Centerfield

Would it be intellectually satisfying to centrists if Bush simply spoke honestly of any mis-steps and miscalculations, things he'd do differently now? Absolutely.

But I look at it like this. First, divide the population into those who care and those who don't. OK, now take that 15 to 40% (IMO a generous estimate) that care, and cut out the ones who are poorly informed. Take whatever you have left,(3- 10% of the original total populace?) and ask yourself this: "among those who care and are relatively well-informed, how many have not either convicted or exonerated Bush?"

Traditionally, the sort of thing you are looking for happens much farther down the road. I''m unconvinced that, at the present time, much if any good would come from the sorts of mea culpas for which you pine. In contrast, much bad could come. The middle of a war is, IMO, a poor time for retrospectives and second-guessing...

It wasn't until many years after the DDay landings that Eisenhower's speech taking blame for its failure was disclosed (Thankfully, it was not necessary). I'm not aware of any field or staff commander falling on his sword for the bad intelligence leading to the Battle of the Bulge. Adm. Kimmel was sacked for Pearl Harbor, but was kept out of the intelligence loop (and the Navy tends to be a little harsher about such things). Of course, FDR was only a hero from 12/7/41 onwards (like Rudy Giuliani). So Rick, I'm not clear as to what you want Bush to do...

Your analogy indicates that you think Bush made things in Iraq worse, but how? By invading? I thought he made it clear (even before the invasion) the role that Iraq plays in the GWOT. You can disagree with his assessment, but can you make the judgment that life in Iraq is worse?

You might want to say that the war is not worth it - there, at least, is the basis for an argument. But I can't honestly say that Bush has made things worse in Iraq.

To overuse the WWII analogy, was life in France worse on June 6 than on June 5? There was certainly a lot more shooting going on. Or take Okinawa - a brutal battle. When it looked like the Americans were winning, civilians committed suicide in droves. They clearly expected that things would be worse after the battle, but they were clearly wrong.

I don't really expect Bush to come to us to confess his sins until he is well out of office and the GWOT has progressed much farther than it has. It may be in twenty years or so, he will write "if only I had listened to Richard Clarke," or "if only I had listened to Bill Quick."

I guess I really don't get what you want him to do right now.

I'm not interested in an apology just so I can feel good. It's just that right now, Bush has zero credibility with me. I don''t think he's a liar so much as a screw-up.

So, when he says we don't need more troops in Iraq, I don't believe him. I believe he is doing what his minions have accused Democrats of doing, which is putting his party ahead of his country. Asking for more troops (setting aside where to get them) would mean that his Democratic critics are right, so he simply won't consider it. I don't buy his argument that the military hasn't asked for them (because they wouldn't ask for something he clearly doesn't want) or his argument that more American troops would interfere with training Iraqi troops.

Now, if he took the hit, and admitted that troops levels were too low when the occupation started, and took some responsibility for that, I'd be more willing to believe his claim that current troop levels are adequate. By being unpolitical, he might enhance his political standing.

I suppose, in his calculation, he figures there are elements in his Republican base who actually believe his management of the war has been perfect, so admitting error would disillusion them and cause a loss of support.

Rick just answered LR's question for me. I want Bush to be honest, not so critics can say "I told you so!", but so we can begin to have some faith in this administration.

I have not always automatically questioned their motives, but for the last two years I have.

I want some honesty, and I do want some of the intel and pentagon bunglers put on the street. Call it accountability.

Rick, you're of course entitled to believe whatever you want regarding troop levels. But doesn't it veer into conspiracy-theory territory to declare that his viewpoint that we don't need troops is not credible, when your only basis is that the military wouldn't say so to him even if it were true. Doesn't this also insult the military as being venal careerist yes men instead of capable leaders aware of the importance of our goals?

It escapes me why you feel compelled to make this claim without some actual evidence. Do you have credible evidence you're not bringing to bear? Is your reasoning more sophisticated than feeling that the need for more troops is simply manifest given the nature of current events in Iraq?

Perspnally, I'd be embarassed to say anything stronger than "I hope it's not the case that..."

bk,

No, what the conspiracy theorists are saying is that, because Bush wants to keep the current level of troops, we don't need any at all. They want immediate withdrawal.

The military is under civilian control. I mean no disrespect to them to assume that they follow the orders and intentions of the civilian leaders.

Regarding what is the correct amount of troops, I base my belief not on tortured logic, but what Democrats like John Kerry and Joe Biden have said. They have more credibility at this point than President Bush. For one thing, they have no political reason to ask for more troops. Given that Democratic activists like MoveOn have started a campaign for withdrawal, their position puts them in conflict with the Democratic base. Nor do I see them gaining anything by distancing themselves from activists whose support they will need in 2008 if they run for President then. Thus, I believe their assessments are sincere, while the President has a strong motive to CYA.

No offense intended, Rick but the problem here is cultural. You just don’t have a deep understanding of the military and how it works and this taints your view. Compare our efforts in Iraq to previous wars like Vietnam and WWII and you will see that we have been doing pretty well here. The problem is you don’t seem to understand the context in which this war takes place or what winning is in this case.

I think part of the problem is that the Baby Boom generation tends to view all military actions through the dark lens of Vietnam. That’s why you all seem to be looking under the couch cushions for a quagmire that simply isn’t there.

Read some of the war blogs. Spend some time with the soldiers, sailors, and marines who are fighting this war. Spend a week or so away from Cambridge and you will come away with a different perspective on this. Or better yet, read some of the predictions of the anti-war folks from before the war started. None of their predictions have come true, so why are you listening to them now?

I have to agree he would have scored more points among that percentage of voters who have brought his approval under 50% if he had reasoned with America, rather than patronize us by repeating the same sound bites.

President Bush's core base actually believes Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. They'll continue to believe he is a prophet and their sworn protector. Nothing will sway them.

But if he'd said.. "Look, we've made some mistakes. We didn't realize it was going to be this tough, but we have to press onward."

Simply put, this is an administration that believes it has done no wrong, or can do no wrong.

This is a common misconception by many. I don't want President Bush to apologize, nor do a lot of people. We just want him to admit he was wrong, that, somewhere, mistake was made... We want him to admit this because it shows he knows, and maybe, just maybe, he's learned from it, and won't make it again.

Right now too many Americans are curled up in the fetal position -which is how many sleep- wondering when we're going into Iran or Syria...

I think part of the contractor analogy has to be rooted in the assertion that the main front in the war on terror is only there because we put it there. The question is whether we are creating more terrorists than we are eliminating. The argument that we should fight them there before they come here is well and good, but what if most of "them" wouldn't exist (or have such a good training ground) in the first place had we not invaded Iraq? I'm not claiming to know the answer, but it's certainly a valid question.

Alf- none of the administration's predictions came true, either... so frankly, no one has any credibility, which is the problem.

Rather than argue how stupid (or gullible) the average American is, let me just point out that Bush faced the voters last fall, as did all of the Representative, and a third of the Senators, according to the Constitution of the US of A.

Sounds like accountability to me.

By the way Rick, basing your faith in Kerry's and Biden's pronouncements is fine. Assuming that they are more frank or more believable because of what you assume their political stance will be in two or three years is, in fact, tortured logic (keep it far from GTMO).

Alf,

I stipulate that I don't have a deep understanding of military culture.

I have never used the Q word (quagmire) and I don't like it. I think we can still win this thing, and it doesn't have to turn out like Vietnam. From what I understand though, we never really lost militarily in Vietnam, either. We just got to the point where the country decided to quit.

You mistake my intentions here, because I want to support the war effort. I do not want us to lose Iraq, and for it to become a training base for terrorists. That is why I think it is important that the President level with the American people, and not go down the same road that discredited LBJ. I'm afraid we may reach a tipping point where the public wants us to precipitously pull out. It seems like likely here than in Vietnam, but I am alarmed rather than comforted by the growing numbers who seem to want to "cut and run."

Rick,

You are not allowed to be offended by what I wrote above because I played the “with all due respect” card. I am allowed to say anything I want after that. It’s in the rules. Look it up.

This may seem heartless. It's certainly not intended that way, but sometimes you just have to lay out the cold hard facts.

First of all, my standard disclaimer: I was not in favor or this war before it happened. I'm still not in favor of it, but I have serious concerns about an immediate withdrawal.

Okay, now to my cold, hard point. Today's generation of Americans are absolutely spoiled. To us, war should be viewed thru the eyes of a CNN camera. We are absolutely fascinated with "shock and awe." In the day of realistic video games, we have some sick obsession that causes us to stare at the exploding targets with a sense of patriotic pride. Look at what we are capable of. We are the greatest country in the world.

As long as the colorful explosions light the sky, we are fascinated. Americans are flying high above the action. Our planes are so sophisticated that the chances of any of them being shot down are miniscule. All is well.

But, when the "cool part" is over, our boredom is almost immediate. We don't want to wake up every morning and see bombed out shells of US Humvees. It's suddenly not so exciting when our soldiers have to actually be on the ground.

We somehow seem to think that a war can be fought with no casualties. Our Iraqi casualties are statistically so much smaller than anything suffered during WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam. It's not even close. I'm not saying that the lives lost are not valueable--they are. Every life lost is a tragedy. But, our modern culture is geared toward the "fast food" mentality. We don't want to have to wait on anything. If things start looking bad in our jobs, we are on monster.com the next day. When troubles arise, our devotion to a task becomes suspect at best.

War is ugly. There's absolutely no way to conduct a war without casualties. John Kerry couldn't have done it. Joe Biden couldn't have done it. When the President attacked Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Americans were on his side. They supported him. Is he all of the sudden supposed to cut and run because they are now changing their minds? That's just not how life works. Sometimes you've got to endure the hardships to acheive an honorable goal.

I'm sick of polls on this subject. The military actions of the United States cannot be subject to public whims. If Americans were so adamantly opposed to this war, why did they re-elect George W. Bush? Why did John Kerry win the primary? He wouldn't have pulled the troops out. We did it. Sometimes you have to live with the consequences of your actions.

Yeah. What he said.

I blame MTV.

...best argument for the draft you'll ever hear...

My remark is facetious but the sentiment is not.

Although it probably goes against all centrist principles, I do believe in the draft. I believe it would be a great cure to many of America's cultural woes.

People would learn of war first hand, and be immersed in the world they only understand through movies and video games that only glorify it. -Even Saving Private Ryan, as realisitic as it may have been, managed to bring a degree of glory to war.. the honor.. the sacrifice.. the brotherhood, etc..-

At the same time, with so many bases overseas, Americans would learn of other cultures and differing points of view.

...and, of course, our recruiting problems would be solved.

Extending Ryan's comments, I think it would be an excellent idea to require of all young Americans one year of service, not neccessarily to the military but in serving their country or the world more broadly. It would do a great deal to promote civic virtue and reduce self-absorbtion. Of course, during times of war, we would draw upon that pool if the volunteer forces were insufficient. Hopefully, the culture would encourage those young men and women who believe in the cause to select the military as their year of service so as to avoid a draft entirely.

Obviously, there would be a lot of details to think through, but I think it is something that centrists could support.

Speaking as a young American, will turn 24 this July, I have to agree with Abel's comments. And also being brutally honest, people need to be goaded. I would like to be part of a program like that, not neccessarily militarily though, but I haven't been. It's something that I should do, but won't unless someone forced my hand.

I've considered enlisting periodically but I would so SUCK as a soldier, I'd get everyone killed. I'd be much better in the State Department, but again unless someone forced my hand, I won't.

I think people would feel more in touch with the world and be better citizens for it. People today live their lives in isolation and civic participation is in decline.

Rick was looking for something that centrists could do to distinguish themselves. I think this is fairly attention getting.

With today's armed forces, there is really no good reason for a draft. I'm a veteran from the days when there was a draft, and let me tell you - those folks made everyone around them miserable. All they could ever talk about, as I recall, was how long they had left and how they hated "this whole thing." This distracted the rest of us from talking about sex. And beer.

There are lots of alternatives - Teach for America, Peace Corps, and there should be more, I agree.

I also agree that everyone should serve in some way, so in the meantime, volunteer in your town or city - soup kitchens, homeless shelters, election boards. Take your citizenship out for a walk and give it some air.

But as Adam was trying to illustrate, our fast food wal-mart get everything in one place dirt cheap mentality, coupled with better technology in video games and internet, etc, is quickly letting the air out of the public service balloon...

MAYBE if President Bush had called for such after 9/11 in any real form...

MAYBE if volunteering actually *paid* something...

At least a draftee pulled in a paycheck.

I also agree that everyone should serve in some way, so in the meantime, volunteer in your town or city - soup kitchens, homeless shelters, election boards. Take your citizenship out for a walk and give it some air.

Hooray and Amen! I preach that gospel all the time. So let me say it loud and clear. There is nothing in the world stopping you from serving your country or community, and you don't have to sign up for military service to do it. Which is good, as for many reasons not everyone is fit for military service. But unless you're a bed-bound cripple, there IS something out there you can do for your community.

It's certainly annoying to hear someone say that everyone should do some (involuntary!) "national service," while at the same time whining that there's no paycheck in volunteering.

I know that a draft is something to be avoided if at all possible but having one year of service required--in something--would reinvigorate civic participation and hopefully would spur enlistment and get at our recruiting shortfalls.

Just think of what millions of young Americans could accomplish if they all were required to participate in some way, full-time, for a year. It would probably have an effect on their civic participation for the rest of their lives, expose them to problems that need to be fixed, and even boost voter turnout.

It's not that people don't want to do good things; rather, it's just that other things are usually more enticing. I'm sure those who have raised kids recognize that sometimes you've gotta push a little to get them to do something they ought to. Young adults aren't much different.

Rick;
Apology or admission of error from GW; not gonna happen. Move on.

Oh and don't get the impression that I'm completely bereft of any civic participation. I've volunteered full-time at a psychiatric hospital, volunteered at an animal shelter and a children's hospital, and I presently take my dog to visit nursing homes and hospitals. I even vote in primaries and local elections. I just meant I never did something like Teach for America. Not stellar, but not a total loafer either.

But.. we need closure!! How are we supposed to move on when there's this big elephant in the middle of the room? How's the relationship supposed to grow, and nuture?

I swear, if we keep getting lied to like this, it's over... I'm thinking, like first month of 2009, splitsville for him and us...

not quite sure what "nuture" means.. I was going for "mature"...

Good on you, Adam! Most people don't even volunteer to get the coffee. And trust me, you don't have to do something stellar to make a difference. You just have to do something.

A better way to boost civic participation would be to actually start teaching civics again. Having lived through the end of the draft era I can say that it sure as hell did not promote civic participation. Mostly it promoted opposition.

In the words of George W. Bush, you're a real "piece of work", Alf.

All Rick was asking for was for Bush to take some personal responsibility for some of the mistakes he made, all you criticize him because he does "have a deep understanding of the military and how it works." So now we have to have a deep understandign of the military in order to criticize the president?

Bush has made plenty of mistakes with regards to Iraq, but it's not the quibbling over the appropriate numbers of troops that should be there or underestimating the strength of the insurgency that I'm so concerned about. It's this administration's misleading of the American people in the months prior to the war and failing to take responsibility for some of the falsehoods that they promoted that angers so many people.

I've been reading this blog for several months now, and if Rick is wrong about anything, it's that he has given Bush TOO MUCH credit. Rick has gone out of his way to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. The majority of Americans now feel that invading Iraq was a mistake, and yet Rick, to this day, still makes arguments supporting the original premise of the war even if he disagrees with the way in which the war has been prosecuted.

But the moment good little soldier Rick steps out of line and criticizes Dear Leader, you jump all over him, accusing him of bias simply because he doesn't know all the inner workings of the military or have a vast knowledge of military history. Oh and your "Spend a week or so away from Cambridge" line...real classy, Alf. I guess anyone who has a different opinion than you do regarding the war just HAS to be apart of academia or some other leftist institution.

None of the predictions of the anti-war folks has come true, you say? It takes a lot of nerve for someone on the pro-war side to much such a statement considering that the administration was REPEATEDLY wrong in its claims during the months leading up to the war.

What ever happened to those WMDs that they claimed Iraq was amassing?

Or the alleged Iraqi aerial drones that could supposedly launch an attack on our eastern seaboard?

Or the claim that one of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague just a few months before 9/11?

Or the forged dossier alleging that Iraq was trying to secure yellowcake from Niger?

Or the alleged aluminum tubes that Iraq was trying to secure in order to build nuclear centrifuges?

I apologize to those of you who'd rather move forward than listen to me dredge up all the "miscalculations" made by the administration before the war, but I'm simply trying to point out the utter hypocrisy of making the claim that it was the anti-war crowd whose claims were all wrong. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Later, Alf. I have to go read up on the battle of El Alamein in order to understand just how I could be so wrong as to criticize Bush for invading Iraq.

I think maybe we're letting our politics color our view of what's going on in Iraq. What I mean is, this whole concept of "more troops" as a litmus test for a change in strategy is a very inaccurate (and bad) correlation.

It seems like most critics of the war (or at least critics of the Administration) argue that we need a change in strategy, but then they equate this to "sending more troops." The two are not one and the same. In fact, you can deploy more troops to Iraq while maintaining the current strategy (we saw this, more or less, during the escalation of troops in Vietnam); and, similarly, you can change strategies without deploying more troops (this was precisely what happened during the transition from LTG Vines to LTG Barno in Afghanistan).

Now I understand that the average critic is not trained in strategic policy and that probably drives their rather simplistic model, but we need to be very clear that what we want in Iraq is not necessarily "more troops," but adoption of a new (and better) strategy-- simply deploying more troops won't do anything, in and of itself, if it is not tied to a politically-based counter-insurgency strategy that is capable of establishing the conditions for an enduring security in Iraq.

Moreover, it is likely that this shift in strategy will occur without the average American ever knowing or being capable of knowing that it has occurred-- these things are generally generated in OPLANs and policy directives from military and political headquarters in Iraq, and it would require a trained observer to be able to discern when a difference has been made-- just as a non-football fan isn't likely to be able to tell the difference between a "West Coast offense" and a "Run and Shoot", you can't really expect someone who isn't trained in military strategy and operations to be able to realize the difference between various counter-insurgency strategies.

That being the case, then, I think we might be letting external issues shape our opinions on this debate.

Does that make sense to everyone?

It's not at all clear to me that we need more troops there. If we doubled troop levels, consequently doubling cost and number of Americans far from home, IMHO we'd maybe reduce attacks by 1/3. Probably less. Casualty levels are already extremely low, historically speaking. Although, I do think the Pentagon should be better at occupations. Given current duties, why isn't peacekeeping a part of boot camp?

Mind you, I do think the Aministration underestimated the depth of postwar trouble; they seem to've thought it'd be more like Panama than Germany. And I was disappointed to hear him not apologize for the WMD mistakes. As a hawk, I think the case today would've been clearer if he'd agreed that mistakes were made, and reminded people of the non-immediate-WMD reasons for invading.

I'm against the draft. If we had a draft, we'd have to have twice the troops to get the effect we have and had in Iraq. The volunteer military solves unbelievable numbers of problems. The only people who want a draft are old boomer politicians who want to be able to recycle all the old chants. I think we should even drop selective service, because the%ages of troopers needed is clearly trending down. Nanotech may eventually take us down to Jedi-like levels (before you laugh too hard, that's what we had in Afghanistan...).

Alf, you continue to be the man. Pre-war, I was a Colin Powell man; post-invasion, I'm on-board. I'm amazed at many military experts have sprung up on the left. Not bad for a group that, as a whole, eschews military matterse like the plaugue. More boots on the ground sounds logical, for example, but I have no clue if they're needed and don't pretend to know.

But.. we need closure!! How are we supposed to move on when there's this big elephant in the middle of the room? How's the relationship supposed to grow, and mature?

An apology will not bring closure. If the President were to issue an apology, I don't believe for one minute that Senator Reid would stand up and say I forgive you, Mr. President. Hell no! It would be exactly the opposite.

We suffer a lot of wrongs in our lives for which we never receive an apology. By waiting for one, we only allow the pain that we experienced from the wrong to continue to run our life. We win when we are the ones who let go and move on.

The Dems would be well advised to employ exactly that strategy. Leave these mysterious memos alone, stop asking for an apology, and present a visionary plan that's more than a continual whine.

Again, people are confusing "apology" with admitance. Someone can admit they made a mistake without apologizing for it. That way, at least, you know they learned from it, and -hopefully- won't repeat it again.

But this Administration has shown no signs of learning from anything. Hypothetically speaking, really, if there had been no insurgency, if our troops weren't needed in Iraq, would we be in Syria now, looking for WMD's? Or Iran?

No one wants, or expects, an apology from President Bush or his administration -except for maybe the families of the soldiers killed on a war that was fought on false pretense- BUT I do expect the measure of adultness from the President that I would expect from -if I had one- my twelve year old boy, which would be to acknowledge -key word, that- and learn, from his mistakes.

And... my comment about "closure" was in jest. Subtlety doesn't transfer well here, I know, but I thought the "elephant" bit gave it away... my bad.

An apology will not bring closure. If the President were to issue an apology, I don't believe for one minute that Senator Reid would stand up and say I forgive you, Mr. President. Hell no! It would be exactly the opposite.

Yep. For an example of this at work, Bush administration yesterday admitted that it badly miscalculated health care spending for veterans this year by using outdated pre-war formulas, and agreed to send Congress an emergency spending request to make up a shortfall of at least $1 billion. Senate Republicans fell all over themselves to pass the requested $1.5 billion emergency spending bill to make up the shortfall. The bill cleared in a unanimous vote. Previous Senate bills had been shot down on claims from the VA that some money-shifting would cover the problem. Turned out the problem was much bigger than previously thought.

"We were in error. Senator Murray was right," said Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, who said the fact that top Republican senators sponsored one of the amendments to boost funding "sends a very loud and clear message to the administration that we'd like straight dealing" on veterans issues. (I salute Senator Santorum for that.)

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), leading sponsor of the three previous bills, said ""I think what we can say as a body is that this Senate stands in full support of our soldiers. . . . That's a powerful message and one that I am very proud of." (I salute Senator Murray for that.)

By contrast, Senate Democrat leaders Reid and Pelosi descended like vultures to excoriate the Republicans for not moving the money through sooner, namely, before the extent of the problem was actually known. And there's your example of how the Dem leadership would respond to any Bush "apologies."

For those with that media-bias interest, WaPo ran the story on A21, buried it in their web listings, and included the Murray quote but not the Santorum quote. WashTimes led with it on their web site, and included the Santorum quote but not the Murray quote. Both papers carried versions of the Reid and Pelosi remarks. And the NYT seems to have skipped the story entirely in both print and web, except for a nasty editorial today excoriating the GOP for being such heartless bastards.

Part of admitting a mistake, part of being an adult, is living with the consequences.

Would you preferred the Senate Republicans, and the Administration had brushed it all under the rug, and veterans health care went unfunded?

You screw up, you take your lumps, you fix it, you move on...

And frankly, how *did* those Democrats vote? I think that's more important than in what they said.

The difference is, this Administration *says* it hasn't done anything wrong, when it's so clear they have, and thus, how am I, or anyone, to believe they have learned from their mistakes?

Screw apologies. I want people to behave like frickin' adults.

The difference is, this Administration *says* it hasn't done anything wrong, when it's so clear they have, and thus, how am I, or anyone, to believe they have learned from their mistakes?

The administration admitted it screwed up. And took their lumps. The Senate GOP pitched in to fix it. Exactly what you said you wanted to see. And you give no credit for that exactly why?

I give tremendous credit for that... but you also have to take it into context... they waited until the last possible moment, even though they knew there was a problem.

You're arguing that people in general, and this administration in specific, shouldn't admit to a mistake because people might get mad... That's childish.

Bull. Where have I argued that? Be specific.

Tully said

By contrast, Senate Democrat leaders Reid and Pelosi descended like vultures to excoriate the Republicans for not moving the money through sooner, namely, before the extent of the problem was actually known. And there's your example of how the Dem leadership would respond to any Bush "apologies."

You're saying, basically, that since the big bad mean democrats -as I'm assuming you don't mean 'vultures' in a good way- were less than polite to their GOP counterparts that they'll -rightly- be just as mean to the President, were he to apologize.

Or am I, somehow, misunderstanding that paragraph?

You're saying, basically, that since the big bad mean democrats -as I'm assuming you don't mean 'vultures' in a good way- were less than polite to their GOP counterparts that they'll -rightly- be just as mean to the President, were he to apologize...Or am I, somehow, misunderstanding that paragraph?

Apparently. It meant exactly what it said, not whatever you wish to "re-interpret" it as saying. Read the words I wrote, and not the ones echoing in your head. I was showing that Abel was correct in his assessment of a Democratic response to any administration admissions of error. He was. The administration admitted an error. Reid and Pelosi demonstrated that Abel was correct. End of story.

You're arguing that people in general, and this administration in specific, shouldn't admit to a mistake because people might get mad...That's childish.

Absolutely NOT. I am "basically" saying exactly what I said. No nuance, no bullshit. See above. I never in ANY way, shape, or form, said that the administration (or anyone!) should not admit errors, much less assigned any specious reasoning to an argument which I NEVER made. That argument and reasoning is between your ears, not mine. You are actively misinterpreting what I did say and adding things I never said in order to misrepresent my meaning, which is entirely in what I wrote, rather clear and plain and entirely in context.

And Ryan? That's childish.

I disagree. Any party not privy to your own inner workings, but who has read all the posts in this thread would, rightly, interpret your postings as a defense of the administration's unwillingness to fess up to a mistake.

You give an example as ample evidence why it is in the administrations best interests to continue as they have, namely, because when, long after they knew about it, and long after it should have been addressed, they came forward with something they couldn't just deny. And the Democrats were full of rightious vitriol, you identified them as vultures.

Yes, I give the GOP Senate kudos for taking thier lumps, but the failing wasn't theirs, but the administration, which I would still argue, you were defending.

You might not meant to imply as much, it came across, never the less. At least to me, and I would wager, to any third party.

Bullshit squared, Ryan. I meant what I said. No more. No less. The only way you can make the (wholly inaccurate and accusatory) statement you did about what I wrote is by assuming that you are "privy" to my "own inner workings." Are you claiming psychic powers? Complete and utter nonsense.

I gave an example that confirmed what someone else said. I cited the exact words that I was referring to while doing so. I am not responsible for what everyone else says in the rest of the thread, or whatever personal subjective "impressions" are rattling around in your skull. Most particularly, I am not reponsible for your apparent inability to read what I actually wrote, or your insistence on misrepresenting those words as meaning something else entirely. Such a misrepresentation, if intentional, is called "lying," Ryan. If unintentional, it can be a mistake.

Which kinda brings us full circle. Are you unable to admit error, and accept responsibility for your blatant misrepresentation of my words? Or do you wish to insist that your subjective, inferential "impression" of them, apparently acquired through supernormal mind-reading powers, is more accurate than what I actually wrote?

Sadly, my mind reading ability is squarely limited to my cat. And even if it weren't, I doubt I could use such an ability over vast distances, and through such a medium as the internet.

I am quite willing to admit error, and have, many a time in the past, and I'm willing to wager, many a time in the future.

I will not argue in the least that I read your post as a defense of the administration's tactics of never admitting to the mistake. I can apologize for reading it as such, but that doesn't change that I did. Never the less, I do apologize.

I also will not argue that you did not mean for your post to be interpreted so, that was entirely, and completely my doing. For taking it in a way for which it was unintended, I again both admit, and apologize.

I would still, however, argue, that it was a simple mistake that many can, and will, make, although it would take still a third or fourth person speaking up to truly prove me right or wrong.

Mostly, however, I'm going to admit and apologize for taking the debate off in a manner and form for which it wasn't intended, straying from the subject as a whole, although it has been an interesting stray, none the less.

Now, Tully, was that so hard for me to do? If I can do it, why can't President Bush, or Vice President Cheney? Or Secretary Rumsfeld? Instead... they send a lacky out to admit to the health care issue, and on top of that, they admit they thought they could fix it by "shifting funds" and thus, would not have to fess up.

You said yourself, not in so many words, in another thread that this Administration's greatest failure was it's unwillingness to communicate with the American People. Wouldn't that include admitting they made some mistakes, that they learned from them, and that the American people needn't worry, they won't repeat them?

Thank you! Point made, apology accepted. I note that others speaking up admitting to the same mistake would still not make it less of a mistake, or change the plain meaning of what I actually said.

Wouldn't that include admitting they made some mistakes, that they learned from them, and that the American people needn't worry, they won't repeat them?

I'd love to see it. It would be something rather new (or at least rare) in politics. It would certainly be refreshing. Mea culpas from politicians are usually reserved for more personal scandals of the "stained dress" sort. But I don't expect a sitting politician to be the one to kick off the trend. Nor do I expect that what they think are their mistakes (or not) to match up with my list of same. I seem to recall W. admitting to Iraq mistakes during press conferences, before the election even. What he didn't do was grovel and sob about it, which is what some seem to want. And yes, I think he's a truly lousy communicator when compared to Reagan or Clinton. He certainly lacks their verbal skills.

Which would bring me to this, which actually pulls the discussion together somewhat--much of what people want the administration to admit to as "mistakes" may only actually be mistakes in those people's eyes. There's a HUGE swath of subjectivity involved in that call. My list won't match with your list. Our lists won't match with the admin's lists. And the Democrat's list won't match with the GOP's list, or ours. What history considers to have been mistakes from some hypothetical future perspective may not match any of our lists.

What's being trumpeted as "mistakes" may not be. As you might have noticed, I somewhat (!) object to the use of subjective and indeterminant and transient criteria in assessing objective situations. I know that in the middle of the scrum it's often quite difficult to see what's really going on through the dust. I'd rather wait and see. I know better than to believe that things are as simple as they are being described, or that partisan politics is not the motivator for many of the noisiest accusations.

And I'm more interested in long run results than transient moralizing and posturing. I think we really do have a short national attention span when it comes to long and difficult sustained efforts. "I blame MTV" is the capsule version.

Also, calling the failure to uncover any WMDs a "mistake", by definition, means that we credit the Bush Administration as having actually gone to war over the WMDs-- which many on the Left never embraced in the first-place, so they can't now call that aspect of it a "mistake." For that matter, I never believed we went to war over WMD, so I can't call that a mistake, either.

But other aspects-- such as failing to acknowledge the enduring nature of the insurgency (or even to predict it in the first place)-- could be classified as "mistakes" in my lexicon.

Having said that, I think Tully's right that much of what we call a "mistake" is subjective and entirely based on personal opinion.

Yes, I give the GOP Senate kudos for taking thier lumps, but the failing wasn't theirs, but the administration, which I would still argue, you were defending.

Quick comment on this... I wouldn't so much say that the GOP Senate has backtracked. Yes, Graham and Hagel, for example, are expressing concerns. But, other than that, I haven't seen anything resembling a Benny Hinn altar call.