Andy engages in some recreational Bush bashing, swings, and hits himself in the face:
This quote might help clear up some misunderstandings about president Bush. It certainly helped me see the world as he sees it. For Bush, accountability in government is a total, once-every-four-years thing. Individual mis-steps or mistakes are not subject to accountability – whether in war-planning or fiscal matters or anything else. When someone fucks up, the most important thing is to extend loyalty, not reprimand. There’s only one moment of accountability for a president and that’s the election, which encompasses everything the president and anyone in his administration have done. So re-election logically means that the public waives its right to hold any individual in government accountable for anything for the next four years:
Well, we had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I’m grateful.
So our job as people not in the administration is now to sit back and hope for the best. We had our chance. We lost. As Mel Brooks almost observed, it’s good to be the president.
First, let’s provide the context for the quote, as the President was asked the folowing:
In Iraq, there’s been a steady stream of surprises. We weren’t welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven’t found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn’t gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn’t anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?
To which he responded with the quote provided by Coy Andy. Not satisfied, hawkish Andy wants blood. Why weren’t people fired? Why were there no demotions? And off goes our fearless pundit into some babble about loyalty. This ties in with Sullivan’s meta-narrative about the Bush presidency, with a cabal of neo-cons who have won over the President, and with the emphasis on loyalty for theprivileged few rather than performance and fairness and acountability under the law.
Except, as always, Andy truncated the damn quote, eliminating the response to the question Andy is now demagoguing. Bush’s quote continues:
Listen, in times of war, things don’t go exactly as planned. Some were saying there was no way that Saddam Hussein would be toppled as quickly as we toppled him. Some were saying there would be mass refugee flows and starvation, which didn’t happen. My only point is, is that, on a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad.
Bush believed the intelligence. Kerry believed the intelligence, and we all believed the intelligence. That is why we went to war. Bush is working to fix the CIA (with, guess what- demotions and firing taking place daily, much to the horror of Mr. Sullivan). However, Bush does not believe that the people who acted with good faith deserve to be thrown overboard, and I would agree.
As far as Sullivan’s mocking Bush’s perception of the election as an ‘accountability moment,’ once again, the joke is on Andy. Incumbent Presidents do run on their record, which is why two-term Presidents are such an exclusive group. In fat, this is the entire purpose of voters guides, it is why no Senator has been elected since Kennedy- their record has served as a noose. Should the people determine that the President has not performed to their liking, they do not re-elect them, and this is not unheard of in modern times. I am sure Andrew is familiar with President’s Ford, Carter, and Bush 1.
Second, it is clear that Bush has a much firmer grasp on the concept of representative Democracy than Andy does. Has Andy ever wondered why the Senate is a 6 year term, the President is a 4 year term, and the House a 2 year term? Initially, there was a great debate over the length of the President’s term, with 4 years, 7 years, and 11 years suggested. At one point, the President was to be elected by Congress to a term of seven years.
The founders were very concerned about a tyrannical executive, and ultimately decided that one man should serve as President for four year terms, thus mking it easier for congress to keep check on his power. Once again, Bush has it right. Accountability of the President is limited to the elections and the oversight of Congress, who has the power to impeach and remove the President.
I guess they just don’t teach that in her majesty’s private schools.
ape
“We all believed the intelligence”.
1) Did we?
2) With or without seeing it? Bush saw it. Most of the rest of us believed HIM, or Tony Blair, not the ‘intelligence’.
John Cole
Are you trying to prove my point? So most of us believed ‘him,’ he was wrong, and at the moment of accountability, most of us voted to keep ‘him,’ precisely as Bush stated.
Andy Freeman
Cliinton also saw the intelligence, as did many folks in his administration.
Feel free to cite anyone not being paid by Hussein who believed that Iraq did not have WMDs prior to the invasion.
RW
You can use these comments to condemn Clinton for bombing the hell out of Iraq in December of ’98, ape.
I didn’t….I supported him in the effort, as I’ve been non-partisan (and thus, consistent) on the matter.
ape
The argument JC made, ie, that “Bush believed the intelligence. Kerry believed the intelligence, and we all believed the intelligence.” adds little or nothing to the sentence, “Bush (& Blair) believed the intelligence.”
The rest of us trusted our leaders. That trust was not merited. It is clear that the level of certainty attributed by Bush & Blair was not only not warranted by the facts, but also not warranted by the ‘the intelligence’; which was far more ambiguous or equivocal than they represented it as being.
Of course, Bush’s reelection means that this was not considered a big enough issue to be decisive by (or was unknown to) 51% of US voters, and it wont be considered decisive by nearly enough British voters either, next year.
This doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
(Other factors are involved, in particular, the poverty of passion, vision and optimism of their opponents. “X people in Y state have lost their health insurance. and we’re not looking at enough crates.”).
Paul
This whole no WMD “gotcha” business really infuriates me. On a PRACTICAL NATIONAL SECURITY LEVEL who is stupid enough to believe that, even if Saddam didn’t have stockpiles of WMDs, after the US military slunk back home and sanctions were lifted (which is what the Donks and leftys the world over were pushing for) he wouldn’t have resumed his WMD programs with total impunity? More importantly pulling that scumbag out of the spider hole led to the voluntary dismantling of Libya’s surprisingly advanced nuclear program AND the discovery of the A.Q. Khan nuclear “supermarket”. So taking out Saddam needs to be seen in a broader context than “no WMDs were found, therefore OIF was a mistake”. It needs to be juxtaposed against the real world consequences of leaving him in power and the resulting chain of events that would have left three extremely dangerous forces in the ME unchecked.
Paul
Even Ape and all his little Apes would would be in greatly increased physical danger if his policies had prevailed, because losing this war will result in the deaths of huge numbers of Americans, as opposed to the 3 million SE Asians that died when America lost the Viet Nam war while the leftist traitors here got off scot free.
ape
“after the US military slunk back home and sanctions were lifted (which is what the Donks and leftys the world over were pushing for) ”
no they weren’t. They thought it should be carried out through the UN.
“Even Ape and all his little Apes would would be in greatly increased physical danger if his policies had prevailed”
Al Qaeda &c was and is the threat to me. (Saddam never was and would never have been). They were in Afghanistan and Sudan. That’s where our troops should be, killing those genocidal Islamist muthafuckas – not in Iraq making things worse. (Yes, I hated Saddam , and was deeply conflicted about the war.I cant claim to have opposed it or supported it. But one thing I did say was that we shouldn’t imagine that deposing Saddam would definitely make things better.)
“to the 3 million SE Asians that died when America lost the Viet Nam war while the leftist traitors here got off scot free.”
The was in Vietnam was originally a legitimate struggle of national liberation against the evil French (remember them? you hate them.) imperialists. The decision to support imperialism (note: imperialism first, then communism, not the other way round) led to a much worse result. How many Se Asians died as a result of Kissinger’s destruction of Cambodia and Reagan’s support for the Khmer Rouge (for the same reason he supported Islamist irregulars in Afghanistan): he thought that nothing was worse than Communism, and they were opposed to the VietCong. He was wrong. Cambodia was worse than Vietnam.
ape
“Feel free to cite anyone not being paid by Hussein who believed that Iraq did not have WMDs prior to the invasion.”
As I remember it, the argument was not about whether Iraq had ever had WMDs, nor whether there was intention to create them, but whether or not the inspections process was working. Many people believed that it was. It was.
They questioned whether “the case for war has been made”.
Read former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook’s resignation speech:
“I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.
But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
France has been at the receiving end of bucketloads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.
We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner—not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council..
“..Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam’s medium and long-range missiles programmes.
Iraq’s military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
Ironically, it is only because Iraq’s military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam’s forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.”
He was RIGHT. and not in the pay of Saddam.
big dirigible
Paul is on the right track. Context is king.
Saddam’s weapons stash, present or future, didn’t determine that it was vital to depose him. It determined that said deposition couldn’t be put off indefinitely.
What took industrial might and scientific brilliance to build more than half a century ago can be done by most any turkey now, given enough time and money. Saddam had money, thanks to oil and the UN. All he needed was time. The UN and the “sanctions will work” people were willing to give him that. George B. wasn’t, and most of us will never realize just how right he was.
Paul
The UN huh? You’re a delusional fool. That corrupt body is worse than useless, as are all the left’s ideas.
General Giap himself said that TET was such a catastrophe for the NVC that he would have sued for peace had the American anti-war faction not given him hope for a political victory. Smart man.
The real stain on America came when the Donks, in a fit of pique over Watergate, voted to break our agreement to the S Vietnamese for continued money and material, without which they were helpless against the NVC backed by the Soviets. The ensuing slaughter of 3 million in SE Asia, the reeducation camps, the hoards of boat people, are all blood on the hands of the American left.
YOU DON’T KNOW that Saddam was no threat to you, especially were he to have sanctions lifted, as the French, Russian, and Germans were being bribed handsomely to ensure just such an outcome. That coupled with my previous point about A.Q. Khan, which you people always conveniently dodge, would have spelled a nuclear armed Saddam. It was just a matter of time. Sounds like a threat to me.
Al Qaida is in tatters. UBL is reduced to making cheap videos imploring Americans to vote for the gigolo traitor and regurgitating Michael Moore-DNC talking points.
How many attacks have we had on American soil since 911? Nobody on September 12, 2001 would have predicted this.
All the Apes are safe to rant and rave against the evil BushHitler and the capitalist imperialist Great Satan that keeps them safe and living in comfort and affluence.
You’re despicable.
JDM
>>First, let’s provide the context for the quote, as the President was
>>asked the folowing:
>
> In Iraq, there’s been a steady stream of surprises. We weren’t
>welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We
>haven’t found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The
>postwar process hasn’t gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn’t
>anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions,
>for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?
Exactly… Bush got *everything* wrong.
Sen Roberts promised full accounting of white house use
(or misuse) of intellegence *after* the election because doing so
before may “be too political”. Well, it’s after the election.
And CIA says Iraq civil war now likeley, and Iraq now numero
uno terrorist breeding ground on the planet.
US Taxpayer out +- $200b and climbing, war on terror going exactly
the wrong way (where’s OBL?), Iraq CPA accounting is (mostly) classified
for “National Security Reasons”, Chalabi and bunch of Bush donors have
cashed in “big time” on CPA contract awards w/ aprrox. -0- value return,
and same contract awardees are bringing in outside labor while Iraq
unuemployment holds steady at +- 60%.
And this, Bush calls “liberation”, “progress”, and “spreading democracy”.
>Bush believed the intelligence. Kerry believed the intelligence, and
>we all believed the intelligence.
Yahh, right: Kerry believed Intelliegence white house presented in
closed door hearings. As Sen Nelson (and others have said) this included
claims Iraq could hit US E. Coast w/ICBM, Yellow Cake/Aluminum Tubes and
drone aircraft.
Not only did “everybody” *NOT* believe this, most of it was disproven
before invasion.
And for your information, considering Chalabi in same context is
“intelligence” is by itself enough to warrant investigation AFAIC.
Chalabi, my dear friend, was not *US* intelliegence… he was *warned
by US intelligence* as unreliable, and *that* intelligence proved true.
I get impression your interest in this issue not much
greater than SS. Maybe it makes it easier for you go
sleep through Bush’s “fixing” of *that* (non) crisis.
Kimmitt
Feel free to cite anyone not being paid by Hussein who believed that Iraq did not have WMDs prior to the invasion.
Er, Blix and Ritter?
JDM
>Feel free to cite anyone not being paid by Hussein who believed that
>Iraq did not have WMDs prior to the invasion.
>
>Er, Blix and Ritter?
Huh? Blix was paid by Hussein? Is this the kind’a stuff
you guys say in this part of blogosphere?
In any event, here’s a short list:
: David Albright
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/28/sun.02.html
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/IraqAluminumTubes12-5-03.pdf
: Karen Kwiatkowski
(many citations: Google is your friend)
: Ray McGovern
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=461946
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/code_red_states.php
(Many citations: Google )
: Ken Pollack
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200401/pollack
: Greg Thielman
http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2004/Tenet.asp
: Christian Westermann
(testified he was pressured to falsify WMD evidence:
Links to archived NYT article)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0625-01.htm
: Joe Wilson
: Sibel Edmonds (who, BTW it seems *finally* justice dept.
investigating her claims she was fired for complaining
about coverups in WMD intel: Justice has now said these
claims legit).
Quite a few others.
Additionally, there was “Veterans for Common Sense”, Ritter
team’s ABSCAM reports agreed to and signed by entire team,
that (at minimum) 80% of SH’s WMD was destroyed.
Beyond that, all the “leaks” that within intelligence community
(especially state dept.) that there was anything but unanimity
of yellow cake/aluminum tubes , just the contrary. These
folks were scorned and ignored, and turned out to be correct.
Greg Hlatky
Andrew who? Never heard of the guy.
Kimmitt
Huh? Blix was paid by Hussein? Is this the kind’a stuff
you guys say in this part of blogosphere?
Other way around — Blix and Ritter were both people who weren’t paid by Hussein who said that there weren’t any WMDs. I was answering the question.
RW
Dunno about Blix, but Ritter was paid by a Saddam sympathizer to take part in a movie. Do the math.
ape, was Iraq a threat in ’98?
ape
RW
re the quotes – read the Robin Cook sppech (above)
re the threat: read the Robin Cook sppech (above)
the sanctions worked. Iraq was no longer even an imminent regional threat and, in any case, Iraq was never a threat to the US or the UK.
BTW – has anyone counted how many tomes neo-cons have identified foreign weapons stocks which posed an imminent severe threat and which later proved not to exist?
eg: Rumsfeld in the 70s with imaginary invisible submarine fleet for which no evidence existed in any form anywhere (er.. they were undetectable.. that’s how fucking dangerous they were!); likewise advanced Soviet Air Defence system.
Kimmitt
Ritter was paid by a Saddam sympathizer to take part in a movie.
I’m sorry, what?