Support NeoGAF

[MIMIC]

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

Washington Post

The Post: In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.

Washington Post transcript

So re-election dictates absolution? What a guy...

Apparently, this is his free ticket to fuck up the country even more because his victory outlaws any sort of accountability.




Another gem from the interview:

The Post: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?

THE PRESIDENT: Because he's hiding.

The Post: Our allies have done all they can do to help catch him?

THE PRESIDENT: We're on the hunt.

The Post: Do you think others are on the hunt, too? Are you happy, content with what other countries are doing in that hunt?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes

...and then, he decides to elaborate:

The Post: Anyone you're not happy with? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Look, bin Laden is elusive, and he is in a remote part of the world. And we are -- I am -- I can't think of anybody in the world who is our ally who isn't willing to do what is necessary to try to find him. And so I am pleased about the hunt, and I am pleased that he's isolated. I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be.

 

[BigJonsson]

So isolating Bin Laden is alright but having Sadaam isolated was not ok?

Urrr

 

[Socreges]

The Post: In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.

That is some pretty fucking broken logic.

Why did he even grant this interview? Did he not know the questions weren't going to be pre-determined? He must have been choked!

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

A slight majurity of 'mercans decided I was the lesser of two evils... *nod while staring forward, slight chuckle throughout the rest of sentence* which makes me good!

.

 

[Matlock]

Dear World:

Hey, you're invited to jump into a handbasket and join me in my humble abode.

Sincerely



Satan

 

[Fresh Prince]

Bush is right.
In the words of one American comedian the 2004 elections were the equivelant of being naked in prison spooned by Michael Tyson. Yet the majority of people decided they were okay with this.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

i'm going to enjoy seeing things burn around me..... i better learn how to shoot a gun though.

 

[Socreges]

Bush is right.
In the words of one American comedian the 2004 elections were the equivelant of being naked in prison spooned by Michael Tyson. Yet the majority of people decided they were okay with this.

In a sense, sure. But the election was really just a choice between two candidates who would run the country [+ world] for the next four years. It was not an absolver of guilt. A vote for Bush does not mean that the people in his administration who had previously made mistakes are therefore pardoned.

 

[Brannon]

Two months later...




....

....crap, I'm still bitter

 

[Fresh Prince]

In a sense, sure. But the election was really just a choice between two candidates who would run the country [+ world] for the next four years. It was not an absolver of guilt. A vote for Bush does not mean that the people in his administration who had previously made mistakes are therefore pardoned.

I disagree. The fact that the majority voted for him means that they are happy with the decisions that he has made. Or have forgiven him in the guise that he was honestly mislead by intelligence (that lead to many of thousands of innocent lives lost). They also think his judgment is good enough for another 4 years. The fact that there was a swing towards him reckons that they view his decisions regarding homosexuals more important than any erroneaous decisions he made reagarding international policy.

In short IMO his logic makes sense (atleast in spin).

 

[Brannon]

In shorter short, the States gets fucked but the gays can't marry.

 

[Fresh Prince]

In shorter short, the World gets fucked but the gays can't marry in America.

Fixed :/

 

[happyfunball]

If only that pretzel was a little bit bigger......

 

[Diffense]

He has a point.

If the majority of people you're doing a good job then there's no need for you to punish yourself or your team.

 

[videogamer]

Bush is right.
In the words of one American comedian the 2004 elections were the equivelant of being naked in prison spooned by Michael Tyson. Yet the majority of people decided they were okay with this.

Well, part about being in prison does indeed suck. Being spooned by Tyson... if it weren't for the ear incident... might be pretty hot.

If only that pretzel was a little bit bigger......

then we get the evil without the absurdity

 

[Brannon]

On an off-note, now that the Republicans have taken control of the House here in Georgia, they've decided to get an iron grip on that power by creating a 'hawk' tactic during votes. Basically if (big if) a vote is not going the way the House speaker wants it, he can call in a couple of 'hawks' to swoop the vote his way.

The only thing that came to mind was Cartman saying "I'm Balrog, I have lots and lots of powers"

DAMN IT CARTMAN.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

He has a point.

If the majority of people you're doing a good job then there's no need for you to punish yourself or your team.

But most people only considered three options: Bush, Kerry, or not voting. It'd be extremely easy to have people who voted for Bush even though they think his administration has made big mistakes, or people who voted for Kerry who didn't.

If only that pretzel was a little bit bigger......

http://www.pretzelsfortheprez.com/

 

[Socreges]

I disagree. The fact that the majority voted for him means that they are happy with the decisions that he has made. Or have forgiven him in the guise that he was honestly mislead by intelligence (that lead to many of thousands of innocent lives lost).[/b] They also think his judgment is good enough for another 4 years. The fact that there was a swing towards him reckons that they view his decisions regarding homosexuals more important than any erroneaous decisions he made reagarding international policy.

In short IMO his logic makes sense (atleast in spin).

The vote meant one thing only: Out of the choices that I am given, I want you to be the leader of the USA for the next four years. Any inferences that you make besides that, insofar as what the "American people" have willed with the majority vote, are not necessarily correct.

But most people only considered three options: Bush, Kerry, or not voting. It'd be extremely easy to have people who voted for Bush even though they think his administration has made big mistakes, or people who voted for Kerry who didn't.

Right.

 

[Hitokage]

More simpleminded binary thinking from Bush, although it'll be fun watching him accuse the American people of flip-flopping a few years from now.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Okay then what can I say but this- the Democrats would be spinning it the other way if Kerry won. I don't see how you can make Bush fully accountable any other way. The election was the only way for your voice to have any real action behind it. Inferring what voters thought on my part was bad but simply the victory IMO was putting a seal on Bush's work for the past 4 years.

 

[Mandark]

The question wasn't even about Bush himself, but about why nobody has been held accountable for these mistakes, referring specifically to the firing or demotion of underlings. Our president is basically saying that nobody in the executive branch of the US government needs to be held accountable in any way other than a four year referendum on their boss.

Bush could have said that he thought the war and reconstruction were very difficult tasks, and that the people who planned and executed them did the best, most honest jobs they could. Instead he took a position where the president of the US feels no obligation to remove people from positions of influence in the government if they screw up. This is not a good thing.

 

[Shinobi]

Okay then what can I say but this- the Democrats would be spinning it the other way if Kerry won. I don't see how you can make Bush fully accountable any other way. The election was the only way for your voice to have any real action behind it. Inferring what voters thought on my part was bad but simply the victory IMO was putting a seal on Bush's work for the past 4 years.

Agreed...Iraq was as big an issue as any, and a completely polarizing issue from any angle. Most people either think Iraq's been a success, or a royal fuck up from minute one who's costs have been far too high. Bush winning the election pretty much validated everything he did. If Kerry won, there's no doubt his supporters would've pointed to Bush's failings in Iraq as a primary reason. Heh, this is the one time I actually agree with that scrot.

 

[Shinobi]

Bush could have said that he thought the war and reconstruction were very difficult tasks, and that the people who planned and executed them did the best, most honest jobs they could. Instead he took a position where the president of the US feels no obligation to remove people from positions of influence in the government if they screw up. This is not a good thing.

Probably not, but who's really surprised? The only people he removes are those who don't agree with him. Those that think the way he does are kept close to him like draws.

Bush removing someone he likes for fucking up would be an around-about admission that he himself fucked up. I'm pretty sure that's how his insecure ass sees it. So he's not gonna do it, and he'll obviously use the election result as the reason. Simple reasons for simple minds, but I don't hear much outcry for the heads of his underlings to roll, at least without his head being the first to be placed on the block.

When you're as arrogant as he is, and think you're never wrong like he does, such thinking is simply par for the course.

 

[MIMIC]

The current polls contradict Bush's assertions:

Shortly before Bush's inauguration for his second term in office, and after he said in an interview that the 2004 election result proved that electorate approved of his handling of the war, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 55 percent of Americans felt the Iraq war was not worth fighting, against 44 percent who thought it was.

Respondents also disapproved of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq by a 58 to 40 percent margin, and 57 percent of the 1,007 adults surveyed by telephone from January 12-16 were not confident that the upcoming elections in Iraq would lead to a stable government.

Similarly, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll published in the nationally distributed newspaper showed that Americans believed it was a mistake sending troops to Iraq by a 52-to-47 percent margin.

Yahoo! News

Fuck Bush and his flawed logic.

 

[Nerevar]

unfortunately, his logic is correct though. There's a reason we have a representative Democracy in America, not an absolute Democracy. And if there are people out there who feel that gay marriage is more important than war, they can vote that way and let Bush do whatever he wants in international politics. That's how the system works. In a different time, Americans might actually see what's wrong with that and act, but hell, Americans are so fucking stupid and lazy these days that they accept whatever is served to them as government without questioning, because questioning that is "unpatriotic" (I am American, btw)

IMO, it highlights "what is wrong in America" more than "what is wrong with Bush."

 

[DonasaurusRex]

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.

.... we are d00m3d

 

[Particle Physicist]

So isolating Bin Laden is alright but having Sadaam isolated was not ok?

Urrr

what exactly do you mean by this? bin laden isnt ruling a country at the moment.

 

[Azih]

Is this really surprising from a president who right after the 2004 win said "I want to reach out to those who agree with me". That was rock bottom right there, the rest of this is just admiring the scenery.

 

[Doth Togo]

unfortunately, his logic is correct though. There's a reason we have a representative Democracy in America, not an absolute Democracy. And if there are people out there who feel that gay marriage is more important than war, they can vote that way and let Bush do whatever he wants in international politics. That's how the system works. In a different time, Americans might actually see what's wrong with that and act, but hell, Americans are so fucking stupid and lazy these days that they accept whatever is served to them as government without questioning, because questioning that is "unpatriotic" (I am American, btw)

IMO, it highlights "what is wrong in America" more than "what is wrong with Bush."

But we don't have a represtative Democracy. If that were the case, Gore would've won in 2000 as he had more votes.

 

[Nerevar]

But we don't have a represtative Democracy. If that were the case, Gore would've won in 2000 as he had more votes.

Now you're just nitpicking. It's a form of representative Democracy where votes are tallied by state and then weighted by the state's population, not by individual.

 

[Phoenix]

In a sense, sure. But the election was really just a choice between two candidates who would run the country [+ world] for the next four years. It was not an absolver of guilt. A vote for Bush does not mean that the people in his administration who had previously made mistakes are therefore pardoned.

It means that there will be no investigation and therefore they are pardoned by virtue of not pushing for an investigation.

 

[Raven.]

That's how the system works.

For now...

 

[Socreges]

unfortunately, his logic is correct though. There's a reason we have a representative Democracy in America, not an absolute Democracy. And if there are people out there who feel that gay marriage is more important than war, they can vote that way and let Bush do whatever he wants in international politics. That's how the system works. In a different time, Americans might actually see what's wrong with that and act, but hell, Americans are so fucking stupid and lazy these days that they accept whatever is served to them as government without questioning, because questioning that is "unpatriotic" (I am American, btw)

IMO, it highlights "what is wrong in America" more than "what is wrong with Bush."

I still strongly disagree that any of this amounts to the people responsible not having to be held accountable. Also, that the majority obviously ARE questioning actions taken since the majority oppose the war (etc), despite the majority voting him into office (this is not a contradiction, which can also demonstrate that his logic is flawed).

It means that there will be no investigation and therefore they are pardoned by virtue of not pushing for an investigation.

You're drawing connections that don't exist. In truth, there is more likely to be an investigation concerning particular things if Kerry is elected. So each individual person can choose Kerry in order to have that opportunity. However, it would seem that the majority thought Bush was, overall, the better choice. Now, does that mean that people didn't want an investigation? No. Maybe they forfeited that chance in order to choose who they felt most comfortable with for the next four years, but that does NOT necessarily constitute a pardon for the mistakes that have been made (not to mention that majority feel that the war was a mistake/mishandled). The statement was simply wrong. The vote itself concerns the next four years. That is it. Maybe it, as a consequence, does much relinquish particular people from being punished, but the sum of the votes were certainly not an "accountability moment" of the last four years.

 

[Diffense]

But most people only considered three options: Bush, Kerry, or not voting. It'd be extremely easy to have people who voted for Bush even though they think his administration has made big mistakes, or people who voted for Kerry who didn't.

His first presidenial term was dominated by his 9/11 and the ensuing wars so I doubt most people went to the polls without giving some thought to his handling of the situation. I definitely understand how he could view his victory as a validation of his policies.

 

[Nerevar]

I still strongly disagree that any of this amounts to the people responsible not having to be held accountable. Also, that the majority obviously ARE questioning actions taken since the majority oppose the war (etc), despite the majority voting him into office (this is not a contradiction, which can also demonstrate that his logic is flawed).

The thing is, that all works great and dandy for a democracy (where every person has a voice in every issue), but that's not what we have. The majority does not dictate policy in America - the leaders we elect do. And the question was "how come no one has been held accountable for the policy in Iraq" - Bush basically said that when people voted him into office, they voted his policy into Iraq into office. That was part of his platform. That is not broken logic at all.

 

[Teza]

I still strongly disagree that any of this amounts to the people responsible not having to be held accountable. Also, that the majority obviously ARE questioning actions taken since the majority oppose the war (etc), despite the majority voting him into office (this is not a contradiction, which can also demonstrate that his logic is flawed).


You're drawing connections that don't exist. In truth, there is more likely to be an investigation concerning particular things if Kerry is elected. So each individual person can choose Kerry in order to have that opportunity. However, it would seem that the majority thought Bush was, overall, the better choice. Now, does that mean that people didn't want an investigation? No. Maybe they forfeited that chance in order to choose who they felt most comfortable with for the next four years, but that does NOT necessarily constitute a pardon for the mistakes that have been made (not to mention that majority feel that the war was a mistake/mishandled). The statement was simply wrong. The vote itself concerns the next four years. That is it. Maybe it, as a consequence, does much relinquish particular people from being punished, but the sum of the votes were certainly not an "accountability moment" of the last four years.

Your argument is confused, and thus lacks potency. I'm not singling you out, though; the same applies to all the other posts in this thread.

Try distinguishing between political accountability and legal accountability, and (within those categories) between accountability and responsibility.

These distinctions are crucially important in the British constitutional arrangements, and surely in the American constitution as well.

 

[Socreges]

The thing is, that all works great and dandy for a democracy (where every person has a voice in every issue), but that's not what we have. The majority does not dictate policy in America - the leaders we elect do. And the question was "how come no one has been held accountable for the policy in Iraq" - Bush basically said that when people voted him into office, they voted his policy into Iraq into office. That was part of his platform. That is not broken logic at all.

Yes, the majority consequently voted his entire platform into office, regardless of how they feel on particular issues. But that does NOT equate to the mistakes of the previous four years therefore being, in a sense, erased from the minds of the American people. You vote them all into office because you feel they can do the best job overall (for whatever specific reasons), but that should not indicate to Bush that no one needs to be held accountable. To use the most extreme example, if Bush were running against Hitler (no independents), and Rumsfeld had murdered a small child seven months before, perhaps the Bush administration would still get re-elected. Indeed, you are subsequently bringing back Rumsfeld, who has not been punished as of yet. But that doesn't necessarily mean you feel he is absolved from guilt. You have your reasons to vote, overall, for Bush, but that does not encompass the entire administration and place acceptance in each action they have taken.

From here on out, including Pheonix's reply, I respectfully disagree. We're just wasting each other's time.

 

[Alucard]

Fuck you and your "collateral damage" and trying to hide behind democracy for a war that a large number of people still don't agree with. The number of people who even understand it is probably even smaller.

I caught something on CNN a couple of days ago, which made me sick. They were saying that on election day in Iraq, there likely WILL be trouble, will be casualties, and not everyone will be able to vote...but NOT to think about that. The focus should be on the fact that democracy IS in Iraq, in some way, shape, or form. What bullshit.

 

[pxleyes]

Now you're just nitpicking. It's a form of representative Democracy where votes are tallied by state and then weighted by the state's population, not by individual.

Thats not nitpicking though when Bush claims the election means the American public thinks he doesn't need to hold anyone accountable. Our representative REPUBLIC (not democracy) is set up in such a way that nearly HALF of the American public still dont agree with him, yet he can easily ignore them.

Bush thinks that everyone in the public spoke and said, "you did well." Well that is not what happened. Half of the public said, "you are better than Kerry," and the other half said, "get the funk out." I dont know how anyone can make the connection between that (the election) and not holding anyone accountable for making huge ass mistakess and sending us into an unneeded war.

It gets better though, he gave those people who need to be kicked to the curb, o man, i cant make this up....MEDALS.

 

[Nerevar]

Yes, the majority consequently voted his entire platform into office, regardless of how they feel on particular issues. But that does NOT equate to the mistakes of the previous four years therefore being, in a sense, erased from the minds of the American people. You vote them all into office because you feel they can do the best job overall (for whatever specific reasons), but that should not indicate to Bush that no one needs to be held accountable. To use the most extreme example, if Bush were running against Hitler (no independents), and Rumsfeld had murdered a small child seven months before, perhaps the Bush administration would still get re-elected. Indeed, you are subsequently bringing back Rumsfeld, who has not been punished as of yet. But that doesn't necessarily mean you feel he is absolved from guilt. You have your reasons to vote, overall, for Bush, but that does not encompass the entire administration and place acceptance in each action they have taken.

From here on out, including Pheonix's reply, I respectfully disagree. We're just wasting each other's time.

You know, there isn't a law against third parties in this country. Hence my earlier point about the American people just being lazy - a large number will just bitch that both suck, but lack the capacity to do anything about it. Grass roots democracy here is dead.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

The current polls contradict Bush's assertions:


Yahoo! News

Fuck Bush and his flawed logic.

Fuck the American population and their flawed logic. We will truly reap what we sowed when the bill comes due on the bitch. There are going to be some massive tax hikes in the next 8 years or so.

 

[Phoenix]

You're drawing connections that don't exist. In truth, there is more likely to be an investigation concerning particular things if Kerry is elected. So each individual person can choose Kerry in order to have that opportunity.

Wait, unless I went through a time warp (in which case I predict Bush wins) - the election is over. No one can "choose Kerry". That decision has already been made and the people already in place aren't going to do anything to go after Bush so unless there is some public swell of support for an investigation, its not going to happen.

However, it would seem that the majority thought Bush was, overall, the better choice. Now, does that mean that people didn't want an investigation? No. Maybe they forfeited that chance in order to choose who they felt most comfortable with for the next four years, but that does NOT necessarily constitute a pardon for the mistakes that have been made (not to mention that majority feel that the war was a mistake/mishandled).

Unless SOMEONE brings a claim and seeks an investigation, there will be no indepth investigation and as such while they may be guity as sin - no action will be taken against them. That's really the only issue. The democratic party is currently castrated so we can't count on them to push the issue the same way the republicans went after Clinton. Without that type of focussed pressure, these guys will NEVER go on trail.

 

[Socreges]

Wait, unless I went through a time warp (in which case I predict Bush wins) - the election is over. No one can "choose Kerry". That decision has already been made and the people already in place aren't going to do anything to go after Bush so unless there is some public swell of support for an investigation, its not going to happen.

Ugh, consider the context.