The Buck Stops Here
Friday, February 20, 2004
Imagine this scenario for just a moment: Osama bin Laden releases a statement stating that the September eleventh attacks were the idea of an extremist advisor in his organization. The statement goes on to explain that his advisor had perhaps exaggerated the need, and lied about some facts in order to sell the idea to bin Laden. It ends with an assertion that this advisor may be fired and therefore Osama bin Laden is not really responsible for September eleventh.
How many Americans will line up to release him of responsibility? I doubt any would. We all understand that Osama bin Laden, being the leader of his organization, is responsible for all its actions even if some elements may occur under his radar – they still happened with a mandate from bin Laden to kill Americans. And they happened on his watch. The public knowledge of Al Qaida is that it operates with many cells that act independently; yet we all still understand that its leader is still the ultimate bearer of responsibility. We’d never stand for Osama saying he didn’t know that a particular cell was doing a particular act, or that he had no hand in something they had said or did.
So if we can be so clear headed there, why can’t we be so clear headed with our own leader's accountability? I was going to call this article "Accountability 101," but I decided "The Buck Stops Here" was a statement Bush could better identify with, since its an example of tough talk. Bush, in his three years of power, has rarely held himself responsible for any of his administration’s failures. He doesn’t seem to understand the very foundation of leadership: accountability, or "The Buck Stops Here." He began his term blaming Clinton for everything. He still blames him for many things, including the economy. Even though all credible non-partisan analysts agree the recession began on Bush’s watch in March of 2001. Even if Clinton did cause the recession, Bush has had three years to fix it. Clinton undeniably inherited a bad economy in ‘93 – but he took responsibility and fixed it. And when it got good, he didn’t have to tour the Nation to convince us. We knew it was good because there were jobs to be had and those jobs were good paying jobs.
Kennedy understood "the buck stops here" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Even though he had been set up by the CIA to be backed into a corner where they believed he’d need to commit American troops, he didn’t cry foul – he took public responsibility for the failed invasion and cleaned house in private (well, I guess you can’t be too private about firing people, but he didn’t do so to escape blame).
Good Presidents understand that they get to take credit for things that go good under their watch, and thus have a moral duty to bear responsibility when things go bad. How many good things has Bush "blamed" on Clinton? When did Bush thank Clinton for that great military he now uses so liberally? By the way, did anyone in the military have to say, "not ready for duty, sir" as Bush claimed would happen during the 2000 campaign? Do you really believe that nine months or even two years is enough time to radically change a military? Of course not, they performed so well because Clinton did a great job keeping the troops prepared. That "shock and awe" would not have been possible if not for Clinton’s focus on building sophisticated and accurate guidance systems that limited collateral damage. And under Clinton there was no mass exodus that threatens the future health of the military because the troops knew he’d never send them in harm’s way without good cause (or without an exit plan).
Bush’s pathology is clear – and its most dangerous example is the Iraq war. No matter how bad the intelligence was, no matter how much the neocons exaggerated the threat to Bush (as if Bush isn’t one of the neocons) – the buck stops at Bush and it all happened on his watch under his leadership. Everything we know to be true about the build up to war is that attacking Iraq was a mandate Bush had delivered to his administration. In spite of the PR spin trying to trick you into believing otherwise, the CIA is part of the Bush administration, not some rogue group who tricked him into a war. They were operating under his command. The effort to cleanse Bush’s role shows just how weak a leader this chickenhawk is. Any failures of the CIA happened under Bush’s leadership and mandates, so he is accountable.
The most ridiculous assertion I’ve heard to date is that regime change was Clinton’s mandate. These guys really do have an inferiority complex when it comes to Clinton. So they rushed to war because Clinton wanted them to? How can anyone not fall on the floor laughing when they try to imagine a Bush cabinet meeting dedicated to fulfilling a Clinton mandate? OK, true enough that regime change had been the official position of the USA since ‘98. But never was a rushed unilateral war ever mandated or supported by Clinton. In fact, in 2002, Clinton often spoke of how careful we need to be in our approach to disarm Saddam so as not to create a whole new pool of terrorist recruits or a forced WMD retaliation. Clinton’s assertion was that Saddam desired to maintain his position, so wouldn’t even think of an attack on the USA unless it seemed like his only and last option to maintain his position. Even Colin Powell originally agreed that containment was working (until his Bush imposed mandate became the opposite).
For all of Bush’s tough talk, for all his efforts to sell the idea that he’s a "strong moral leader," for all his talk of responsibility, why does he at every sign of failure attempt to lay blame somewhere else? Why does he not have the moral clarity to admit mistakes? Americans are forgiving, especially of their Presidents. Americans also know that no one is perfect, in spite of what Rove wants you to think. Bush would probably win in a landslide in November if he’d just come clean and admit a few of his missteps in an accountable way.
When President Clinton finally got it and came clean about his affair, America rewarded him for it. Yes, Clinton resisted at first, and didn’t come clean until he knew there was evidence incriminating him. But Bush denies even in the face of evidence. Just look at the Guard Records he released that prove he barely did anything in his last year. Yet even as he hands you the incriminating evidence, he’s still denying any wrongdoing. Come on. I know the American people will immediately forgive him if he just admitted that he lost interest in the Guard, and his political influence allowed him to get away with it. We all know we’d have done the same and we all know that’s what happened. The only reason that it’s still talked about is because he keeps denying what his own released documents are proving. The reason his drunk driving history isn’t a liability is because he came clean and admitted it (although definitely minimized the reality and did try to make it the Democrats problem by crying "bad politics").
Pat Buchanan recently wrote an extremely articulate and thoughtful analysis of the new Perle, Frum book "An End to Evil."
On this issue, I almost 100% agree with Pat. There are two minor but hidden messages in his review that I must whole-heartedly disagree with. His first hidden message throughout the article is that Bush is somehow not responsible for the mess preemptive war has caused. Even more disturbing is his insinuation that Bush isn’t a neocon himself. Bush clearly buys into the neocon view of American military domination. He talked about it (not so directly) while Governor, and he still continues to cleverly defend it with his "so what if there weren’t WMDs" attitude. I hope you all notice that he has yet to declare the preemptive doctrine a failure.
Admitting mistakes isn’t cowardly nor does it show weakness. In fact, as a leader, it is almost the bravest thing you can do. Insisting you’re right is easy. Admitting you’re wrong is very hard and takes courage and moral clarity. The saddest thing is, I don’t think Bush’s poll numbers are going down because of his mistakes; I think they’re going down because this tough talking "moral" leader stumbles and denies any wrongdoing when asked to admit those mistakes. People see it as weak, and rightfully so. It is cowardly and selfish.
How about a President who puts his country’s good standing with its allies before his political ambitions? How about a President who serves the people rather than just the conservatives in the red states? Now that’d be moral clarity and patriotism of the highest order in one full swoop. George doesn’t have the guts or the morality to risk loosing his power, which is his new addiction in the absence of alcohol. And to extend that very real and alarming metaphor, he’s now drunk driving again. It's intervention time.
How many Americans will line up to release him of responsibility? I doubt any would. We all understand that Osama bin Laden, being the leader of his organization, is responsible for all its actions even if some elements may occur under his radar – they still happened with a mandate from bin Laden to kill Americans. And they happened on his watch. The public knowledge of Al Qaida is that it operates with many cells that act independently; yet we all still understand that its leader is still the ultimate bearer of responsibility. We’d never stand for Osama saying he didn’t know that a particular cell was doing a particular act, or that he had no hand in something they had said or did.
So if we can be so clear headed there, why can’t we be so clear headed with our own leader's accountability? I was going to call this article "Accountability 101," but I decided "The Buck Stops Here" was a statement Bush could better identify with, since its an example of tough talk. Bush, in his three years of power, has rarely held himself responsible for any of his administration’s failures. He doesn’t seem to understand the very foundation of leadership: accountability, or "The Buck Stops Here." He began his term blaming Clinton for everything. He still blames him for many things, including the economy. Even though all credible non-partisan analysts agree the recession began on Bush’s watch in March of 2001. Even if Clinton did cause the recession, Bush has had three years to fix it. Clinton undeniably inherited a bad economy in ‘93 – but he took responsibility and fixed it. And when it got good, he didn’t have to tour the Nation to convince us. We knew it was good because there were jobs to be had and those jobs were good paying jobs.
Kennedy understood "the buck stops here" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Even though he had been set up by the CIA to be backed into a corner where they believed he’d need to commit American troops, he didn’t cry foul – he took public responsibility for the failed invasion and cleaned house in private (well, I guess you can’t be too private about firing people, but he didn’t do so to escape blame).
Good Presidents understand that they get to take credit for things that go good under their watch, and thus have a moral duty to bear responsibility when things go bad. How many good things has Bush "blamed" on Clinton? When did Bush thank Clinton for that great military he now uses so liberally? By the way, did anyone in the military have to say, "not ready for duty, sir" as Bush claimed would happen during the 2000 campaign? Do you really believe that nine months or even two years is enough time to radically change a military? Of course not, they performed so well because Clinton did a great job keeping the troops prepared. That "shock and awe" would not have been possible if not for Clinton’s focus on building sophisticated and accurate guidance systems that limited collateral damage. And under Clinton there was no mass exodus that threatens the future health of the military because the troops knew he’d never send them in harm’s way without good cause (or without an exit plan).
Bush’s pathology is clear – and its most dangerous example is the Iraq war. No matter how bad the intelligence was, no matter how much the neocons exaggerated the threat to Bush (as if Bush isn’t one of the neocons) – the buck stops at Bush and it all happened on his watch under his leadership. Everything we know to be true about the build up to war is that attacking Iraq was a mandate Bush had delivered to his administration. In spite of the PR spin trying to trick you into believing otherwise, the CIA is part of the Bush administration, not some rogue group who tricked him into a war. They were operating under his command. The effort to cleanse Bush’s role shows just how weak a leader this chickenhawk is. Any failures of the CIA happened under Bush’s leadership and mandates, so he is accountable.
The most ridiculous assertion I’ve heard to date is that regime change was Clinton’s mandate. These guys really do have an inferiority complex when it comes to Clinton. So they rushed to war because Clinton wanted them to? How can anyone not fall on the floor laughing when they try to imagine a Bush cabinet meeting dedicated to fulfilling a Clinton mandate? OK, true enough that regime change had been the official position of the USA since ‘98. But never was a rushed unilateral war ever mandated or supported by Clinton. In fact, in 2002, Clinton often spoke of how careful we need to be in our approach to disarm Saddam so as not to create a whole new pool of terrorist recruits or a forced WMD retaliation. Clinton’s assertion was that Saddam desired to maintain his position, so wouldn’t even think of an attack on the USA unless it seemed like his only and last option to maintain his position. Even Colin Powell originally agreed that containment was working (until his Bush imposed mandate became the opposite).
For all of Bush’s tough talk, for all his efforts to sell the idea that he’s a "strong moral leader," for all his talk of responsibility, why does he at every sign of failure attempt to lay blame somewhere else? Why does he not have the moral clarity to admit mistakes? Americans are forgiving, especially of their Presidents. Americans also know that no one is perfect, in spite of what Rove wants you to think. Bush would probably win in a landslide in November if he’d just come clean and admit a few of his missteps in an accountable way.
When President Clinton finally got it and came clean about his affair, America rewarded him for it. Yes, Clinton resisted at first, and didn’t come clean until he knew there was evidence incriminating him. But Bush denies even in the face of evidence. Just look at the Guard Records he released that prove he barely did anything in his last year. Yet even as he hands you the incriminating evidence, he’s still denying any wrongdoing. Come on. I know the American people will immediately forgive him if he just admitted that he lost interest in the Guard, and his political influence allowed him to get away with it. We all know we’d have done the same and we all know that’s what happened. The only reason that it’s still talked about is because he keeps denying what his own released documents are proving. The reason his drunk driving history isn’t a liability is because he came clean and admitted it (although definitely minimized the reality and did try to make it the Democrats problem by crying "bad politics").
Pat Buchanan recently wrote an extremely articulate and thoughtful analysis of the new Perle, Frum book "An End to Evil."
On this issue, I almost 100% agree with Pat. There are two minor but hidden messages in his review that I must whole-heartedly disagree with. His first hidden message throughout the article is that Bush is somehow not responsible for the mess preemptive war has caused. Even more disturbing is his insinuation that Bush isn’t a neocon himself. Bush clearly buys into the neocon view of American military domination. He talked about it (not so directly) while Governor, and he still continues to cleverly defend it with his "so what if there weren’t WMDs" attitude. I hope you all notice that he has yet to declare the preemptive doctrine a failure.
Admitting mistakes isn’t cowardly nor does it show weakness. In fact, as a leader, it is almost the bravest thing you can do. Insisting you’re right is easy. Admitting you’re wrong is very hard and takes courage and moral clarity. The saddest thing is, I don’t think Bush’s poll numbers are going down because of his mistakes; I think they’re going down because this tough talking "moral" leader stumbles and denies any wrongdoing when asked to admit those mistakes. People see it as weak, and rightfully so. It is cowardly and selfish.
How about a President who puts his country’s good standing with its allies before his political ambitions? How about a President who serves the people rather than just the conservatives in the red states? Now that’d be moral clarity and patriotism of the highest order in one full swoop. George doesn’t have the guts or the morality to risk loosing his power, which is his new addiction in the absence of alcohol. And to extend that very real and alarming metaphor, he’s now drunk driving again. It's intervention time.
All Content © Jason Mott 2004. All Rights Reserved.
