posted
I volunteer as a assistant scout leader for a friend's of mine troop from time to time. One of the things that I try to teach the kids is that, when something goes wrong, you're job isn't to show how it isn't you're fault and to try to put the blame on someone else. It's to try to fix the problem as best you can. Little by little, this seems to be sinking in. We're getting a lot fewer excuses and a lot more "Here's what I could have done but didn't. Next time, I think I'll try to do that." responses when things inevitably don't work.
So, this was lead up to say that I'm both extremely pissed and extremely worried by the direction that the 9/11 probe is taking. Actually, I should ammend that to the entire post-terrorist attack thing in general. Right now, I really could frigging care less about who's ultimately to blame. Frankly, I think that it's all of them, in one way or another. And, because not taking responsiblity and shifting blame is one of the few things that our political leadership is good at, I know that we're eventually going to find out that it was all the fault of some night janitor in the FBI building.
Let me repeat, I don't care right now. I don't want to hear, "Oh, it wasn't my fault. It was this other guy's fault." I don't accept that from 14 year olds; I'm certianly not going to accept it from the leaders of my country. By the very nature of being entrusted with protecting our safety and then there being attacks on us, it is their fault. What I want to hear is "Here's what I could have done but didn't. Here's what I (or we) are going to do so that this doens't happen again." But, while we rightfully expect this behavior in our teenagers, the idea of expecting this from our elected officials is ridiculous.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I donno.... you can't really expect a politician to display the same high level of wisdom that teenagers do, can you?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In keeping with the tone of my rant, I don't necessarily blame the politicians. I blame the peopel who support the politicians. Heck, I even blame myself a little. As long as we have a orientation towards politics that allows things we don't allow from children, we're going to have this problem. If we actually make elections about character and maturity rather than, "Yeah, he's got the maturity of a 6 year old, but he (supports/doesn't support) abortion, so I'll vote for him." it's going to be that way. As long as when someone does something wrong, we accept "Well, this other guy did it too" as something that is not so ridicuously immature that the person saying it should be held in contempt, it's going to be like this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A vow to take responsibility is in my core political platform. (Most of my views, even the ones I'll strongly argue here, are peripheral by comparison.)
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slash, I know exactly what you mean. It's like, I don't want to go back back to the days when they made cut sin your penis and you had to endure it without screaming to be considered a man, but I hate the fact that turning 18 officially makes you an adult in our culture. It seems like many people don't deserve to be called a man anymore.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i've listened to alot of the testimony, and frankly, i think the interplay of the various different statements illustrates the problems in the government.
I'm frankly not entirely sure who should take responsibility?
My default response is truman-esque. The buck stops at the president. What makes this problematic is that the presidents decisions are made via the filters of his cabinet.
I'll first admit, i dislike the bush administration (except colin powell), and i like(d) most of Clinton's cabinet ministers (especially madeline albright, she rocks). The testimony in place so far doesn't seem to be intended to deflect blame (although it may be possible to infer that). Both the clinton and bush administrations seem to be claiming that they did all that could -realistically- expected of them. And i think there may be some truth to that.
(have to go now, more later)
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that I want to see someone step up and take blame, as much as telling them all to quit wasting time and tax dollars trying to find an answer that may not even exist. I mean, why is it so hard to accept that there was no smoking gun? No one told anyone "Hey, there's gonna be an attack on the Twin Towers and they'll do so by hijacking these flights."
Maybe, just maybe, we can accept that the intelligence community isn't perfect. That by its nature it involves making assumptions from incomplete or potentially false information, that no one can ever be sure of what WILL happen. Hindsight can help us look back and say "Yeah, I probably should have done that different" but it doesn't change what HAS happened.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with "manning up" in politics is that you get slapped for it.
It's not the public in general, but the opposition that is the problem. If any politician shows weakness, if they admit they make a mistake, you know that come the next election they will be called on it on every-other TV ad. The message will always be "if our guy was in charge, this never would have happened."
The difference between your teens and politicians is that you don't go assigning blame every time someone owns up. If, once one of your teens told you how they should have done better, you said, "that's why you shouldn't have the responsibility!" how long do you think they would keep telling you that? Instead of teaching them to take responsibility, you'd be teaching them to shift blame.
It takes a big man in politics to own up to his failures, because he rarely gets rewarded for it, and usually gets a boot in the buttocks instead.
Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right Andrew. Which is why I firmly believe that only corrupt and dishonest men can ever really succeed in our political system. It's designed to weed out honesty.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
"Placing blame only succeeds in doing one thing. It allows you to ignore the problem."
In other words, if its his fault, then he should solve the problem while I continue on with my life.
There is a large chunk of the American public that wants to blame 9/11 on someone whom they can hold responsible, so that they can solve the problem of terrorists. If it was the CIA who goofed up, we fire the people involved and viola, no more possibility of terrorists attacking US citizens. With that sovled we can avoid the delays at the airport and the plastic sheeting and duct tape WMD safety drills and get on with our lives.
Unfortunately, that thinking is wrong.
See, when you lay blame the next step is to make a sacrificial goat out of the person responsible. Tommy the Janitor was at fault, so we remove him and all will be safe and well again. However, its been my experience that the only thing that a sacrifical goat leaves you is the bloated goat corpse to deal with, along with the original problem.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the flip side, President Bush is hyping as one of his main reasons he should be reelected, his handling of the US in Crisis and the War on Terrorism. If he can show the rubble of the World Trade Center in his political adds, then I think we need to determine what, if anything, he was truly responsible for in defending us from terrorists.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, That's sort of my point. I don't want to hear about past mistakes. The facts are quite clear that the system we had was inadequate. We should be concerned on assessing what about that system was inadequate and what we are going to do about it. Instead, they are trying to affix blame for things in the past. Playing the partisan blame game is wrong, because they are both at fault, and counter-productive, because it's making trying to blame the other side the important thing, not improving the system.
I don't care if former President Clinton ends up looking bad. I don't care if President Bush does either, except in how it afects his later policies. I don't want anyone else dying in a terrorist attack. That's what I'm concerned about. I wish that I could believe that this is what our leaders are concerned about too.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carter got in precisily because he was what people wanted--and yes, he had integrity and all that, but he is up there in the list of Worst Presidents....
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with one thing that Dan said. If Bush is going to claim success in the war against terror as a reason to vote for him, then his opposition needs to be able to refute that. A rule like "only say nice things" just doesn't work when the voters need to make an informed decision.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do people really rank Carter as one of the worst Presidents? Since I hadn't yet been born when he took office, it's really hard for me to judge. Looking back on it, I can see some problem areas, but I wouldn't put him in "The Worst" category. To be honest, I think that the man's major problem as President was that he, unlike just about every other politician that I can think of, was actually a committed Christian. He is what you get when you want a real Christian as a president. He put Jesus' message before his duty to the country and his lack of aggression didn't allow the US to be the world dominating country that they wanted to be.
However, as I said, I don't have a lot of grounding in this area. I'd be interested in hearing other people's more informed opinions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've noticed that most of the voting public is looking for sensationalism. "Lie to me, lie to me" can be heard across America. The best liar wins. Unless it was JFK. In that case the government put him in as a pretty face. It worked. Then you do have others that vote what they are told. I think anyone who works for the auto industry knows this happens. The UAW will send word somehow about what they want union workers to vote for and the workers "Duh, ok."
quote:I don't know that I want to see someone step up and take blame, as much as telling them all to quit wasting time and tax dollars trying to find an answer that may not even exist. I mean, why is it so hard to accept that there was no smoking gun? No one told anyone "Hey, there's gonna be an attack on the Twin Towers and they'll do so by hijacking these flights."
Maybe, just maybe, we can accept that the intelligence community isn't perfect. That by its nature it involves making assumptions from incomplete or potentially false information, that no one can ever be sure of what WILL happen. Hindsight can help us look back and say "Yeah, I probably should have done that different" but it doesn't change what HAS happened.
I'm not reading this correctly, am I? Belle, are you seriously opposed to a 9/11 probe independent of Bush's control? Especially since, as we've seen over and over again, Bush finds only what he wants to find?
I'm really hoping I'm misunderstanding you. The level of blind partisanship required for what I'm hoping against would be tragically amusing.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mom has a theory (after years of being in childcare) that there are 5 basic childish reactions that are behind all adult problems:
"I didn't do it!"
"He did it first!"
"You let him do it!"
"It's not fair!"
"Look what he's doing!"
And I think in the realm of politics, these always apply. I had a page-a-day Mad Magazine calendar that featured "the child inside" of adult situations. One showed a business man storming into his supervisor's office, saying "I think some of Jenkins's actions need to be brought to your attention." The "Child Inside" showed a little kid in the same clothes, saying "Look what Jenkins is doing!"
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, it's kind of hard to make that determination when everyone even vaguely associated with the former or current president refuses to go on the record about anything, and even off the record will only give a few hours of their time. Literally. Oh, yeah, and when the panel that's investigating the attack has to beg for more time to complete its investigations.
I think Richard Clarke's opening statement today was right on the nose and speaks highly of him and directly to what Mr. Squicky's opening post wants. Basically, Mr. Clark said "We all screwed up, including me, and here's why."
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. I think they should just accept what the president says. He knows more than we do, and I'm sure he never has done anything wrong.
I'll just drive my volvo and march lockstep with all the other upper middle class white moms who vote Republican because their husbands tell them to, and if we want to get in the right country club, we should make sure the Senator we go to church with knows we are Republican to the core.
The selling of the war was poor from the beginning. The backtracking/backpedalling/fingers-pointing-to-blame is exactly the same phenomena that led up to the "run up" to the conflict.
same media. same audience. different message, same beckoning beaks.
fallow
PS not to sound like thor or anything.
Posts: 3061 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, how did someone with Carter's level of integrity manage to make it to the presidency.
It's the exception that makes the rule. Carter only lasted one term; he got blamed for the hostage situation.
To play devil's advocate, would it have been better for him to blame the hostage situation on the prior administration and get a second term or to remain silent and become one of the most influential/active ex-presidents in history?
posted
Dunno what he did as a prez, as I was too limited in stature at that point to sign up for the Jets or the Sharks, but he's had more to say in a compassionate way than many a former prez. I give him credit for that.
quote:You're right. I think they should just accept what the president says. He knows more than we do, and I'm sure he never has done anything wrong.
Please, please, please tell me you don't mean this. That the president is the next best thing to infallable and that we shouldn't question him. What if we'd done that with, say, Nixon? He wasn't even getting us into wars.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, while I get that Belle is being sarcastic, I'm not sure that it really addresses my post or the problem. If elected officials are entrusted with providing security for the country and they refuse to be part of the solution to preventing future attacks on the country by giving every resource to the fact finders responsible for finding out what went wrong, isn't this a problem? I think it is.
I understand that there needs to be some leeway for elected officials in what happens to them if they are found responsible or you're going to have them constantly either over-reacting, or hiding the facts. This doesn't mean that the facts don't need to be known, and that the elected officials shouldn't cooperate with the fact finders, and it doesn't mean that they can't be looked for in a bipartisan manner.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
((Belle)) I thought Volvo driving was for the Hollywood Loving freak show
I mainly remember Carter for the Camp David accords. As I recall, my Dad voted for Carter because he was so sickened by Watergate. Which explains how you get a guy with integrity in office. I think the first George Bush also had a lot more integrity (I hate to say it) than his son, which is probably why he only had one term. He wanted to stick with the issues, rather than engage in the "economy, stupid" dialog.
I saw a debate on PBS back during the 2000 race where they talked about "what is a great president" and whether re-election was a pre-requisite. It was funny that when that question came up all these pundits suddenly froze, albeit briefly. Re-election is so important in what defines the party system. Which is why I hate it so.
Another thing I remember from that race was a theory someone had about 13 things that had to be true in order for an incumbent to lose a race. One was scandal. It almost seems like the scandals have become business as usual. How much of a scandal would it take to burst through the tolerance we've built up? The media's unrelenting criticism of Bush is probably going to work for him in the end.
P.S. because Storm and I posted at the same time, I agree with Belle that the intelligence system is imperfect, and it has accountability to no one but itself. That is why it is a waste of time and money, because CIA and NSA have a "rape shield", if you will, that keeps them from having to disclose anything that they feel it is not in the country's best interests to disclose.
posted
But that's not what I'm saying here, skrika. I'm saying that the elected officials themselves aren't allowing an independent panel to investigate their role in 9/11 and aren't enabling the independent panel to do its job.
I'm not saying that all intelligence must be known by the public, but the buck does have to stop somewhere.
edit: I should say, aren't allowing beyond brief interviews off of the record.
quote:Bush pokes fun at himself at dinner Thursday, March 25, 2004 Posted: 9:53 AM EST (1453 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush poked fun at his staff, his Democratic challenger and himself Wednesday night at a black-tie dinner where he hobnobbed with the news media
Bush put on a slide show, calling it the "White House Election-Year Album" at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner, showing himself and his staff in some decidedly unflattering poses.
There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.
There was Vice President Dick Cheney, a frequent butt of gentle Bush ribbing, holding his fingers a few inches apart. Bush said, "Whenever you ask him a question, he replies, 'Let's see what my little friend says."'
And there was Bush again, in an odd contortion in front of his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. He said he was trying to explain to her the foreign policy of Democratic challenger John Kerry.
Bush showed himself playing cards on Air Force One and cracked that he was on his way to an international summit and using a special deck to help him bone up on the names of the leaders he was about to meet.
His slide show segued into a somber ending, showing a group of special forces troops in Afghanistan at the site where they buried a piece of the fallen World Trade Center in commemoration of the dead from Sept. 11.
The late NBC News reporter David Bloom, who died in April from an apparent blood clot while covering the Iraq war, was remembered. His wife, Melanie, talked of her husband's passion for journalism.
posted
While it definitely highlights Bush as the consummate 'mr. nice' politician (I mean that in the best possible way), I don't get the relevance, unless it's some kind of fiddling while Rome is burning statement on your part....
posted
I guess the tie in to me, was that he was acknowledging, more directly if in a humorous way that he was wrong, on the WMD issue.
Yes it wasn't taking responsibility for it directly but it wasn't covering up the flaws of the administration either.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
((Belle)) I thought Volvo driving was for the Hollywood Loving freak show ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
