Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD errors

[delirious]

Helen Thomas (Whitehouse reporter): Prime Minister Blair took full personal responsibility for taking his nation into war under falsehoods -- under reasons that have been determined now to be false. Is President Bush also willing to take full, personal responsibility --

Scott McClellan (Bush's spokesman): I think Prime Minister Blair said that it was the right thing to do; that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat.

Helen Thomas: Those were not the reasons he took his country into war. It turned out to be untrue, and the same is true for us. Does the President take full, personal responsibility for this war?

Scott McClellan: The issue here is what do you to with a threat in a post-September 11th world? Either you live with a threat, or you confront the threat.

Helen Thomas: There was no threat.

Scott McClellan: The President made the decision to confront the threat.

Helen Thomas: Saddam Hussein did not threaten this country.

Scott McClellan: The world -- the world, the Congress and the administration all disagree. They all recognized that there was a threat posed by Saddam Hussein. When it came to September 11th, that changed the equation. It taught us, as I said --

Helen Thomas: The Intelligence Committee said there was no threat.

Scott McClellan:As I said, it taught us that we must confront threats before it's too late.

Helen Thomas: So the President doesn't take full responsibility?

Scott McClellan: The President already talked about the responsibility for the decisions he's made. He talked about that with Prime Minister Blair.

Helen Thomas: Personal responsibility?

Scott McClellan: Terry, go ahead.

Whitehouse Press Briefing

Bush is amazing. Even as president he's a completely perfect being, making NO mistakes while taking NO responsibility for his administration's actions.

Either the buck always stops just outside his office or he doesn't have the moral strength to say "Sorry - I made a mistake"

"I accept full personal responsibility for the way the issue was presented and therefore for any errors made."
Tony Blair

[toasty]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

I don't think he needs to fall on the sword, but as captain of the ship, he needs to take responsibility to some extent. Even something to the effect of, "this happened on my watch, and I therefore accept responsibility for it" would suffice. His failure to acknowledge the obvious, that someone under his command dropped the ball, strains his credibility, IMO.

[superdave]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

He should take responsibility because he's the President and commander in chief of armed forces.

He now says on the campaign trail that even though we didn't find the wmd's that saddam needed to be dealth with anyway.

[davetlv]

Any Chief Executive of any organisation understands that the buck stops with them. The same has got to be true of a Prime Minister/President. I'm pleased to see that Tony Blair follows this old adage!

[Galapidate]

I'm waiting for an apology...

[toasty]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

He now says on the campaign trail that even though we didn't find the wmd's that saddam needed to be dealth with anyway.

Revisionist history.

The thing is this: Is the world a better place without Saddam in power? Of course. Should we have deposed him at some point? For the sake of argument, let's say yes.

The problem is that, let's face it, we went to Iraq because W had a hard-on for Saddam from the word go and was going to try to figure out a reason to go in there. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to suggest that, at a minimum, this fact skewed the intelligence he received because, as a practical matter, if your boss wants to do something and you can provide him with a basis for doing it, it will increase your stature in his or her eyes.

Now we find ourselves stuck in Iraq with no good plan for getting out, troops dying every day, civilians being beheaded, and our global stature in the world steadily declining because Bush wanted to get the guy that tried to kill his Dad. We can't leave now, because the area would be even less stable then when we arrived. Is this going to continue to happen every time Bush gets a wild hair?

Now, Bush is looking at Iran. We're already spread awfully thin, surely he's not dumb enough to start another war without finishing what we've started in Afghanistan and Iraq, is he? I don't know about you folks, but I'd like to see Osama bin Forgotten's head on a platter before we start sending troops elsewhere.

My $.02.

[Jenks]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

The reason we went into Iraq is simple. The previous documents by UN inspectors stated Iraq had WMDs. PERIOD. The latter report from IRAQ, stated, they were gone...but where did they go? Saddam was not cooperating with the international community. All he had to do was tell us where the documented WMD's had gone. He refused to. How long was the UN going to dick around like they always do and appease a tyrant? Bush took a stand. Despite whatever perceived personal vendetta he might have had against Saddam, and i'm not denying that fact, Saddam still needed to go. PreEmptive action needed to be taken. The whole 9/11 panel was formed (in theory) to decide if something preemptive could have been done to stop 9/11 and thwart terrorism. Bush took pre emptive action against a tyrant who could have possibly harmed the world in the future, and we all know Saddam was capable of such atrocities. This doesn't link Saddam to 9/11, does not say Bush blames Saddam for 9/11, merely says, "You're a bad guy, and we're stopping you now before you do any more harm." Now, he's getting blamed for it, by the same panel and the left. How about making up your mind libs?

He now says on the campaign trail that even though we didn't find the wmd's that saddam needed to be dealth with anyway.

Now, Bush is looking at Iran. We're already spread awfully thin, surely he's not dumb enough to start another war without finishing what we've started in Afghanistan and Iraq, is he? I don't know about you folks, but I'd like to see Osama bin Forgotten's head on a platter before we start sending troops elsewhere.

My $.02.

Something to keep in mind.

In all of this political 9/11 panel, slinging back and forth trying to lay blame...it is the liberals who have laid the foundation for going into Iran, not Bush.

In the libs attempt to discredit Bush's administration for going to war with Iraq, they are now providing evidence that Iran posed much more of a threat than Iraq ever did. Iran is now being linked to 9/11, nuclear technology, terrorism by the left, again, in an attempt to say, "Hey, why did we go into Iraq when we should have gone into Iran - LOOK at the evidence!"

So now...Bush..."Okay, lets go into Iran then."

Surely tho, sooner or later, the libs will flip flop in typical fashion and somehow say..."errr, ugh...er...we don't need to go to war with Iran, WARMONGER WARMONGER!!!"

[krelm]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

In all of this political 9/11 panel, slinging back and forth trying to lay blame...it is the liberals who have laid the foundation for going into Iran, not Bush.

Could you please elaborate on this a bit? Who is making assertions about Iran? All I've seen about it (lately) is something Bush said a few days ago about how links between Iran and 9/11 were being investigated. Is this related to something from the 9/11 panel report?

[Jenks]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

^many members of the left in the seante...can't be arsed to find their names, but i'm not lying here. :P

also...

your very own liberal news sources...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/national/18panel.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html

eh, crap this is going to be tedious. just go to Google and search for yourself, evidence is everywhere...and it's not the right saying it. You can bet your ass it'll be the right taking action tho, since the left just sits around and waits for something to happen. :P

[krelm]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

^many members of the left in the seante...can't be arsed to find their names, but i'm not lying here. :P

It's 6pm here, I have beer at home, and I can't be arsed to try to find it now either, so I think we're in the same boat.

I'm sure that cosmo or delirious will dig something up eventually - they are great at finding "evidence" of how democrats or republicans are each responsible for the world's woes. :P Come on, guys - give us something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/national/18panel.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html

These are talking mostly about the findings of the 9/11 panel. I was under the impression that the panel was bipartisan? In that case, it would be both parties that are pointing fingers.

I can see why either side would be politically interested in putting some blame on Iran. You gave decent reasons for the democrats above. For republicans, the best thing Bush ever had going for him (in the eye of the public - or shall we say job approval polls) was being the decisive man of action who took action to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice (ie, everythng *up to* Iraq). Now that it's obvious that Iraq wasn't ever so much in that picture, and that whole ordeal has turned into a huge mess, drumming up those patriotic 9/11 emotions by finding some yet-to-be punished culprits will do nothing but help him.

Who benefits the most from "liberating" Iran? Aside from defense contractors, that is.

eh, crap this is going to be tedious. just go to Google and search for yourself, evidence is everywhere...and it's not the right saying it.

I imagine it's both sides. Both are scrambling for any political advantage in this election year that they will point a finger at just about anything except their respective golden-boy candidates.

You can bet your ass it'll be the right taking action tho, since the left just sits around and waits for something to happen. :P

Of course they are going to be the ones to take action - they are the ones in charge right now.

It's kind of the same situation as when Clinton first came into office - the democrats had the presidency and control of one (I believe) house of congress. So, the republicans just bitched a lot but never really did much of anything except try to "get" Clinton. Just bided their time until the elections.

8 years later, the republicans have control of the executive branch and the congress - so the democrats can really do nothing but sit around and bitch, try to make Bush look bad, and hope for their chances in November.

Fuck this election and political maneuvering bullshit - let's put them ALL in a huge gladiator ring with axes, maces and swords. Maybe get some tigers or grizzly bears running around to add the occasional unexpected surprise mangling. Whoever is the last person alive is the supreme emperor of America until they die.

[Jenks]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

was under the impression that the panel was bipartisan?

[mixu]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

I just love the way Americans have turned the term 'liberal' into some kind of abuse and keep banging on about the 'liberal media' and 'pinkos', etc. Like all 'liberals' are some sort of communists...

Like you've even forgotten what it means. It's very amusing from this side of the Pond.


lib?er?al ?(lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

[Jenks]

i mean...THE LEFT.

DEMOCRATS.

you get the point...even across the pond surely.















GODDAMN TREE HUGGERS!

[mixu]

i mean...THE LEFT.

DEMOCRATS.

you get the point...even across the pond surely.















GODDAMN TREE HUGGERS!

I wasn't picking on you Jenks - I get your point. I was just generalising on a trend I've noticed recently. And no, I don't hug trees.

[Jenks]

:P hey, where did that come from?











yeah, save the fucking whales too.