When I was young, it was a sign of having old-fashioned values, even of having moral fiber, to not start blaming everyone else the moment something went wrong. It was considered a sign of virtue if in the course of a fight or an argument, you took a moment to think about any ways you might have contributed to the situation. Anyone who seemed to be part of a mess who’s first reaction was to say “It was your fault” and who then started to blame everyone but himself or herself was generally considered by any thoughtful person to be a scoundrel, a bully, or Joe McCarthy. Long ago, personal responsibility was considered one of the touchstones of being a conservative. Even the Bible seemed to agree, not that Theobertarians actually read it.
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18).
I have since learned that “blaming America first” is the cause of anything that afflicts our country. Take for instance the falsification of the evidence of weapons of mass destruction before the war. Why do people insist on blaming America for that? Clearly it’s Saddam’s fault for letting us believe it. If not Saddam’s fault, it’s the fault of those UN Weapons Inspectors who failed to turn up non-existent evidence. If it’s not their fault, it was the French who were stupid enough to tell us that we should give inspections another chance. If not the French, it was the CIA since the CIA spends all its time looking for intelligence in countries that are not America. Clearly, anyone who blames America for what Americans did can’t be a truly patriotic American. Those who are doing the “blaming” are obviously the ones who are destroying America’s credibility in the world as a nation that only goes to war when it absolutely must.
Consider Katrina which happened almost exactly a year ago. Obviously, we should blame mother nature for the fact that more than 1,800 people died. Perhaps it was Fidel Castro. Notice that Havana didn’t get flooded. If we blame the administration for not acting fast enough, we couldn’t blame the Democrats in Louisiana. Why blame anybody? Instead we should play the guitar at a rally, buy Ferragamos, or hang out with guys towing facsimile trailers who aren’t necessarily living in trailers.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - carmine
This is one of the most oddly backward things I have read in some time. If I'm not mistaken everything in the Democratic world is Bush's or Rumsfeld's or Israel's fault. Remember they caused global warming and even were accused of blowing up the levies after Katrina. I have never heard one of the Dem's ever say "I take full responsibility" for anything, yet Bush has said that on several occassions, including misjudging the weapons of mass destruction intelligence. But, if I'm not mistaken, pretty much all that is wrong with everything in the world is Bush's fault according to what I read in Dem blogland. This is actually taking that to a new level: now Bush himself is being blamed for the blaming of Bush for everything wrong in the world because Bush is being blamed for the blaming of others by others than himself. Pretty weird. Very Dem.
2 - Dean
#1
Bush has said , “on several occasions, “I take full responsibility” [for]… misjudging the weapons of mass destruction intelligence.”
Give me a break.
When Bush says, “he misjudged the weapons of mass destruction intelligence”, it would be beneficial to know which of his advisors also “misjudged”, and who at the time, did not “misjudge.”
When did Bush find out about his “misjudging the weapons of mass destruction intelligence”?
Who told him?
Was there no one in Washington to set Mr. Bush straight in 2003, before he invaded?
In his UN speech, Colin Powell showed pictures of “trucks with WMD’s“. If Bush knew what these trucks were carrying, and where the trucks were located, why did he not vaporize the trucks, instead of invading the country?
I sat and watched Powell give his speech at the UN and concluded his “intelligence” was phony. If it was that obvious on a TV screen, why was it not obvious to Bush and his advisors?
Bush’s initial policy was to stay out of the Middle East. How could we stay out of Middle East when we have been so much a part of the Middle East and its conflicts?
Remember his initial policy of “no nation building”?
What’s he doing now?
Best description: Dumping our tax dollars down a rat hole.
(Of course there are some elite rats that do benefit).
3 - chancelucky
Carmine,
I don't know if you read the Rumsfeld speech linked in the post.
I'm simply making the point that it's actually a healthy thing to look to oneself when something goes wrong. That would be true for members of any party.
In the case of the war, however, it's hard for me to blame myself for the mistakes that have happened in planning the occupation. I didn't vote for the people who failed to plan it nor did they ask for my advice.
You are correct, the President has accepted responsibilty on a couple occasions, he has however not followed up with consequences of any kind for himself or for key policy makers responsible for the mistakes. btw If he did accept responsibility for misleading us about the WMD thing, why are we there again? You'd think he'd go to a funeral or something, if he really accepted blame.
fwiw, Yes, I'm comfortable blaming Bush for what his Secretary of Defense has to say on behalf of administration policy. I also don't think that's the same thing as blaming America. I also do make some effort first to see what I might have done or could have done as well. I don't consider that backwards. AS I mentioned, I think of it as being pretty conservative and old-fashioned.
4 - Dave Nalle
I sat and watched Powell give his speech at the UN and concluded his "intelligence" was phony. If it was that obvious on a TV screen, why was it not obvious to Bush and his advisors?
Perhaps because they weren't viewing the evidence through a lens of irrational bush hatred?
Dave
5 - Dean
Dave, you are all wet.
I voted for Bush in 2000.
He left me, I didn't leave him.
6 - MCH
"Dave, you are all wet."
Yeah, really...somebody must've thrown too much water on him after being raked over the coals by I'm Chinese...
7 - Dave Nalle
I just got in from the pool, actually.
Dave
8 - Dean
Dave, did you stay underwater too long and become deprived of oxygen?
That would explain your posts.
9 - chancelucky
I disagree with Dave about most things, but I have no interest in bashing the guy. It is possible to argue with someone without accusing the other person of hypoxia, brain damage, etc. For example, Dave edited this post without attacking me, calling me names, etc. He edits most of my political posts without doing so and I take it as a sign that he's sincere about his liberterianism.
I suspect this is mostly playful, and Dave did start it :}, but could you pursue this on someone else's post?
In the meantime, I blame myself and Don Rumsfeld had nothing to do with it.:}
10 - Dave Nalle
Thanks, Chance. And I think you'd be surprised on how much we agree on if you ignore the Bush administration as an issue.
Let me ask you a question if I may. Putting aside everything he's done to prosecute and promote the war in Iraq, which is clearly an issue on which you disagree with him and the administration, and thinking of him instead as a guy you see on TV, don't you find Rumsfeld a refreshing and intriguing figure?
Compare him to his predecessor Warren Christopher. Which of them would you rather have a beer with? Which one are you more inclined to believe when he makes a statement - based only on their apparent personality, not on your prior assumption that Rumsfeld may have launched a war based on lies?
Dave
11 - Dean
Dean: “I sat and watched Powell give his speech at the UN and concluded his "intelligence" was phony. If it was that obvious on a TV screen, why was it not obvious to Bush and his advisors?”
Dave: “Perhaps because they weren't viewing the evidence through a lens of irrational bush hatred?”
Dean: “Dave, you are all wet. I voted for Bush in 2000. He left me, I didn't leave him.”
Dave: “I just got in from the pool, actually.”
---
I’m waiting for a more intelligent response to “ I voted for Bush in 2000. He left me, I didn't leave him.”
12 - chancelucky
Dean,
I think Ron Suskind has a good description of what went on with Powell's UN presentation in the One Percent Solution.
though I suppose that doesn't answer your question.
13 - Dave Nalle
I'm waiting for a more intelligent response to " I voted for Bush in 2000. He left me, I didn't leave him."
How about "I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004 and got exactly what I expected"?
As a general rule to get an intelligent answer you have to ask an intelligent question.
Dave
14 - Dean
You also have to ask an intelligent person.
15 - chancelucky
Dave,
I imagine I'd want to have a beer wtih Rumsfeld over Warren Christopher, but that doesn't have a lot to do with who was/is the more competent secretary of defense.
Fans of the President often mention that those around him enjoy his company at a personal level. Ted Bundy was also supposed to be quite charming in person as is Scott Peterson. I wouldn't vote for either of them for public office.
16 - Dave Nalle
You know, I hadn't considered the potential value of electing serial killers to office. They're generally believed to be quite intelligent and usually have a powerful sense of purpose. They might do a good job. And the Secret Service has the perfect qualifications to clean up after them.
Dave
17 - chancelucky
I think some would argue that we currently do have serial killers in office. If thousands die because you falsified evidence to win support for a war, then some would point out that it's not a whole lot different from being a serial killer.
I'd say though that the same could be said of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, our war with Mexico, the Spanish American War, even World War 1.
I suppose serial killers don't have deeper strategic reasons like political states, but I can't necessarily morally separate the British Opium War from say anything Ted Bundy did.
The hard thing about this one is that based on the evidence, I'd have to conclude that our stated reasons for invading Iraq weren't the government's real reasons for going there. I can speculate about what those were (George Friedman has a whole book about that), but I'm still genuinely worried that this is not consistent with the Democratic principles we claim to be propagating.
18 - Dave Nalle
The hard thing about this one is that based on the evidence, I'd have to conclude that our stated reasons for invading Iraq weren't the government's real reasons for going there.
Not exactly a news flash. This was obvious well before any invasion was launched. The excuses used to bolster the case for invasion were pure marketing and excusable if the underlying reasons for invading were valid. What's not excusable is the terrible execution of our post-war role there.
I can speculate about what those were (George Friedman has a whole book about that),
I didn't know he had a book out. He's generally very insightful. I'll have to look for it.
but I'm still genuinely worried that this is not consistent with the Democratic principles we claim to be propagating.
Selective presentation of facts and marketing a policy are in no way contrary to democracy. That's what political campaigns are basically built on. What's different about using those techniques to sell a foreign policy - which is all that a war is from a political perspective.
Dave
19 - Nancy
Blaming national leaders for using falsified or exaggerated evidence to support their justification for a phoney war for the benefit of themselves and their corporate buddies, and for conducting that war in such an inept manner - having ignored the advice of their own professionals and additionally refusing to admit such errors until the body count was in the thousands - is NOT "blaming America first". Or even blaming America last. Dubya Bush, Smilin' Dick, & Rummy are NOT "America" or the embodiment thereof, and blaming them for their lies, conniving, incompetence, arrogance, and utter failure to face reality is in no way blaming America; it's laying the blame on the individuals who deserve it. Period.
20 - Dave Nalle
The failure of your logic in the previous comment is that there's no evidence or sensible reason to think that this war was executed for any other reason than national security. The claim that it was for personal benefit is patently ridiculous. If it were a private war as you suggest then it would be utterly intolerable, whatever the ostensible reasons. But there's clearly a genuine problem with terrorist states and Iraq was one of the leading examples - the only major terrorist state we could attack and beat relatively easily.
And BTW, I never said one word about 'blaming America'. That's a silly talking points bullshit argument. All I'm saying is that you're not being realistic about the political maneuvering necessary to sell a war to the public when the real reasons for the war are legitimate but hard to explain.
Dave
21 - SHARK
Carmine: "...everything in the Democratic world is Bush's or Rumsfeld's or Israel's fault. ...if I'm not mistaken, pretty much all that is wrong with everything in the world is Bush's fault..."
WOW! You reeeeely are a fucking PhD!!!!
==========
Chancelucky: "...For example, Dave edited this post..."
Wow. I now remember why I don't post essays here anymore.
Blogcritics, I knew ya when~!
============
Dave Nalle: "...don't you find Rumsfeld a refreshing and intriguing figure?"
Yah! And so was Goebbels!
BTW, Libertarian Boy, that's just WHAT I WANT in one of my 'leaders.'!
oy...
==========
DaveNalle's Intellectual "quiz" on Rumsfeld: "...Which of them would you rather have a beer with? "
Jeesus, Dave, email me when the question is "Which of them would you like to see sodomized by a rabid grizzly bear on crack?"
===========
PS: 1:00 CST 9/5/06 --- Just watched Bush read his SCRIPT on the new "POLICY" on global terrorism, aka "Islamic Facists" etc etc.
While it was apparent that Bush had no idea what he was reading, he apparently had the gist of it, since one could almost see his little Pee-Pee getting harder when he made his "applaud now" statements.
Shark's translation: "Be very afraid, but you're safer now. And Iran, YOU'RE NEXT, MOTHERFUCKERS! YEEEEEE_HAW!"
Gotta run; time to prepare for some more *"wartime sacrifices" ---
*checking tire pressure in my Hummer.
xxoo
S
PS: Fuck you, America. They "hate us" because we Don't Know Why They Hate Us.
22 - Dave Nalle
Chancelucky: "...For example, Dave edited this post..."
Wow. I now remember why I don't post essays here anymore.
Blogcritics, I knew ya when~!
You're still welcome, Shark. I'd give you the same impartial treatment that Chancelucky was complimenting me for, and if that wasn't to your liking, I've got an assistant who's just about pink enough to keep you happy.
Jeesus, Dave, email me when the question is "Which of them would you like to see sodomized by a rabid grizzly bear on crack?"
That's an entirely different issue. I'd like to see that happen to BOTH of them, of course.
Dave
23 - Nancy
Dave does do a good job editing fairly, from what I've been able to see. But no- I don't consider Rumsfield to be anything except almost as criminally incompetent as Bush & Cheney. I certainly wouldn't care to socialize with any of them, any more than I would with Saddam Hussein, Kim, or that maniac in Iran whose name I can't spell; they're all arrogant, bloody dickheads.
24 - chancelucky
Friedman's book was "America's Secret War". I reviewed it on my own blog and wound up disagreeing with him (not suprisingly) but it's definitely an interesting read.
Friedman recently wrote about Iran and is much less sanguine about war there, but I don't think that's been turned into a book.
I do think Suskind's take on Iraq was pretty accurate. "The US picked the dog it thought it could beat easily to make a point to the other dogs."
The problem is that it's a high risk strategy if you miscalculate the dog's will to fight back. Thus while we're still fighting the dog we thought we'd subdue immediately and easily, it's emboldened the truly dangerous dogs who have now seen us struggle to put down a "weak" dog.
----------------------------------
There is inevitably some salesmanship in politics including any declaration of war. I"m not sure that includes briefing congress.
The US WAr with Mexico was unquestionably hugely beneficial to the United STates, it was still wrong and it was wrong to sell it to the public in the way it was sold.
I also believe that Tonkin and WMD crossed the line from "sales" to straight duplicity.
--------
I don't know that "getting wealthy" has been one of the reasons for the war, but it clearly hasn't helped that a company so closely associated with the policy makers has done so well in this war.
Friedman points out that the fact that so few children of those making policy have served in this war has raised questions about their sincerity and commitment.
One reason the accusation comes up so frequently is that the administration has done so little to avoid the appearance of self-dealing and corruption at so many levels. As I pointed out in the post, Abu Ghraib became a big story at least partly because Rumsfeld's Pentagon worked so hard to cover it up, something which seriously damaged the American case for its bringing "democratic" ways to Iraq.
25 - Dean
#20 from Dave:
"But there's clearly a genuine problem with terrorist states and Iraq was one of the leading examples..."
Here's a chance to prove it by stating the evidence you have in a response.
If you have less than one piece of evidence, just apologize.