The Thing About Mistakes And Leadership

Forgiveness can be a wonderful thing, but there's often a catch to it when it comes to politicians. All too often, if you truly wanted to forgive a politician for something, you'd have to forgive them twice: once for the offense; and once for not owning the mistake in the first place.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said Monday that he had misspoken when he suggested that the lives of more than 3,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq had been “wasted....”

“What I would say — and meant to say — is that their service hasn’t been honored,” Mr. Obama told reporters in Nashua, N.H., “because our civilian strategy has not honored their courage and bravery, and we have put them in a situation in which it is hard for them to succeed.”

Huh? Okay, just pol-speak for let's move on, please!! But those reluctant to move on in the first place, admittedly for political reasons of their own, are given the perfect reason to not move on, to dig in even deeper. And they will.

We saw it from John Kerry on his botched joke, we're seeing it from Hillary Clinton on Iraq - and John Edwards, too - who gives us sort of a double loop by partly blaming it on Clinton officials he consulted. That would be a two birds with one stone move too clever by half, suited for a court room, perhaps, but not the White House.

Say what you will ... it took too long ... was politically motivated, but at one point Bush stood up and said there were mistakes made in Iraq and they were his responsibility.

If none of the current crop of would be Presidents, Right or Left, display the capacity to admit when they were wrong and simply ask for indulgence, or forgiveness, we probably won't be electing much of a leader to be President in 2008.

That would be a shame and a mistake by both parties, one we shouldn't be too quick to forgive.

Michelle Malkin has the full report with video.

Comments

[Legalize]

When did Bush admit that he made mistakes in Iraq? Oh right, around the time of the '06 elections. He has yet to admit that the overall handling of the war has been one disaster after another. He and the winger media is always quick to blame someone else, repeatedly - over and over. Bush's version of "taking responsibility" is ignoring reality and moving us further along a disasterous course. Is that bar that low for the wingers, that admitting that tactical "mistakes are made in war" is all it takes? Here's a hint: "taking responsibility" means much more than just saying it. And Obama has always been on record as being opposed to this disaster.

It would be nice if Cheney stopped lying about the mistakes, failures, and premises for entering the war. When's that gonna happen?

[Kite]

Yeah, Bush did say that mistakes we're made and he was to blame. What else do you wan't him to do? OHHHH!!! THATS RIGHT!!! You wan't him to pull out the troops and abandon the cause of trying to build a stable Iraq so Iran doesn't rush in and create an even larger Islamic state that could potentially become more dangerous than we could imagine.

Obviously you guys haven't figured out who the real enemy. I'll give you a hint : IT'S NOT YOUR OWN COUNTRY OR THE PRESIDENT.

[Legalize]

Kite: More ranting and raving from the loony right. Your paranoia is matched only by your dishonesty and delusion. Again, the wingers have set the bar so low for success with their Dear Leader. It took the Decider almost 4 years to admit that ANY mistakes had been made in Iraq, while stubbornly and arrogantly "staying the course," despite the plain reality of the fact that "staying the course" was utterly failing. And again, merely saying "I made mistakes and I take responsibility" is miles apart from ACTUALLY taking responsibility.

Finally, is this the part where we get all ramped up and fanatical about Iran where there's no credible evidence to support the fact that they have any involvement in Iraq, at least to the extent that anonymous officials say they do? Hmm, who should I believe? Pace: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/, or the fanatical and drooling radical right wing echo chamber?

[Kite]

Fanatical Radical right? Really? Soooo....who are you going to believe? Iran, when they claim they aren't involved yet they have an insane leader who claims the holocaust didn't exist and that Israel should be blown off the map? or your own government officials who have shown in the past that the militias are being funded and armed by Iran. We even CAPTURED IRANIANS after they engaged us in combat.

I'll take America's side on this arguement any day. Oh, do please answer me this Legalize: Despite our screw ups handling the war...would you like to see America succeed in defeating the enemy and stablizing Iraq? Or would you like to retreat in cowardice?

[Legalize]

Are you high, Kite? Put down the crack pipe and read what Peter Pace has been arguing that Iran HAS NOT been funding or supplying those who would kill U.S. troops, and or cause havoc in Iraq. Are you refering to the anonymous powerpoint presentation that disseminated "evidence" of Iranian complicity? Did you look at that critically or do you just accept at face value what the administration tells you - after its laundry list of lies and failures vis a vis the war we are currently in? Please tell me that you are not that much of an uncritical lemming. Do you even question the fact that the weapons allegedly made by the Iranians contain English langage serial numbers, and English dating systems? Are you at all skeptical of the fact that these alleged weapons have been used by Sunis against U.S. personnel, not Shi'ia? Somehow I doubt anything that you are told by this administration; in short, you are the problem not the sollution.

Sure, I would have loved to see a stable Iraq. I no longer think that U.S. involvement in a civil war, playing referree between two factions who have hated each other for centuries, in a culture we do not understand, with a history we do not understand, is remotely viable. However, the fact that you describe "stay the course" or "surge" or "escalation" and "retreat" as the only two options here pretty much proves you aren't really worth taking seriously, in terms of proffering sollutions for your Dear Leader's gross incompetence.

I would like this administration to start using its head instead of its macho arrogance that has gotten us into this mess. I doubt they'll do it, which is why I and the vast majority of Americans want their ass out on the street.

[Kite]

Ah, so you took the long way around to avoiding actually answering my question. I didn't just ask if you would like to see Iraq stable. I asked if you would like to see America succed in DEFEATING THE ENEMY and THEN stabilizing Iraq.

Macho arrogance indeed....are you crazy? We haven't been strong enough in dealing with this problem. We are dealing with terrorism....annnd the War on Terrorism is created to combat terrorism worldwide. Just so happens that alot of that terrorism happens in Iraq right now. Soooo....I guess thats where we need to be.

I'll ask again. You want us to win? or do you want us to run like scared little girls?

[Purple Avenger]

"where there's no credible evidence to support the fact that they have any involvement in Iraq"

You mean other than the Brits and us capturing/killing their agents for the past year?

[Legalize]

I've answered you. In order to "defeat the enemy" we first have to define who the hell that enemy is. You and Riehl say, "well that's easy: the terrorists are the enemy." It's not that simple. To you and Riehl, anyone who has an agenda that is antithetical to whatever the Decider claims is U.S. policy, is a "terrorist." This is the irresponsible and inane reasoning that got us in this mess, and this is what is meant by "macho arrogance." There is no "winning" for the U.S. at this point, short of total committment, i.e. a draft, and the U.S. economy totally geared toward militarization. There are only options that suck less than the situation we are in, i.e. not being in the middle of a civil war. We can do that a number of ways without "running like scared little girls." And again, the fact that you want your unatainable "victory," whatever that means, at the expense of reality, pretty much indicates that no amount of historical or factual analysis refuting everything you argue for, will do anything to change your mind; you are incapable of it.

[Legalize]

"where there's no credible evidence to support the fact that they have any involvement in Iraq"

"You mean other than the Brits and us capturing/killing their agents for the past year?"

Evidence?

[Hank]

Our fine leader, herr Bush supports the troops. That's why he's cutting Veteran's Health Benefits.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNCZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5NzA3Njc3OSZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTI=

As long as he poses for photo ops in front of Flags or Troops, it keeps the 28% folks happy.

[splashtc]

one word- Giuliani

[Bill Adkins]

"The Thing About Mistakes And Leadership" is evident in the failures and malfeasance of the Bush Administration. Never has one president caused so much damage to America as has George W. Bush. Historians will see his administration as the trigger of the decline of America.

[BobInStamford]

Until you rednecks find some WMDs, you have no credibility. Just a bunch of 28% losers. Good luck with Romney, America is eager for a Scientologist in the WH.

[Rob Kaufman]

Be fair guys, Bush is no longer Mr 28%, he has surged all the way up to a whooping 32% now. I would have to shortchange the Resident who gets a bump up and still can't get back even one in 3 people supporting him.

[charles]

i don't know about that bill - we did survive carter, even tho he won't go out to pasture where he belongs

show me one single american president that was universally loved while he was still in office

rob - do me a favor and link to that poll, i'm curious to see how many actual votes equate to 300 million people

[scarshapedstar]

Hate to break it to you guys, but the overwhelming majority of the country agrees with Obama.

[charles]

scar - i'll ask you the same, how many is the overwhelming majority that you cite in your post?

[Rob Kaufman]

Not that it will probably do you any good charles since you don't appear to want to see the truth.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/12/opinion/polls/main2464626.shtml

You do realize though charlie that while the US population is now 300 million I would be willing to bet that not all 300 million are adults since adults are the only ones polled.

[charles]

ok alrighty then 1,142 people are the majority of americans

btw- good one throwing that charlie in there - ouch, if you could see me you'd know i'm not a charlie

any other pearls of wit you would care to disseminate?

[Rob Kaufman]

Nope, I think you showed your lack of rational thinking ability quite well. I always love when people show their complete ignorance of probability and statistics. Carry on with that head in the sand look you have perfected.

[charles]

way to miss the point son

how can you cite the poll of such a lazy reporter who says that 1,142 people are the majority of americans? because it says what you want to hear?

for crying out loud, there's not even a byline on that thing

i think that someone who uses probability and statistics to explain how 1,142 = 300 mil
is the one who shows "lack of rational thinking ability and complete ignorance"

[Rob Kaufman]

Sorry Sparky but if you are truly clueless how polling is done I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you. I am more than happy letting you go through you life in complete and utter ignorance. Maybe reading this will help, I doubt it will but maybe you could have someone with at least a double digit IQ explain it to you at your understanding level.

http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polling.shtml

[BobInStamford]

I'm wondering what a Charlie looks like? I do know that "Charles" never took a statistic class. He is typical of the 28%ers. No education. What a dope.

[charles]

do you have to be so immaturely insulting

i read your link, what is it with you guys - here's a quote from the body of the article you linked

"While there have been advances in the science of polling, there are now more poorly executed polls than ever"

how does that make your point

do you even read the shit you cite?

[Rob Kaufman]

ROFLMAOBMGRMS, sorry chuck but I am trying to speak down to your level it is hard for me to regress that far. Yes, there are many polls that are poorly done, do you have any evidence that CBS' poll was poorly done? Given the fact that realclearpolitics.com currently has Bush at 34.8% and they average all of the current polls available tends to show that the CBS poll is in the ballpark. I know you are able to bury your head and ignore anything you don't want to acknowledge as any good radical right wing nut is quite capable of doing, but just because you do not want something to be true does not make it so.

[templar knight]

"do you even read the shit you cite?"

Charles, reading is not in their lexicon, just invective. I have fun with them, though, and enjoy watching them gather in their circle jerk and try to outdo each other. Reminds me of grade school, you know, as they are the little guys who never played sports, but had big mouths until you walked up to them, and then they starting sucking their thumbs and pointing toward the other guy.

[Rob Kaufman]

LOL @ the homophobic putz once again, shouldn't you still be licking your wounds over the moronic claim that liberals do not listen to country music? Gee, you really do not know much of anything do you, you don't know liberals who listen to country, you don't know that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, what exactly do you know anyway?

[charles]

well obviously they have some compelling need to hate others

i don't really hate anyone, especially over politics, it just makes you look foolish

i don't need polls to tell me what to think, i am more than capable of making up my own mind

and i'm surprised how much these guys "know" about me, maybe surprised isn't the right word - i think amused is closer to the mark

ps people who can't understand what they cite shouldn't disparage others intelligence - makes em look like an intellectual lightweight

rob - hah good one, you got me there, as if anything you could possibly write on a blog is going to impact me in any way

your lack of ability is showing

[Rob Kaufman]

Sorry chuck but you truly are not important enough to hate, the best I can muster is feeling pity for you. Nice try though projecting your faults on others.

[templar knight]

Rob, your sock puppets will make an appearance shortly, I presume. And I know that you make me laugh, and you and your sock puppets are an indication that you are a lonely man? who is trying to look important. And on a blog? Please, Rob, why don't you and your sock puppets go and have a party with that blow-up male dummy in the corner of your mother's basement? And don't answer that phone, it might be Taco Bell calling you in early.

[charles]

rob - out of curiosity what are the "faults" i am projecting? and please don't pity me, it doesn't suit you and i don't need it

you've interested me tho when you say "homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom",

i'd like to learn more

is it important as a curiosity or does it in some way apply to human homosexuality?

i'm not trying to pick a fight here - you've piqued my interest

[Rob Kaufman]

Sure homophobe, anything you say. You are the lonely putz because if you can be honest for one second, I know that is tough for you, you insulted me before I had ever even responded to one of your moronic posts. This fascination you have with homosexuality is getting creepy though, maybe it isn't your son who is the one in your family who is in the closet. They do say though that many of the most homophobic types are just showing bluster to try to cover for something. You are such a pitiful pathetic excuse for a human being, you should be so proud.

[charles]

btw to get back to the hate thing

there is actually one person i hate, but it has nothing to do with politics

when you say "you truly are not important enough to hate" firstly i agree, i'm not important to anyone but my family and clients, i don't have a problem with that

secondly when you say "you truly are not important enough to hate" you are admitting that you do hate

you shouldn't hate - it's not good for you

[Rob Kaufman]

Sorry chuck but I do pity you, that is just a given. As for homosexuality in the animal kingdom you could start with this study

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

[charles]

"Sorry chuck but I do pity you, that is just a given"

well then i feel bad for you - it's a shame that someone would live their life like that

i'll read your link

while i do that why don't you tell me how it applies to human sexuality - i'm trying to see how you think

[Rob Kaufman]

I think anyone who thinks that people would choose to be gay instead of the fact that they are born that way is ignorant. I have known many people who are gay since my days in college and they chose to be gay as much as I chose to be straight. And for those that think that being gay is a sin I just wonder how they think that if there is a God that he would be sadistic enough to allow people to be born destined to be sinners.

[charles]

alright that essay wasn't exactly what i was interested in but it was interesting

do you know the story of tango and silo at the central park zoo in nyc?

i met the author and the illustrator of the book about them there, the penguin exhibit is always the first place we vivsit when i go there with my kids

[charles]

ok

i pretty much agree with what you said in your 5:50 post, but can you see the language you used to frame your pov is extremely off putting?

i almost had to disagree with you because of the way you worded your post

[charles]

oops - just checked with my daughter it was roy and silo - the egg they hatched became silo

forgive the error - it was a while ago that the book came out