I am sick and tired of the Bush Administration and the greater government in Washington giving weak apologies, lame excuses, and patronizing explanations after the fact for scandals, lapses, gaffes, and failures that they should have worked harder to prevent in the first place. My father used to say, “The more you love someone, the less you should have to say sorry,” implying that people who really care will do it right the first time so they don’t ever have to worry about apology or regret later. Take care of small problems before they become big ones. We waged pre-emptive war against Iraq when the threat from Saddam was poorly characterized at best, but where was the pre-emptive action for the obviously inadequate New Orleans levees or VA hospitals? I think it’s also very telling of a leader in the manner that they address their people and atone for mistakes. It says a lot about respect, integrity, and responsibility. So a good leader must take the steps necessary to prevent problems beforehand, and if they still occur under their watch – apologize and take responsibility properly. Anything less is “too little, too late.” I know no one is perfect and random mishaps must occur, both large and small. But when the pattern of “random negative outcomes” originating from the White House is longer than a Tolstoy novel, maybe it’s time to raise some serious questions concerning accountability.
The major cases in question:
(If you like, you can read rants on each issue at the bottom of the email)
September 11
Pre-war Iraq WMD intelligence
Foreign policy/Global War on Terror
Katrina
Veteran’s care
General Republican misbehavior
This is a very limited list, and who knows what gaffes the public isn’t privy to? For each instance of failure, we can attribute it to three main possibilities: (1) Bush and other leaders didn’t care enough to address the problem, (2) Bush and other leaders were not competent enough to solve the problem, or (3) Bush and other leaders spoke the truth and actually didn’t know about/were powerless to fix/weren’t responsible to deal with the problem at all. And yes, there’s always the last possibility that (4) shit happens. How many screw-ups have to occur to convince us to stop believing that our leaders were totally blameless and it was all by happenstance? Will the same traffic cop believe you five or ten times when you plead that you weren’t speeding?
Some people worried that the new Democratic Congress would devote too much time and effort in a political witch-hunt investigating the Bushies for past actions, rather than crafting new and needed legislation. But maybe it’s not such a bad idea, considering how many times they’ve emerged relatively Scott-free after such grand screw-ups. I am tired of hearing shameful news from the country I love, and pathetic excuses/forced contrition from our elected leaders. I’d rather they are honest and say they don’t care about helping poor people, bringing wayward Republicans to justice, healing wounded veterans, or protecting the civil rights of Muslims, instead of shoveling the BS down our throats which only increases my ire. Foreigners realize this and therefore don’t trust a word from Bush. But we are in a moral quandary because we are Americans and want to believe that our leaders/system are good, and they are very good at times. However when they’re not, we need to hold people accountable and make examples of the guilty as deterrent. Actually, to be honest it shocks me to think about how many major disasters/scandals have taken place under the current administration’s watch. Watergate or Iran-Contra seem paltry in comparison, but in those days we had a more independent press, a Congress that actually believed in oversight, and tenacious prosecutors who wouldn’t let violations in justice go unpunished. Well I shouldn’t badmouth the system completely; after all we did get to the bottom of the Lewinsky scandal, didn’t we? Too little, too late.
------
September 11. The defining moment of Bush’s first term, and maybe American history in the 21st Century. Bush and company were so sorry for those who had to suffer at the hands of terrorist killers, and vowed to hunt the guilty parties down, smoke them out, bring them to justice dead or alive, or whatever until we were satisfied. Over 5 years later, Osama, Zawahiri, and others are still at large, no trial over 9/11 was ever brought to American courts, and we took our misguided revenge out on many innocent Afghans, Iraqis, and anyone else we could render to secret CIA prisons. In the meantime, Condi Rice had the nerve to testify on the Hill that the national security memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack America” was too vague to put the nation on high alert prior to 9/11. Bush-Cheney were lightly questioned behind closed doors and without swearing oaths, and preferred to blame Clinton for all mishaps. Despite the 9/11 commission concluding that the attacks weren’t preventable (and yes Clinton could have done more), the Bushies can’t even start to claim that they did all they could to protect the nation from threats during their first year in office. I do think it’s commendable that we haven’t been attacked domestically since 2001, but that won’t bring the victims much comfort. Too little, too late.
Pre-war Iraq WMD intelligence. It’s always dangerous when you try to fit your data to the hypothesis, instead of the other way around. The neocons and Bushies exaggerated the importance of shoddy rumors, relied heavily on ulterior-motive-driven defectors, resurrected obsolete intel generally dismissed by the CIA, played games with the Washington press, and more and more evidence is emerging to suggest it was deliberate deception, or at the very least manipulation of the American public on the path to war. If the cause is so vital and just, why the need for so many parlor tricks to convince us? Well, with all the bombs falling and corpses piling up, all they can say now is that they were following the general consensus within the intelligence community at the time (even though many in the CIA and State were hesitant to agree), and Saddam was a real threat. Even the British thought that Saddam had WMD, so it must have been justified, right? Then of course the story got distorted once the WMD search was called off and the insurgency took root: we invaded Iraq to liberate the poor people of a tyrant, prevent Al Qaeda from infiltrating, and promote democracy in that region of the world. I wonder if the 50,000 plus innocent civilians killed in Iraq feel very liberated. But not even an apology to Iraq from the White House, and Bush will probably never claim to regret that he took us on this path to war. For the life of me, I can’t find it on the net anymore, but over the holidays there was a Yahoo! News/AP article with an interview questioning Bush if he’d like to apologize to Iraqis for the botched war effort and all the casualties. He totally refused, and stated that actually the Iraqis should be tremendously grateful to us for giving them freedom! Too little, too late.
Foreign policy/Global War on Terror. Not enough equipment for the troops, exhausting the troops with extra/extended tours of duty, rushing to war without adequate strategy/preparation, no plan to win the peace or rebuild, corrupt defense contracts, much delayed reconstruction, not sending enough invasion troops, underestimating the insurgency, letting the Taleban regain traction, threatening North Korea and Iran which accelerated their pursuit of nukes, disregarding the rule of law on our allies’ soil to conduct extreme rendition abroad, standing idly by as Israel blew up Lebanon, subverting the Hamas government that pushed Palestine into civil war, PATRIOT Act warrant-less snooping and other challenges to civil liberties, scandals at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, etc. The list goes on and on, and it’s really tragic. Any honest apologies? Maybe a passing comment at a press conference or State of the Union side note. Ex-Secretary Rumsfeld dared to look a disgruntled soldier in the face and exonerate himself for the lack of Humvee plating and body armor with, “You go to war with the army you have.” What a noble display of leadership, and it must have really boosted morale. Bush was outraged when he heard the news of “a few bad apples” making trouble at Abu Ghraib, but of course didn’t concern himself with finding out who suggested that MPs and interrogators “soften up” detainees by creative means (Rumsfeld). He claimed that he didn’t know (an excuse that didn’t fly for the Nazis and shouldn’t fly for any leaders presiding over war brutality), no direct orders to “torture” came from the White House, and most soldiers perform their duties nobly. Maybe so, but then why would Bush resist McCain’s anti-torture legislation so doggedly until public opinion was overwhelmingly against him? Too little, too late.
Speaking of Abu Ghraib, a crazy thing I saw from HBO's "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib". A Soldier named Darby was the one who saw Graner's photos of the tortures and reported the abuse to his superiors. Darby was supposed to be a confidential, anonymous whistleblower protected by applicable laws. But then in Abu Ghraib hearings before Congress, Rumsfeld "thanked" Darby (on the record and by name) for coming forward, in a room full of cameras, reporters, and microphones. So I guess Scooter and Karl weren't the only ones who outed government secrets and put people in danger. Some believe that Rummy did that as "revenge" for Darby "betraying" the code of silence among military comrades. No charges would have come out of Abu Ghraib if it wasn't for those photos, so I guess the guilty parties would rather blame Darby than take responsibility themselves. Afterwards, Darby had to go into hiding and his family received death threats. Some gratitude indeed.
Katrina. A black eye on America’s history and conscience that should “live in infamy” much more than Pearl Harbor or 9/11 in my opinion. No president can stop a hurricane, but the greater tragedy was the botched government response, as chronicled in the mainstream press and more recently in Spike Lee’s documentary “When the Levees Broke”. Bush and others claimed that they didn’t know Katrina would cause so much damage or make the levees breach, even though there is a mountain of evidence from meteorologists and engineers warning of that very likely possibility. There’s even video of Bush being briefed about the levees situation before the levees actually gave out. So again, “I didn’t know” won’t fly.
Let’s forget for now the government’s terrible, depressing lapses during the actual tragedy, but instead focus on the molasses-slow recovery effort. Bush claimed that he pushed the federal government to allocate billions of dollars for Katrina rebuilding. That is true, but is that end of story? Throw money at a problem and it’s a guaranteed fix, huh? Bush can’t get away with blaming the local authorities (who are also at fault) for poorly distributing the money. The buck stops where? It’s the South – government doesn’t run like clockwork down there! If Bush really cared, he would kick some butts, reorganize the bureaucracy, and appoint qualified experts (a.k.a. not Brownie) to make sure progress was being made and deadlines were met. If he truly believed what he told the country during his famous Jackson Square speech, he would be hands-on in the process, making speeches constantly to rally awareness and encourage action (like he does with the War on Terror). He would give full zeal to Katrina rebuilding, like he does on the campaign trail stumping for other GOP members. I would dare to say that Bush has spent more time clearing brush in Crawford than thinking about how to fix the Gulf Coast, and that makes me crazy with rage (as if I wasn’t crazy enough before Katrina).
Thousands of residents are still waiting for their aid checks and insurance claims while their properties are declared blighted and seized by the government! They want to come back, but can’t because there’s nothing to return to and no infrastructure to support them! Crime and murder are rampant, and livable housing is scarce. The federal government can freeze gas prices in an emergency, bust monopolies/riots/strikes, and mobilize an entire division of soldiers to anywhere in the globe in under a week. So why can’t they cut through red tape and fast-track insurance claims/aid distribution/reconstruction now, and then resolve bureaucratic matters later after people have a roof over their heads, stable jobs, and good schools/hospitals for their loved ones? I know one person can’t fix something as vast as Katrina, but an honorable president, with all that power at his disposal, would do more than Bush is currently doing. I’m damn sure of that. It’s all empty promises and faux optimism with him, but positive thinking won’t fix a house or prevent crime. The New Orleans resident whom Bush promised to rebuild her home on national TV? It made for great PR, but she’s still waiting a year later. At least she got a seat at the 2007 State of the Union Address (the address where he didn’t even devote one iota of attention to Katrina). Of course his White House handlers scheduled a visit to the Gulf Coast soon afterwards, but too little, too late.
Veteran’s care. This news is fairly recent, so I won’t rehash the details. But inadequate veteran’s care is nothing new, and Bush should know this (all his predecessors too). Maybe you could make the excuse after Vietnam that America wanted to forget their losing war and therefore veteran’s needs fell through the cracks. It still doesn’t make it right, but might be a plausible explanation. Care for Vietnam vets was horrible and maybe we haven’t learned much since then. In today’s modern warfare, we all know that battlefield fatalities are down while serious injuries are way up. Fortunately we can save more wounded soldiers from death than ever before, but those soldiers will need a ton of care, assistance, and counseling for the rest of their lives. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that we might need to re-evaluate our VA capabilities prior to launching a protracted counter-insurgency war. Small arms fire, mortars, vehicle crashes, and IEDs cause shrapnel wounds, amputations, and brain injury, not to mention PTSD. So prepare your facilities to handle a ton of those cases, duuuh!
The politicians claim to support the troops, but when is enough lying enough? Insufficient armor, stop-loss scams, shady recruiting practices, backlog of claims and paychecks, intimidation of complainers, and now rats crawling across the hospital floor? Too little, too late for any apologies or explanations. Bush claims to want to get to the bottom of this and make sure that not one veteran hero goes without the support and care they need and deserve. It’s easy for him to say this now, after the Washington Post broke the scandal and people are pissed. But where was his care and concern over the last four years of the Global War on Terror? It’s not like the first casualty of the Iraq War was wheeled into Walter Reed yesterday! The truth is that wounded veterans, although bona fide patriots, are useless to the military-political establishment in their current crippled form. They’re noble heroes who sacrificed for us, but now they’re just burdens on Washington. So the government drags its feet in bureaucracy and offer substandard care at times. It is an old systemic problem, but a president can raise enough hell to get the wheels in motion to fix things. It just shows that Bush doesn’t really care (or assumes everything is peachy, which is stupid), or rushed to war in Iraq without adequate preparation. Some VA facilities and staff are excellent, but many are not because the Pentagon offers crap budgets and salaries. It’s not a high priority for them, regardless of what people claim. The Pentagon would rather spend billions on space technology, upgraded nuclear warheads, and CIA endeavors rather than shell out the measly sum to properly attend to our veterans. Now at least some heads are beginning to roll and maybe some reforms will occur. But where is the “bold, decisive leadership” and accountability of our Commander in Chief through all this? So what if he’s shocked? Actually its scary how barely in-the-know our president is on critical matters, and why does the press have to be the only ones keeping the government honest?
General Republican misbehavior. Tom DeLay, pork, Mark Foley, those guys from Ohio I can’t remember, more pork, Abramoff’s contacts, even more pork, Duke Cunningham, and most recently Scooter Libby (not to mention all the pseudo-guilty people who will never get indicted like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, and Wolfowitz). Again, Bush and company were dismayed when they found out the news, but didn’t do anything to prevent the malfeasance at the time. They didn’t do the right thing and come forward on their colleagues, as Darby did over Abu Ghraib. But is the GOP angry that their people behaved badly and/or broke the law, or angry that they got caught, the news got out, and it ended up helping the Democrats recapture Congress? If politics trump justice, we all lose out. Once the shroud of incredulity and distrust cover our leaders and government, it is very hard to patch things up and restore faith/optimism. The American public was very cynical after Vietnam/Watergate, and only in the 1980’s under Reagan did we start to believe in America once again (and all the while Reagan’s gang was cooking up new scandals to shock the nation). Too little, too late.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7750388
No comments:
Post a Comment