $0.02: admitting error in Iraq would hardly hearten al Qaeda. They're pleased as punch we went there and hoping like hell that Bush'll stay the anemic course. Announcing that we know that we screwed up and don't intend to do so again--intending, rather, to actually, you know, go after AL QAEDA this time--would, rather, throw a scare into 'em.
In the climactic moment of truth, they realize that the mutiny would never had happened if they had helped the crazy old bastard.
My lord. I think TVD has precisely summed up the Clinton years. I fondly remember the way members of our military withheld their support because they thought him unworthy. I distinctly remember the many who continued their stay until Bush came into office so they could have their papers signed by "a real republican president".
Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile, is my view in any implacably adverserial situation, which includes militant Islamism and American politics.
As for Clinton, I'm reminded of the scene in, yes, The Caine Mutiny, where after the mutiny, one of the sailors (played by Lee Marvin in the very faithful movie), is asked whether the crew liked the captain.
"Sure, we liked him. I mean, not a lot, but we liked him."
Heh heh... Yeah, that's the way most liberals, myself included, seemed to feel about Clinton...we liked him, just not a lot.
But re: Anonymous's point about the military--I keep meaning to post the bit from Richard Clarke's book in which he discusses how the navy refused the White House's request to fire the cruise missiles at bin Laden from submarines. The White House knew that the Pakistani military was on bin Laden's side, and that if the missiles were fired from destroyers (missile frigates, whatever), the Pakis were likely to see this and warn him. The Navy, contemptuous of Clinton, desided to basically give him the finger and do it their way, from surface ships. Sure enough, somebody seems to have warned OBL of the strike and he got out just before it hit.
If true, there should have been courtmartials. President Clinton was commander-in-chief. Period, end of story.
If Clarke is correct, the United States Navy is guilty of mutiny if not treason.
And if Clinton lacked the guts to discipline the disobedient brass, the highest responsibility and and most egregious dereliction of duty lies with him.
(from memory) "I didn't fire MacArthur because he was a dumb son-of-a-bitch, which he was. I fired him because he was insubordinate."---Harry S Truman
Truman cashiered an American icon even though it probably cost him his presidency.
"The buck stops here."---ibid.
This WMD stuff pales in comparison in presidential culpability.
Yes, yes, this, too, was Clinton's fault...
I mean, I hear you, Tom, but, look: Clinto was long out of political capital. He was fighting a three-front war, against al Qaeda, against the Republicans, and against the military. Conservatives were already falsely accusing him of "wagging the dog," and if he'd tried to push this issue, he'd have been crucified. He'd have been accused of trying to shift blame to the military when the dog didn't wag, and of trying to micromanage like Carter did at Desert One. He was out of options.
Some day conservatives are going to have to take responsibility for their role in all this.
And if you don't believe the story, read Clarke's book. It's astounding.
"This WMD stuff", huh? It's good to see that, once again, you've managed to put things in their proper perspective. Life must just be a candy-coated blowjob parade for those who understand the true nature of things.
Well, I should have eschewed the WMD remark, which was useless and predictably elicited an equally useless response.
I would say that Truman was crucified for firing MacArthur. Still, history seems to be treating him kindly.
If one reads the Philosoraptor archives, one will find me quite soft on Bill Clinton. I consider him largely a centrist, and I had no problem with him politically.
But it is my opinion that Clinton spent his political capital before he was even elected, with his false denial of any involvement with Gennifer Flowers in 1992. (His corruption was not in the affair, but in getting her a government job.)
But he was given a pass by the press and the electorate on that; however, he was already compromised. Anything less than perfection in office was pushing it.
Although I didn't agree with pushing gays in the military, his first action in office was to force the issue, and as commander-in-chief, I felt it was his right to do so. But he backed down instead.
Then Hillarycare, which most agree was payback to his long-suffering partner, was ineptly attempted and even worse, abandoned without a fight.
The boldfaced false denial of the minor Lewinsky issue merely broke the camel's back.
Therefore, when Clinton's largely self-inflicted political weakness made it impossible to perform his duty as C-in-C, it was also his duty to resign his office, as Richard Nixon did.
I'm willing to entertain Richard Clarke's claims once they're comfirmed elsewhere. (Forgive me for my lack of confidence in him.) In the meantime, it is indisputable where the buck stops.
History will judge Bush on Iraq, WMDs, and everything else, as it will judge Truman and Clinton. But excuses and blameshifting such as Clarke's will bear no weight.
RE: Clinton and the military
In this post, Mark Kleiman says "...I personally know two West Point Captains who were run out of the Army by their senior commanders when it became known that they had voted for Clinton in 1996, so the political leanings of senior officers are not an abstract thing."
Please forward details of their courtsmartial.
Apply to Mark Kleiman
So in other words, you're quoting something you know nothing about. OK.
Yeah, I hate pulling quotes out of your ass that you can't substantiate, just like Captain Sherman Powell.
There's lots of things I know nothing about, but that doesn't stop me from commenting. If bloggers and commenters were limited to things they know about and could prove to some arbitrary standard, the internet would be a much quieter place.
I know that Mark Kleiman said it. That's all that I said. If you have problems with Kleiman, take it up with him or with Winston, who clearly feels that Kleiman is worth listening to.
Why do you assume that the only way to run someone out of the Army is to court martial them?
A student I trust recently told me that his roommate had been pulled aside during ROTC exercises and told by one of the instructors that he was going to burn in Hell if he didn't accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior, etc., etc.
I'm currently trying to figure out what to do about this.
Anyway, I've heard from several sources with real contacts with the military that this isn't that unusual.
And incidentally:
"candy-coated blowjob parade" really cracks me up.
I'm currently trying to figure out what to do about this.
How about nothing?
If he can't stand up to li'l ol' Jesus, what's he gonna do against Mighty Allah?
I, mean he's supposed to be training to be a fighting man, for crissakes. I wouldn't want such a whiner getting my back.
Tom, you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Jesus didn't make an appearance. The "whiner" will have to stand up to one of his instructors.
Regarding who's on your back, I think the better question is how a once-born is supposed to feel when he knows that everyone who has his back is a born-again who believes he deserves to go to Hell.
If you knew anything about Christianity, Mr. Anonymous Duke, you'd know that that would make no difference.
Oh, Tom, you slay me. I haven't laughed that hard since I heard Jay Leno say that the cars of the future are gonna look more like the Flintstone's than the Jetson's.
If you had said "should make no difference" you mihgt have a point. But it's what I know about the history of the actions of Christians that makes me concerned for the Christ-rjecter in the foxhole.
And remember that sins of omission can be just as deadly as sins of commission.
I wish I could laugh back at your stereotyping and prejudice, sir, but it isn't funny. You have become what you hate.
I'm a huge fan so you might like red nose pitbull kennel
If you like dog portrait you may very well like this site dog portrait
Hey blogger do you know that you can make cash from your blog?
Its so simple a child could do it!
This goes for anyone reading this too.
You can make up to $0.40 per visit with this nice affiliate program called Zangocash
Its one of the best programs out there at the minute and can suit any blogger or webmaster!
To sign up and start earning money right away!
Just click this link below
affiliate site
So why not start earning today!
Now You Can Have The Profit Power of A Massive Multi-Million Dollar
Internet Empire - At Your Fingertips - with our home based money making
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home