Thursday, December 15, 2005
Bush takes responsibility (sort of)
I mean, it's not very close to a mea culpa at all. But since I actually do look for reasons to trust the man, I accept it (sort of), although it pains me to face the fact that the president taking responsibility is a news item, and not a routine matter of course.
I post this to be fair, since I previously complained that a hint, at least, of contrition, was what I, and many others, wanted. There was a hint of contrition (sort of) in Bush's speech yesterday.
Of course, those who look harder than I do for reasons to distrust the president find nothing new in his words at all, and in fact, continue to see dishonesty and fraud. Here is one, from The Moderate Voice, who calls it a "deceptive admission of responsibility."
And, since it is well known that the president is a stubborn man, and does not like to show weakness by admitting mistakes, here, from Doug Thompson's Capitol Hill Blue, is a great backgrounder on the cussing and discussing in the White House that led up to the Wednesday speech.
It's all good stuff. So, today, I disdain President Bush a little less. (That's for you, Mark).
But just a little (sort of).
??/ Who's the bully? What's the playground? Who's the older kid? Who's ass got kicked?
In other words, "Do what?"
Who are you, Sir, and what have you done with the president of the United States?
Again, great news, but sad that it IS news!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush reversed course on Thursday and accepted Sen. John McCain's call for a law banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror.
Bush said the agreement will "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."
"It's a done deal," said McCain, talking to reporters in a driving rain outside the White House after he met with the president.
Confronted with their lies they simply say I never said that. That's 6th grade stuff. Confronted with oppositon they simply get a gang of like type thugs together and go beat up on them. Sounds like 6th grade doesn't it. Caught in the Act they simply deny deny deny even when shown the evidence. What ever they are guilty off is the first thing they accuse others of doing. 6th grade stuff for sure. When cornered with no way to get out of it, they admit guilt but have their fingers crossed behind their backs. In a pinch they would try to lie their way out of it rather than admit the truth and go on from there. They smirk when lying, they smirk when telling the truth they smirk when telling you the time, because they are the big guys, and they can bully you. They give you demeaning nicknames, and make fun of your mistakes and weaknesses, but dare you to do the same with theirs. They stay banded together in a group, because alone they could never stand up for themselves. Yep, 6th Grade Bullies. They have all the attributes that every middle school principal has to deal with every day.
Trouble here is they'll just laugh it off when they get back from the principals office, and this is a group that will never mature.
Later, the president praised Brown during a tour of Alabama, telling him, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has done "a heck of a good job" and there are no plans to replace him.
I find it interesting that, although his speech further explained his plan, and proved that he was right to send troops to Iraq, and proved to the Democrats that they are wrong when they say we are losing the war, the only thing Liberals heard in the entire speech was that he admitted the intel was wrong.
Do the Democrats suffer from selective hearing?
You mean selective like ... that plane that ran off the runway in Chicago and hit a car, killing a boy.
And, selectively, nobody is praising the captain and first officer for saving all the people on the plane? Everybody is aghast because someone on the ground died?
Intel was what made the cause "just" for Bush (as he hadn't completely won over much of anybody before declaring war). A little oops in the midst of all the havoc -- well, without the oops, he could've prevented the havoc.
Do tell: you have better intel?
The White House's bitter debate over admitting a mistake
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 15, 2005, 06:59
"This is a stupid fucking idea,” Rove said, his voice shaking. “This President doesn’t admit mistakes. A leader doesn’t acknowledge error.”
Somehow I can't see Rove letting him do somthing like this a year ago, given his take on it now.
Yes, he has said all along, "I am the Presidnet and that makes me responsible". He didn't really say any more than that this time.
There is no admission of wrong doing here, no statment of that he made a mistake, that the war was wrong. No, he told Fox news the night after the speech that if he had it to do over again he would do the same thing. So what is different? Nada, Nunca, Niet, Nothing! It is all about the polls nothing more.
HUME: Can you say today that if you had known then what you know now about the weapons, that you would have made the same decision.
BUSH: I said it today, and I said it at the last speech I gave.
And I've said it throughout the campaign to the American people. I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision.
HUME: Now if you had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation, because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?
HUME: What worries you most about Iraq and the potential outcome?
BUSH: That we lose our nerve. We can't — we can't be defeated militarily. And that the enemy has got the capacity to, and the willingness to kill innocent people and those pictures get on our TV screens.
And Americans say, "Well, we're not making any progress. We can't get there. Let's get the boys out before we complete the mission."
"It's not what will happen, so long as I'm the president."........
Acknowledging a fact that has been proven time and time again only to say "well, the war was justifiable anyway" is driving with the gas and brake.
It was my responsibility...
Well, no shit Sherlock! Solve another for us!
Admitting it was his responsibility does not admit fault.
I will not be happy until Bush says "This war was a mistake, more specifically my mistake. It was started on false pretenses and it continues on the combination of those same false pretenses and my own foolish, stubborn pride."
Or something like that.
Nyeh, we'll see if it was just window-dressing or if it will actually be implemented.
I will admit that passing the resolution is a first step, but how easy is it lie? If there are "black prisons" that no one knows about now, what's to say there won't be ten years from now?
Sorry, still not happy with Bush.
What hasn't been before is an open public policy that has said this shit is OK, and a way of doing America's business in the broad day light.
The resolution will not change the behavior, but will put it back in the shadows where it belongs, as alternative behavior not a primary policy.
The Senate vote for it is counted at 90 or 91 to 9. How can Bush's only veto to date be against banning torture. Even he gets that message.
ER, I am sorry, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that info, but I do remember him saying it. I don't know if it was a year ago. Now that I think about it, I don't think it was that long ago.
Anyway, he is not the only politician that acted on false intel. All the Democratic leadership voted to go to war based on it, too.
Even without prrof of WMD, The decision to go to war was a correct one. Remember Saddam thumbed his nose at several UN resolutions, and we let him go way too long beforwe doing anything about it.
OK. So now we have done something, and Iraq is a free and independent Democracy because of it. Not a bad result from false intel, eh?
The continued U.S. military presence LONG after Saddam was removed has given rise to numerous insurgent activities, and as long as our troops are there then the insurgency will continue. The insurgency will in turn give rise to more terrorists, and eventually the whole process starts again.