The White House wrote a response to a New York Times article that accuses Bush and his governance for the mortgage meltdown. Now, Bush is NOT responsible for the mortgage and credit problem per se. He didn't make the bad loans. But the NYT article is correct in asserting that the Bush philosophy is part of the reason for the current debacle. He IS responsible for agreeing to remove much of the oversight that was meant to prevent gross abuses like this (along with the Republican controlled Congress from 2000-2006). He IS responsible for ignoring all the warning signs early on and sitting on his thumbs. He IS responsible for increasing national debt loads to the point where even U.S. debt spending will not have its usual anti-recession influence. But no one can or should blame him for actually making the bad loans. He helped make the situation easier to fall into. He didn't actually dig the entire hole.
The best part of the White House response was, and I quote, "The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view." Now, if you can't figure out why this is just the most horrific statement ever released by the current administration, then I can't help you. But I will make it easier- Iraq. The administration had plans in place to invade Iraq before the 9/11 incident. They've never made any bones about it. They ignored the evidence pointing to no WMDs. They ignored the people on the ground who best knew the situation. They ignored the domestic voices that questioned the policy and the data it was based on. They ignored the people that stood up and declared this to be a bad war on policy and humanitarian grounds. So the White House can just kiss the fattest part of my ass and I'm glad they will go down in history as one of the worst examples of American 'leadership'.
They've spent the last 8 years ignoring evidence and reaching conclusions they wanted. They've ignored privacy issues, energy issues, climate issues. They've ignored genocide. They've ignored the 70+ percent of Americans that have stood up and declared our national direction and foreign policy is wrong. So I don't want to hear a peep out of them declaring someone else is doing the same thing. Until you get your own house in order, you have no right, no basis, and no ethical ground to make these kind of accusations against someone else. Absolutely disgusting.
3 comments:
One comment about the plans to invade Iraq. As a former military officer, it is the job of the military planners to be prepared for as many scenarios as possible. So, I would expect that they would have plans for invading Iraq. If the military leaders had not had the plans, they would have been derelict in their responsibilities.
I'm going to agree with you there. I'm ok with plans...I'm a big planner myself. I was referring not to the military preparedness but rather the preparedness to invade based on nothing more than a whim.
More and more memos, discussions, and White House official meetings are coming to light that show that this administration was planning to invade Iraq from the beginning. They were searching for ways to sell it to the American people and they were ignoring the evidence pointing out that they were very, very wrong.
Having a plan ready is good. Using that plan to reach a foregone conclusion rather than objectively examining evidence is deplorable. And then selling that conclusion using falsified evidence, hearsay, conjecture, and fear is even worse.
I'm definitely not trying to imply we shouldn't be prepared militarily. And I'm on board with having multiple plans in place to deal with changing political or military situations. I'm also not saying there weren't good reasons to do it. I mean come on...Saddam was a terrible person and responsible for horrific human rights violations and genocide. I could understand it if those were the grounds for invasion. Although I think I would still be opposed seeing as I can name half a dozen other violators that are far worse in those terms.
But I think it's pretty obvious that the military plan that was in place and, presumably, the one that was used, had no clear strategy for public relations, disengagement, or political structuring in the aftermath. So in some sense, I think this was a disaster showing that we make good military strike plans but have a very, very poor grasp of how to win after the bombs are dropped. It's something I thought we should know better, particularly after Vietnam. In some sense, I think this only goes to show the gross incompetence of the people making the decisions and the hasty way they were made since they had good plans for the initial stage but no idea of how to approach the aftermath.
My main point I wanted to make was that the White House reached a conclusion that they wanted and then tried to justify it rather than the other way around. Now they're calling foul for the NYT doing the same thing. I say they've lost all credibility to make that claim and need to acknowledge their own propensity to reach unwarranted conclusions before they can legitimately criticize others for doing it.
I think the slow bureacracy that is our military organization has STILL not figured out that treatment of the conquored peoples should be a big part of the initial planning - just like the actual attack is planned. Most of them want to deal with the direct military action and then, a light bulb goes off - didn't someone somewhere along the way say we needed to plan out what to do now?
Same kinds of problems following WWII with the marshall plan and with the occupying forces in Japan.
I do have to say that I believe the military organization per se is getting better about teaching itsgenerals and admirals a lot more about being diplomats. I just think it is a slow learning curve.
And, yes, justifying your own bad action by pointing at another's bad action is just dodging the responsibility for your action. Where the hell is Truman when we need him?
Post a Comment