Yellow Dog

When asked why no one in the Bush administration was held accountable for the lies that led the US into an unnecessary war, Bush replied (in a Washington Post interview) that the 2004 elections had been an "accountability moment" and that by re-electing him, the people had endorsed the conduct of the war in Iraq.

That's difficult to reconcile with the latest poll numbers that show a majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq was not worth the costs, both human and financial. According to a Rasmussan poll, Bush's job approval as of 1/21 is as follows:
Approve: 44%
Disapprove: 54%

In addition, check out this Knight Ridder analysis that claims the US is heading toward losing the war in Iraq. Unfavorable trends cited in the Knight Ridder report include:

* U.S. combat deaths rising to an average of 82 per month with 808 wounded per month.

* Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, rose from 735 a month to 2,400 in October 2004.

* Electricity production has been below prewar levels since October.

* Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels of oil a day fewer than its prewar peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of sabotage.

* Despite some positive developments, such as the desire by many Iraqis to vote, the insurgency is getting larger and “more effective,” according to the KR reporters.

Bottom line: "The analysis suggests that, short of a newfound will by Iraqis to reject the insurgency or a large escalation of U.S. troop strength, the United States won't win the war."

This seems like the real accountability moment.

Knight Ridder Analysis Speaks Frankly: US Losing in Iraq

"In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty."

--G.W. Bush, January 20, 2005

Thank god for Barbara Boxer, whose tough questioning of Condi during her confirmation hearings was followed by a "no" vote (only 2 Dems, Boxer and Kerry, on the Foreign Relations Committee, voted no). Here's a portion of their exchange over the administration's changing rationale for going to war and Condi's argument (lies) that the rationale was never just about WMD:

SEN. BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

But, again, I just feel you quote President Bush when it suits you but you contradicted him when he said, "Yes, Saddam could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." You go on television nine months later and said, "Nobody ever said it was" --

MS. RICE: Senator, that was just a question of pointing out to people that there was an uncertainty. No one was saying that he would have to have a weapon within a year for it to be worth it to go to war.

SEN. BOXER: Well, if you can't admit to this mistake, I hope that you'll --

MS. RICE: Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like. But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity. Thank you very much.

SEN. BOXER: I'm not. I'm just quoting what you said. You contradicted the president and you contradicted yourself.

Impugning Condi's integrity? That would imply that she had any integrity to begin with....

Transcript of remarks between Boxer and Rice