Sunday, September 26, 2004
Leader of the Pack
I've heard a lot of pundits explain that, in spite of Bush's numerous failed policies (most notably, on the economy and the war in Iraq), some people like and trust him because he makes decisions and never wavers from them. George W. Bush once told The Washington Post's Bob Woodward the great thing about being president was that he didn't have to answer to anybody. "I'm the commander," Bush bragged. "See -- I do not need to explain why I say things...Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation..."
See, that's definitely been the case thus far: No need to explain why, after he was informed that the nation was under attack after the second plane hit on 9/11, Bush stayed in the classroom for nearly seven more minutes, continuing to read to the children (Confirmed, Commission Report at pp. 35, 38-39). No need to explain why he failed to react to the August 6, 2001 security briefing, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." (Confirmed, Commission Report at pp. 260-262). No need to explain why we went to war when there were no WMDs. No need to find out who in his administration outed a CIA operative (treason). No need to disclose who his vice-president met with to discuss our nation's energy policy. No need to hold anyone in his administration accountable for Abu Ghraib, etc.
Is such resolute determination a good thing when it means never having to rethink any misguided policies (particularly a war that has killed thousands of our soldiers) or admit any mistakes or take accountability? I'll take a flip-flopper, someone who is willing to let changing contexts and new challenges guide critical decision-making, any day.
See, that's definitely been the case thus far: No need to explain why, after he was informed that the nation was under attack after the second plane hit on 9/11, Bush stayed in the classroom for nearly seven more minutes, continuing to read to the children (Confirmed, Commission Report at pp. 35, 38-39). No need to explain why he failed to react to the August 6, 2001 security briefing, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." (Confirmed, Commission Report at pp. 260-262). No need to explain why we went to war when there were no WMDs. No need to find out who in his administration outed a CIA operative (treason). No need to disclose who his vice-president met with to discuss our nation's energy policy. No need to hold anyone in his administration accountable for Abu Ghraib, etc.
Is such resolute determination a good thing when it means never having to rethink any misguided policies (particularly a war that has killed thousands of our soldiers) or admit any mistakes or take accountability? I'll take a flip-flopper, someone who is willing to let changing contexts and new challenges guide critical decision-making, any day.
