Worrisome Hubris By David Ignatius

[jbfam4]

Worrisome Hubris By David Ignatius
Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A17

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25278-2005Jan20.html

A warning light of that second-term arrogance was Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing this week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rice is a smart and often charming person who could make a good secretary of state. But there's a broad consensus in Washington that she has not been a successful national security adviser; she wasn't able to resolve policy disputes in a timely way during her four years at the White House, and she didn't articulate effective strategies for dealing with postwar Iraq, Iran or North Korea.


Here's the nub of my worry, as Bush & Co. begin their second term: If they confuse rigidity with resolve, and refuse to learn from their mistakes because they fear it would be a sign of weakness, they are going to get the country into real trouble. Because they have mostly been promoted from within, the members of the second-term team are especially in need of reality checks from outside -- even rude or awkward ones. If they take offense at such challenges and treat public scrutiny as a personal affront, they won't be successful. It's as simple as that.

President Bush gets away with a similar stubbornness and refusal to admit error. But then, he's president. He claimed in an interview with The Post last week that the election result amounted to a mandate for his policies in Iraq. That's stretching things -- given that Bush offered so little detail during the campaign about his plans for Iraq or anything else. You can't have a mandate for policies you haven't explained. But again, he's president, and he has certainly won the test of reelection.

Not so Condoleezza Rice. And not so the administration's nominee for attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, who was similarly unhelpful when pressed during his confirmation hearing for details of the administration's legal thinking about interrogation and torture. These are public servants, whose confirmation hearings are their equivalent of an election. If they aren't prepared to answer tough questions from the public's representatives, they flunk the test. The essence of our system is public accountability -- a concept that the Bush team still seems to have trouble understanding. Accountability isn't about serving the president but about serving the country.

[txaslftist]

1. Silly article...

What the writer doesn't get is that they full well know they don't HAVE to answer tough questions. They are on the Bush bandwagon, which doesn't stop for questions, doesn't tolerate dissent, ignores public opinion and foments naked aggression under an American flag.

Condaleeza wasn't being arrogant. She knew she didn't have to pay attention to the questions or worry about it. She had the blessing of papa Bush, and that means the unflinching, unstinting 100% support of every Republican in congress (with the possible exception of Ron Paul).

If you think democrats are whipped, you should take a look at Republicans. They've had all of the dissent and independence whipped out of them. They are a bunch of sycophantic butt-boys, not to put too fine a point on it.

Example: If GWB got a room full of republicans together and said, "someone fellate me. I'm serious." Someone damn well would, and they would say nothing.

If John Kerry got a room full of dems together and asked the same, he'd be told to FO.