[Mithras]

read:

"We paid a big price for not stopping [the looting] because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Bremer told the insurance agents that U.S. plans for the postwar period erred in projecting what would happen after Hussein's demise, focusing on preparing for humanitarian relief and widespread refugee problems rather than a bloody insurgency now being waged by at least four well-armed factions.

"There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise," he said.

Bremer still supports the invasion, and Bush's re-election. But he is (unlike the prez) willing to tell it like it is, and admit mistakes.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Bremer still supports the invasion, and Bush's re-election. But he is (unlike the prez) willing to tell it like it is, and admit mistakes.

The President's job is to win the war and make sure we leave Iraq with some semblance of a democratic government. Whining about mistakes only takes energy and focus away from this.

Don't forget, up until the last minute prior to the invasion, we were planning on having 40,000 US troops and 20,000 British troops swing in from the north and march down through the Sunni areas while smashing the Baathists, many of whom we're fighting now. That all changed when Turkey suddenly said "on second thought, no... we're not going to let you come in that way".

War is the great unknown. Obviously, if Bush knew then what we know now, we may have proceeded differently. But there's no use crying over spilled milk. So we focus on the tasks at hand.

[christ]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The President's job is to win the war and make sure we leave Iraq with some semblance of a democratic government. Whining about mistakes only takes energy and focus away from this.

Don't forget, up until the last minute prior to the invasion, we were planning on having 40,000 US troops and 20,000 British troops swing in from the north and march down through the Sunni areas while smashing the Baathists, many of whom we're fighting now. That all changed when Turkey suddenly said "on second thought, no... we're not going to let you come in that way".

War is the great unknown. Obviously, if Bush knew then what we know now, we may have proceeded differently. But there's no use crying over spilled milk. So we focus on the tasks at hand.

... which will become, if history is to be believed, the next errors, which will, in turn, be spilt milk not to be cried over.

One of the reasons that we all love your president so dearly is his inability to allow mistakes to be learnt from.

[Troll]

Talk about circular, machievellian logic, Spacefreak!

How does accountability factor into this equation or is the President just allowed to keep making mistakes and everyone has to keep forgiving and forgetting?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by christ:
One of the reasons that we all love your president so dearly is his inability to allow mistakes to be learnt from.

But we have learned from the mistakes, and we continue to make adjustments.

What good does whining about not having enough troops during an operation that occurred 16 months ago do for us now? Nothing. What good does complaining about not finding Saddam's stockpiles of chemical weapons do for us now? Nothing.

We need to get the place straightened out and ready for elections, and those are the projects I want my President focused on. We know the errors. The Pentagon will take these errors under condsideration when drafting future plans, and the CIA will make changes as to how it acquires and verifies its intelligence (like knowing that we need actual agents and contacts within certain organizations vs. relying solely on hearsay and electronic/satellite communications).

[Mithras]

Why worry about past mistakes?
So we can dump the President whose poor judgment led to them.

[Troll]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
But we have learned from the mistakes, and we continue to make adjustments.

I ask you again, what place does accountability have in your political scheme?

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Troll:
I ask you again, what place does accountability have in your political scheme?

The accountability lies with the people who challenge the president over it!! Uh....I think.......yes...............right.

[kido]

Originally posted by Troll:
I ask you again, what place does accountability have in your political scheme?

I'd say when a politician knows the results of his actions will not be in the best interest of his people and he does them anyway to protect himself.

kido

[Troll]

Hmmm, what I meant was the principle of political accountability, namely the obligation on the part of a politican to accept responsibility or to account for his or her actions.

For me, and perhaps I'm influenced by the Westminister system of Parliament, politicians resign if they make a serious screw up. And the buck always stops with the President. If a politician is too lily-livered to take responsibility for his mistakes himself then he has to be held responsible for them by the voters. Reelecting a politician that makes errors and doesn't take reponsibility for them means condoning irresponsible government.

[Logic]

Doesn't the US have any kind of political accountability tradition? Especially for the non elected members of the government?

oh, and btw. Spacefreak: what happened to the massive amounts of WMD that you claimed had been found?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
For me, and perhaps I'm influenced by the Westminister system of Parliament, politicians resign if they make a serious screw up. And the buck always stops with the President. If a politician is too lily-livered to take responsibility for his mistakes himself then he has to be held responsible for them by the voters. Reelecting a politician that makes errors and doesn't take reponsibility for them means condoning irresponsible government.

This is vastly overstated. As you suggest, you are influenced by a different political system. A president isn't a minister and this isn't a Parliamentary system. There have been 43 presidents in 215 years. One has resigned because he was about to be impeached for serious constitutional violations. Resignation over minor issues just isn't part of our traditions.

Instead, we have periodic elections which unlike in the Westminster system, have fixed dates. We also have a term limit for the President, and we have staggered elections in Congress held every two years. In other words, we have lots of structural mechanisms for the voters to hold their president and parties to account.

What you are basically saying is that if you think that a mistake has been made which you think is very important, then you should have the right to tell the voters of the country whose leader this is that they don't believe in holding their politicians to account. That's just sheer arrogance.

We belive in holding our leaders to account, but many of us disagree with the idea of deciding war issues by the impossible standard of 20/20 hindsight. We also think that it is a good thing for our leaders to acknowledge that they are human, and we don't bay for their blood when they do. If we disagree with them, we will decline to reelect them. There is no need for the theatrical storm that usually precedes a ministerial resignation in a Parliamentary democracy.

We also don't expect everything to go predictably in war. If presidents were to resign every time there were a setback or a failure to anticipate events in war, then every wartime president from Madison, to Lincoln, to Wilson, to Roosevelt, to Truman and on down the president day would have to resign. Do a little googling of American military history. Look up Kasserine Pass. Look up the Battle of the Bulge, or Arnhem. Look up Task Force Smith. Those were real disasters. This is peanuts. A blip. An irrelevance. Any American voter is entitled to think that this is the issue upon which this presidency should fall. That's their right. But it's not your right to demand that your opinion of what is and is not important to a person's vote conform to yours.

[kido]

Originally posted by Troll:
Hmmm, what I meant was the principle of political accountability, namely the obligation on the part of a politican to accept responsibility or to account for his or her actions.

For me, and perhaps I'm influenced by the Westminister system of Parliament, politicians resign if they make a serious screw up. And the buck always stops with the President. If a politician is too lily-livered to take responsibility for his mistakes himself then he has to be held responsible for them by the voters. Reelecting a politician that makes errors and doesn't take reponsibility for them means condoning irresponsible government.

I agree. That is how our system works. When enough voters agree that a politician has commited a serious screw up, they will not be re-elected. It's a good system that will be able to work it's magic in Iraq for the first time in more than 20 years. That is, of course, unless you believe the Iraqi people were not condoning irresponsible government when they re-elected Saddam Hussein as President with 100% of the vote.

[kido]

In the tradition of the Westminster system, SimeyTheLimey, "Hear, hear!"

[zigzag]

Mistakes are to be expected, but there's a point at which the mistakes become so numerous and monumental that one has to consider whether the people in charge are competent, whether they're credible, and whether they can be effective going forward.

The example was given of Turkey changing its mind, thereby impairing our original plan to invade from the north. The problem is that discerning the Turks' intentions and keeping them happy was part of the administration's job. The failure to do so was just one in a series of diplomatic and strategic blunders.

[kido]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The example was given of Turkey changing its mind, thereby impairing our original plan to invade from the north. The problem is that discerning the Turks' intentions and keeping them happy was part of the administration's job. The failure to do so was just one in a series of diplomatic and strategic blunders.

At any cost? Would you have wanted the President to pay them $200 billion for rights to their airspace? How about $1 trillion? Diplomacy doesn't mean both parties always get their way. There was a deluge of efforts to bring Turkey around at the time, and in the end it was decided it wasn't worth the effort and cost.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What you are basically saying is that if you think that a mistake has been made which you think is very important, then you should have the right to tell the voters of the country whose leader this is that they don't believe in holding their politicians to account. That's just sheer arrogance.

Hold your horses there! I was just asking what people's PERSONAL views were on accountability and offering mine.

What I was saying is that if a politician makes a mistake that I think is an important failure and if he doesn't accept responsibility for it himself, then I think I have a responsibility to vote him out even if I like him. Because in the political culture I grew up in, politicians have to be accountable to the electorate. They get a term, then a review and the buck stops with them. I raised the question in the context of spacefreak acknowledging mistakes but saying that people should vote for Bush anyway because the US needs to get on with the job. I just wanted to know where he draws the line. Where he says no more mistakes, you had your chance. Do not pass go, do not collect 200.

So, relax. I wasn't asserting a right to tell anyone what to do!

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We also don't expect everything to go predictably in war. If presidents were to resign every time there were a setback or a failure to anticipate events in war, then every wartime president from Madison, to Lincoln, to Wilson, to Roosevelt, to Truman and on down the president day would have to resign. Do a little googling of American military history. Look up Kasserine Pass. Look up the Battle of the Bulge, or Arnhem. Look up Task Force Smith. Those were real disasters. This is peanuts. A blip. An irrelevance. Any American voter is entitled to think that this is the issue upon which this presidency should fall. That's their right. But it's not your right to demand that your opinion of what is and is not important to a person's vote conform to yours.

Here's a blip

Here's a peanut

Here's a bunch of irrelevancies

[zigzag]

Originally posted by kido:
At any cost? Would you have wanted the President to pay them $200 billion for rights to their airspace? How about $1 trillion? Diplomacy doesn't mean both parties always get their way. There was a deluge of efforts to bring Turkey around at the time, and in the end it was decided it wasn't worth the effort and cost.

The accounts I've see are different - they suggest that Turkey's cooperation was too easily taken for granted - but I don't have links handy so I can't document it, and I'm sure there are competing explanations. But even if we assume that it was the result of informed deliberation rather than diplomatic bungling, it was the administration's job to make the necessary adjustments. This they seem to have failed to do, and Turkey can't be blamed for that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Hold your horses there! I was just asking what people's PERSONAL views were on accountability and offering mine.

What I was saying is that if a politician makes a mistake that I think is an important failure and if he doesn't accept responsibility for it himself, then I think I have a responsibility to vote him out even if I like him. Because the political culture I grew up in, politicians have to be accountable to the electorate for mistakes. I raised the question in the context of spacefreak acknowledging mistakes but saying that people should vote for Bush anyway because the US needs to get on with the job. I just wanted to know where he draws the line. Where he says no more mistakes, you had your chance.

So, relax. I wasn't asserting a right to tell anyone what to do!

Then why not simply assume that some concept of accountability is there? Of course, politicians in a democracy are accountable to the public, and of course mistakes will be made. Some big, some small. It is up to the voters individually to decide which are big, and which are small. Their collective individual decisions will make the decision. If a voter sees an error but dismisses it, why not just assume that he doesn't see it as a deciding factor for him?

As you said, you are most familiar with the Westminster system. That is a system marked by a propensity for ministers to resign. But I wonder how democratic that really is? Mostly, they seem to be lead by commentary in the media. Not entirely, of course. When a minister loses the confidence of Parliament, that's a legitimate reason for resignation given the theory behind which Parliament operates. (You might recall our discussion on this the other day). But really, how many of those scandals that bring down British ministers really go to the heart of government? A lot of them seem in hindsight pretty trivial. Christine Keeler had an affair with Profumo. Jeremy Thorpe had a gay affair. Michael Heseltine lost a vote on Westland. All big news to the Fleet Street Tabloids, maybe. But tearing at the roots of the constitution they were not.

Anyway, different countries, different traditions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
Here's a blip

Here's a peanut

Here's a bunch of irrelevancies

That's just obnoxiously low and trollish. Grow up.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Then why not simply assume that some concept of accountability is there? Of course, politicians in a democracy are accountable to the public, and of course mistakes will be made. Some big, some small. It is up to the voters individually to decide which are big, and which are small. Their collective individual decisions will make the decision. If a voter sees an error but dismisses it, why not just assume that he doesn't see it as a deciding factor for him?

Are Rumsfeldt, Ashcroft, Powell and Ridge accountable to the public? I thought they were appointed by the President.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Are Rumsfeldt, Ashcroft, Powell and Ridge accountable to the public? I thought they were appointed by the President.

True. Those executive branch officers serve at the pleasure of the president, and were appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate. They can be fired by the president or impeached by congress. However, they would be replaced if the president is replaced by the voters, which is what we are talking about here.

Other than that, what's your point?

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
True. Those executive branch officers serve at the pleasure of the president, and were appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate. They can be fired by the president or impeached by congress. However, they would be replaced if the president is replaced by the voters, which is what we are talking about here.

Other than that, what's your point?

My point is that when Rumsfeld presides over the largest intelligence failure for a long time(9/11(Secretary of Defence, WMD's(we know where they are), SH link to Al Qaida(no concrete evidence quote) and the list goes on) then it is time, IMO, to replace him. The president should replace him and appoint a new one. Especially since he isn't accountable to the US citizens. That is what a responsible President would do IMO.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Then why not simply assume that some concept of accountability is there? Of course, politicians in a democracy are accountable to the public, and of course mistakes will be made. Some big, some small. It is up to the voters individually to decide which are big, and which are small. Their collective individual decisions will make the decision. If a voter sees an error but dismisses it, why not just assume that he doesn't see it as a deciding factor for him?

I wasn't talking about the concept of accountability in the US political system and if you weren't so hyper-sensitive, you'd see that I wasn't criticising your system or your candidate.

I say again, I was asking Spacefreak to explain to me the role that accountability plays in his own, personal political ideology. I wanted to know what spacefreak's own personal acid test is; when does he think a politician doesn't pass go, doesn't collect 200. That's an entirely different question from the one you've answered and which I already knew the answer to. Besides, I specifically acknowledged what influences my personal beliefs!

You've taken our discussion completely out of context.

[Mithras]

Cheney on Rumsfeld:

"As a former secretary of defense, I think Donald Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had," the vice president said in a statement relayed to CNN through a spokesman Saturday.

"People ought to let him do his job".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
My point is that when Rumsfeld presides over the largest intelligence failure for a long time(9/11(Secretary of Defence, WMD's(we know where they are), SH link to Al Qaida(no concrete evidence quote) and the list goes on) then it is time, IMO, to replace him. The president should replace him and appoint a new one. Especially since he isn't accountable to the US citizens. That is what a responsible President would do IMO.

That's up to the president. And whether we keep the president is up to us.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's up to the president. And whether we keep the president is up to us.

Yip and here we are back where my first post started. What has to happen before you'll say, "I'm not giving you a second chance."

Note: This is a question of when you personally hold a leader accountable. I'm not criticising or looking for an explanation of any political system.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Yip and here we are back where my first post started. What has to happen before you'll say, "I'm not giving you a second chance."

Note: This is a question of when you personally hold a leader accountable. I'm not criticising or looking for an explanation of any political system.

And the only answer I can give is "it depends." There is no mechanical checklist that can be applied.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
I say again, I was asking Spacefreak to explain to me the role that accountability plays in his own, personal political ideology. I wanted to know what spacefreak's own personal acid test is; when does he think a politician doesn't pass go, doesn't collect 200.

When a President sits on his ass and doesn't attempt to protect the US... that's when he fails.

However, that's not to say I don't find fault with Bush's approach to this war. Personally, I think he is attempting to be too delicate.

What I want is...Black out all media communications within and coming from Iraq for 3-4 weeks and pummel every thug gathering place. Offer $$$$ to Iraqis to give us information on these thugs' positions and clean house.

We just had a huge battle in Sammarra where we killed 125 thugs, took 90 prisoners, and only lost 1 life. That's the way we should be attacking every suspected skumbag stronghold.

Do I hold the President accountable for the insurgency? No, I don't. I am holding him accountable for pandering to liberal concerns and not being aggressive enough.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's just obnoxiously low and trollish. Grow up.

I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I'm still quite bitter about needless death, as discussed in this thread, in which you said "Each American soldier killed in action, or in a combat-related accident is a tragedy. All Americans ought to honor them for their sacrifice, and that made by their families."

Considering this thread is basically about War and Accountability, and about each voters "acid test" of this administration's decisions, I chose to voice my vote based on the realities of war, namely the needless obliteration of individuals human lives. You may call it low and trollish if you will, but I will never stop making the point, especially when these otherwise intelligent, but academic discussions stray from this reality.

[nath]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Personally, I think he is attempting to be too delicate.

What I want is...Black out all media communications within and coming from Iraq for 3-4 weeks and pummel every thug gathering place. Offer $$$$ to Iraqis to give us information on these thugs' positions and clean house.

We just had a huge battle in Sammarra where we killed 125 thugs, took 90 prisoners, and only lost 1 life. That's the way we should be attacking every suspected skumbag stronghold.

Do I hold the President accountable for the insurgency? No, I don't. I am holding him accountable for pandering to liberal concerns and not being aggressive enough.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...5E1702,00.html


this isn't an isolated insurgency you can put an end to with a couple of weeks of bombing town centers. it's a national uprising attracting increasing support from ordinary iraqis. and unless the US wants to be there for 20 years then it's going to end in a saigon-style retreat. i wonder who you'll hold accountable then. syria, maybe.

[ebuddy]

Spauldingg; you'd do well to "remember" victims and "honor" heroes. The links you provided are those that joined the military VOLUNTARILY understanding that death is a part of military service in order for you to enjoy peace in your gated community. Exploiting their sacrifice to help you make a statement against war is not honoring them. Now, while you're head is fully immersed in designing dinosaurs in the funny little fantasy land you've created for yourself, perhaps you can remember those from your region of reality, that you seemed to have forgotten so easily;

9/11 victims

[mitchell_pgh]

I don't feel it's Bush's job to apologize for errors.

That's like trying to get Kerry to apologize for not supporting the troops in his voting record after voting for them to go to Iraq.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nath:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...5E1702,00.html

this isn't an isolated insurgency you can put an end to with a couple of weeks of bombing town centers. it's a national uprising attracting increasing support from ordinary iraqis.

Read your own article. It's not a national uprising of "ordinary Iraqis"... the article you yourself posted mentioned that a large chunk are Sunnis angry that they and Saddam are not in power.

[nath]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Read your own article. It's not a national uprising of "ordinary Iraqis"... the article you yourself posted mentioned that a large chunk are Sunnis angry that they and Saddam are not in power.

So you're excluding a 'large chunk' of Sunni Muslims from being 'ordinary Iraqis'? Well that's around 40% of the population, including large numbers of Kurds and Turkimens (both groups not exactly famous for their affinity with the Hussein regime). So good luck with that one!

I think you probably mean Baathists, which is a completely different thing. You might also want to be careful of carelessly paraphrasing people in a way that changes the meaning of their words:

"It's not a national uprising of ordinary Iraqis..." (your retort)
compared to
"It's a national uprising attracting increasing support from ordinary Iraqis" (my statement, with emphasis added in italics just in case you miss it again)

Originally posted by Herald Sun
The official and others told The Associated Press the guerillas have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of US troops that they cannot be militarily defeated.

The military official, who has logged thousands of kilometres driving around Iraq to meet insurgents or their representatives, said a skillful Iraqi government could co-opt some of the guerillas and reconcile with the leaders instead of fighting them.

"I generally like a lot of these guys," he said.

Iraqis are generally very patriotic - this isn't a Baathist trait.

Whilst I don't mind hanging around while you do some research, I won't hold my breath.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Spauldingg; you'd do well to "remember" victims and "honor" heroes. The links you provided are those that joined the military VOLUNTARILY understanding that death is a part of military service in order for you to enjoy peace in your gated community. Exploiting their sacrifice to help you make a statement against war is not honoring them. Now, while you're head is fully immersed in designing dinosaurs in the funny little fantasy land you've created for yourself, perhaps you can remember those from your region of reality, that you seemed to have forgotten so easily;

9/11 victims

I honored their sacrifices by bringing to light their lives and deaths, instead of calling the circumstances of their demise "peanuts, blips, and irrelevancies." And when their sacrifices are proven to be connected to the protection of my "gated community" (by which I assume you mean the U.S. in general) and to the horrors of 9/11 I'll be the first to be "held accountable" for my remarks, and will apologize. But as all overwhelming evidence indicates, these honorable heroes died for a president hellbent on tilting at windmills.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
I honored their sacrifices by bringing to light their lives and deaths, instead of calling the circumstances of their demise "peanuts, blips, and irrelevancies."

Actually, I said nothing of the sort.

When I spoke of peanuts, blips and irrelevancies, it was specific to Bremer's criticism. Bremer's contention is that there weren't enough troops on the ground to prevent looting in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. That has absolutely nothing to do with the number of US casualties. Indeed, sending troops into the neighborhoods immediately to mop up looters probably would have produced more US casualties.

[Nicko]

Slightly offtopic, but it looks like CNN is giving the impression that WMDs are in every country in the middle east BUT Iraq.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, I said nothing of the sort.

When I spoke of peanuts, blips and irrelevancies, it was specific to Bremer's criticism. Bremer's contention is that there weren't enough troops on the ground to prevent looting in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. That has absolutely nothing to do with the number of US casualties. Indeed, sending troops into the neighborhoods immediately to mop up looters probably would have produced more US casualties.

Thanks for explaining. That makes sense. Now I understand why people call folks like me "knee-jerk" with the emphasis on "jerk."

[swrate]

Its easy to say later:
"There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise,"
So why did they plan for a different scenario?
They planned people would knee-jerk. why did thy not foresee this tragedy when they were warned by leaders of the whole planet?
At least, the slightest courtesy would of been planning for that possibility (insurgency).
The US army officials in Baghdad and the analysts, seem to finally realize now that the around 20000 insurgents are not jihadists.

You can make theories and theories, the difference is many politicians in England have a sense of honour that others i.e. the Chinese, the Japanese, also have. When politicians put populations in trouble because of a bad decision or a bad choice, they resign in many European countries too. (waiting for the next resignation here, hope it will be before some serious failure happens)

Talking about Turkey�s expensive air space I would like to remind you here that Switzerland denied Air Force the right to overfly, not that Swiss air space was needed, not that anyone cared. Anyone=US.
Those "resistances" alone should of meant something, since most humanitarians associations have main offices here.

I think non hypocritical leaders should be supple, accept and admit failure, analyse mistakes for them not to happen again, and recognize publicly the problems concerning the services one supervises.
US politics have influence over the planet, and politics have effect on economics.

The insurgency is every day, every moment. Sunnis are angry, Shias are angry, Kurds are angry, Baathists are angry. That�s a lot of people. Is looting the main thing Bremer is now worrying about?
Doesn't the insurgency have (for him)deeper roots then looting?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Why worry about past mistakes?
So we can dump the President whose poor judgment led to them.

So we can "break-in" a Senator with an undistinguished 20 year record and another who played hooky from Senate votes, both of whom don't believe what Lee Harris convincingly says in his Policy Review essay, "Al Qaedas Fantasy Ideology?"

"There is one decisive advantage to the �evildoer� metaphor, and it is this: Combat with evildoers is not Clausewitzian war. You do not make treaties with evildoers or try to adjust your conduct to make them like you. You do not try to see the world from the evildoers� point of view. You do not try to appease them, or persuade them, or reason with them. You try, on the contrary, to outwit them, to vanquish them, to kill them. You behave with them in the same manner that you would deal with a fatal epidemic � you try to wipe it out."

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Slightly offtopic, but it looks like CNN is giving the impression that WMDs are in every country in the middle east BUT Iraq.

Good thing we invaded, then! Also, see Cody Dawg's fascinating thread theorizing the REAL reason we took down Saddam.

IRAN!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's up to the president. And whether we keep the president is up to us.

I agree. But thanks for your opinion, Logic.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Then why not simply assume that some concept of accountability is there? Of course, politicians in a democracy are accountable to the public, and of course mistakes will be made. Some big, some small. It is up to the voters individually to decide which are big, and which are small. Their collective individual decisions will make the decision. If a voter sees an error but dismisses it, why not just assume that he doesn't see it as a deciding factor for him?

As you said, you are most familiar with the Westminster system. That is a system marked by a propensity for ministers to resign. But I wonder how democratic that really is? Mostly, they seem to be lead by commentary in the media. Not entirely, of course. When a minister loses the confidence of Parliament, that's a legitimate reason for resignation given the theory behind which Parliament operates. (You might recall our discussion on this the other day). But really, how many of those scandals that bring down British ministers really go to the heart of government? A lot of them seem in hindsight pretty trivial. Christine Keeler had an affair with Profumo. Jeremy Thorpe had a gay affair. Michael Heseltine lost a vote on Westland. All big news to the Fleet Street Tabloids, maybe. But tearing at the roots of the constitution they were not.

Anyway, different countries, different traditions.

Good points Simey.

Besides, I'd rather a bold leader who dared great things and tried to do the right thing than a Senator with an undistinguished 20 year record who fails to understand the danger of relying on diplomacy and negotiation to keep America safe.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spauldingg:
Thanks for explaining. That makes sense. Now I understand why people call folks like me "knee-jerk" with the emphasis on "jerk."

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As you said, you are most familiar with the Westminster system. That is a system marked by a propensity for ministers to resign. But I wonder how democratic that really is? Mostly, they seem to be lead by commentary in the media. Not entirely, of course. When a minister loses the confidence of Parliament, that's a legitimate reason for resignation given the theory behind which Parliament operates. (You might recall our discussion on this the other day). But really, how many of those scandals that bring down British ministers really go to the heart of government? A lot of them seem in hindsight pretty trivial. Christine Keeler had an affair with Profumo. Jeremy Thorpe had a gay affair. Michael Heseltine lost a vote on Westland. All big news to the Fleet Street Tabloids, maybe. But tearing at the roots of the constitution they were not.

look out, Simey's ruminating on the UK Parliament again!

Profumo didn't resign for having an affair! He resigned because the girl with which he was having an extra-marital affair was at the same time romantically involved with a high-ranking attache at the Soviet embassy. Something of a problem when you're the Secretary of State for War for the UK during the Cold War, as he would have been an obvious target for blackmail and/or a serious security risk.

There's a kernel of truth in what you say - i.e. how many of the scandals that go to the heart of government actually result in ministerial resignations? Not many, with Blair being the most obvious and recent example. See also Michael Howard's refusal to resign in the aftermath of the Scott Report (the 'arms to Iraq' affair). Generally politicians don't want to be remembered as having left their job due to a colossal error of judgement, or for telling lies, on either side of the Atlantic.

They look even worse when compared to their civilian counterparts, who have been peeling away from the case for war against Iraq and its prosecution since 2002. David Kelly, David Kay, Paul Bremner...the list goes on and on. How many respected and credible men need to be destroyed or maliciously discredited before the 'get your war on' fanboys are satisfied?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
look out, Simey's ruminating on the UK Parliament again!

Profumo didn't resign for having an affair! He resigned because the girl with which he was having an extra-marital affair was at the same time romantically involved with a high-ranking attache at the Soviet embassy.

Yes, I know the story of the Profumo affair. It's not exactly obscure knowledge. I didn't expand on it because I was pretty sure that Troll knows the story too. It't the same reason why I didn't expand on what Westland was, or who Jeremy Thorpe was (the other examples I used).

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, I know the story of the Profumo affair. It's not exactly obscure knowledge. I didn't expand on it because I was pretty sure that Troll knows the story too. It't the same reason why I didn't expand on what Westland was, or who Jeremy Thorpe was (the other examples I used).

Actually, my recollection is that he resigned because he had mislead parliament. Didn't he say something like he and Christine Keeler were "family friends" and that he had lied to protect his wife and family. Sound familiar. Having seen pictures of Keeler, I'm not sure the sex parties weren't worth it .

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Having seen pictures of Keeler, I'm not sure the sex parties weren't worth it .

I'll take your word on that.