Let’s not quibble about who killed whom…

November 29, 2005

The WaPo’s David Broder said something on Meet the Press the other day that reminded me, oddly enough, of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Russert: David Broder, is it possible for official Washington — the president, Democratic leaders, Republican leaders — to arrive at common ground, a consensus position on Iraq?

Broder: It’s possible, Tim, but they won’t get there by arguing about who did what three years ago. And this whole debate about whether there was just a mistake or misrepresentation or so on is, I think, from the public point of view largely irrelevant. The public’s moved past that. The public wants to know what we’re going to do next in Iraq.

It’s a common sentiment. Never mind the debate over pre-war intelligence and manipulation, the argument goes, what’s done is done. Let’s look foward.

To the extent that a discussion about the events of 2002 and 2003 won’t save any lives or resolve the ongoing crisis, the point is accurate. But in terms of a basic standard of accountability, it’s seems wildly irresponsible to say that whether the White House intentionally misled the world about a war is no longer a question worth asking.

Which leads me to Python. In one classic scene, John Cleese’s Sir Lancelot storms a castle, sword in hand, murdering most of a wedding party based on the mistaken intelligence belief that someone was in desperate need of a rescue. The castle owner, anxious to curry favor with Lancelot, encourages the survivors of the attack to let bygones by bygones. As the castle owner tells his guests, “Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed whom….”

The let’s-not-worry-about-2002 argument is effectively making the same kind of pitch. Let’s not bicker and argue over whether the president intentionally launched a war under false pretenses and manipulated intelligence to bolster a decision he’d already made; what’s done is done. That’s in the past. It’s irrelevant now. The important thing is to look forward.

It’s not that I’m against a plan for the future; it’s that the questions about the recent past deserve answers. Is it unreasonable to think we might be able to do both, applying some standards of accountability for what’s happened while also crafting a plan for the future of Iraq?

Is it unreasonable?

To a sane, caring person…absolutely not. The two work hand in hand. To a Republican…yes, we’re never wrong and it’s your fault anyway!

  • Accountability, to me, is the one characteristic which separates true democracies from the pretenders.

  • I noticed the same comment.
    What Broder doesn’t get is that it is not possible to work with someone you can’t trust.
    Bush is a liar.
    You can never strike a deal with a liar because they’ve proven they will not hold up their end.
    It’s as simple as that.

  • If I remember correctly, this was essentially the same line Republicans used when they opposed the 9/11 Commission and investigating the FEMA debacle in New Orleans. Heaven forbid anyone want to find out what went wrong, and then fire (or indict) the responsible parties. That’s just foolish finger pointing and partisan politics.

    That’s the party of personal accountability for you. Fucking bastards.

  • I love the Holy Grail reference 😉

    But in a way Broder is right. If more than half the population believes Bush mislead us into the Iraq war, argument about it is irrelevant.

    And every time Cheney (whom no one believes any more) gives a speech saying how Bush and gang did not deliberately mislead us into war, he convinces more people that Bush did mislead us into war. Those who accept the ‘Deliberately’ argument still think they were mislead, and those who think Cheney a habitual lier are more convinced that he, Bush and the gang set America and Congress up with false and misread intelligence.

  • OT, but a very interesting article on bundling/unbundling cable stations and the strange (and hypocritical) bedfellows which results. CB, you seem interested in this sort of thing…..

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-indecency29nov29,0,2685885.story?coll=la-home-business

    I have always wanted to eliminate CNN and a few other stations from my cable lineup so that they cannot get $ from me. Never thought of other stations like the religious stations, but I would not mind elimination of them as well so they cannot get my $. Apparently they are worried about this as well and losing such a nice and steady revenue source, AND worried that the true level of their support will result if cable stations are unbundled.

  • “You can never strike a deal with a liar because they’ve proven they will not hold up their end.”

    Well, I don’t totally agree with that.

    When George the First (GHWB) told the electorate that he would tell Congress: “Read my lips, no new taxes.” I simply did not believe him. I was confident that Congress would come with a tax increase and that Bush would decide to sign it.

    And it happened just that way. The DAY Bush signed onto the new taxes, he said that he would take heat for agreeing to let Congress raise our taxes.

    The NEXT DAY, he was whining about Congress twisting his arm and making him do it.

    That’s when I lost all respect for the twit.

  • Lance, for the reasons you cite in your last paragraph, arguing about the war is therefore relevant.

  • Bush should be held responsible. Future presidents should think twice before starting a war on such flimsy evidence. The neocons thought that everything was going to go so well that they would be forgiven for their transgressions. However, Democrats should bear in mind that this argument will not lead us to regaining control of congress and the presidency.

  • Let me make sure I have this right… An act of felatio was deemed relevant and used as the basis for impeachment proceedings yet the misrepresentation of facts leading to war is irrelevant? How about we act like grown ups and hold people accountable for their actions instead?

  • Bubba writes: “Lance, for the reasons you cite in your last paragraph, arguing about the war is therefore relevant.”

    Do you mean we should be goading Cheney into making more viscous and outrageous speeches? And thus more Americans will be convinced that he doth protest too much?

    The question to David Broder was is it possible to reach a consensus on Iraq. A consensus is possible only about future policy on Iraq, and I think Broder is right about this.

    You (and everyone else here) is right that Bush and gang need to be held accountable for what they said and did before the start of the war, particularly the period between the authorization of the use of force by Congress and the start of operations, while the inspections were PROVING that Cheney’s arguments for the war were false. However, trying to hold them accountable is not going to get us to a sound Iraq policy, and is not going to happen until the Dems win control of at least ONE house of Congress in 2006.

  • Broder gets a nuance seriously wrong.

    In some ways we have moved on to “what to do next” but not because we don’t care about what happened in the past but because we (or many of us) assume we were either deliberately lied to or there was a concerted effort to put the best possible spin on it.

  • I have never heard such an absurd point of
    view as that expressed by David Broder.
    With that kind of logic, why pursue and
    punish criminals for their acts? What’s
    done is done, let’s just move on to the
    future.

    Bush and company may have committed
    the most egregious crime in American
    history, and it doesn’t matter????? We
    shouldn’t get to the bottom of it? It’s okay?
    Hunky dory? There, there Georgie boy
    and all you monsters, we’ll just forget about
    it, see if we can work out a plan to end this
    war, as in together we can do better. All
    is forgiven for the tens of thousands of
    lives lost, the lives ruined by injuries, the
    demolished infrastructure, the billions of
    dollars of property destruction, the horrible
    living conditions, the millions who’ve lost
    their jobs, the hundreds of billions stolen
    from the pockets of ordinary Americans
    and stuffed into the coffers of the rich.
    It’s okay?

    Like hell it is.

  • Soooo…they lied too us before, but now we’re supposed to trust them to do the right thing?

    Any so called journalist who is spouting this line is just showing their true colors and should not be trusted either.

  • Wasn’t he just wrong?

    Noteworthy percentages — increasing percentages — are interested in impeachment. Lots of people are following the Libby story closely (and, as far as I can tell, without knowing about the forgeries which explain it). Don’t these things mean that the public have not moved past that?

  • Broder is just using a journalistic (term used loosely) trick. He is making an really absurd claim to cover his other absurd claim.

    He’s got everyone talking about the relevancy of the past, but the first thing he asserts is that a consensus is possible on the future of Iraq which is, of course, wrong.

    Any good ideas will simply be ignored as the President cuts away the brush in his own misguided way. He will never agree with anyone simply because compromise is not something he is capable of. The only consensus the President understands is total agreement with him.

    More like a child than a leader. And Broder is wrong for thinking otherwise.

  • A whole new approach to criminology.

    A crime has been committed? No matter. What’s done is done. Let’s look foward.

    Sorry, but when damage has been done — and lies which lead to death and dismemberment are certainly damaging — someone must pay.

    The GOP crime family may not believe this, but unless the rest of us work hard to make the criminals pay, we might as well forget about our so-called civilization. Down that path lies what Thomas Hobbes called the war of each against all … where life is nasty, brutish and short.

  • Steve (aka Carpetbagger),

    To the extent that a discussion about the events of 2002 and 2003 won’t save any lives or resolve the ongoing crisis, the point is accurate.

    You are wrong. It’s not just accountability. It does matter on the ground. It has a direct operational implication: that of pushing patently corrup and incompetent people out of the way to a solution. As long those people are in place, their #1 task is to cover up their ass, not to do their job seriously. Keeping those people in place means keeping outright saboteurs in place.

    That’s why Tyco CEO Edward Breen fired nearly every top executives when he took over the company from Dennis “vodka pissing David” Kozlowski. He fired 290 executives out of the top 300. There probably were competent people who could have stayed in the lot but 1) he didn’t had time to sort them out and 2) he couldn’t take the risk of letting even a single ass coverer in place. Such people are ten times more dangerous when they have things to hide than when they are openly screwing the company up. He just fired them all. He was right.

  • A good reason to thoroughly investigate the Shrublicans is for prosecution purposes. If a person committed rape or murder shouldn’t they be prosecuted to prevent them from victimizing others in the future.

    Do you know anyone that said “trust me” or “you can trust me” that wasn’t a liar?

  • seems to me the Republicans had no problem bickering…er… impeaching President Clinton for what he did two years previous (not to mention whitewater that happen 20 years previous to Clintons election if I recall correctly)…. so if I understand the logic.. if you are a republican who messes up…its time to move on…but if you are a democrat who does (especially if its over sex) then there is no time limit to the investigation…am I missing something?

  • So we’re supposed to play Charlie Brown to their Lucy?

    “Go ahead and kick, I promise not to pull it away this time!”

  • I don’t think people really cared that Clinton was getting a bit of cranium in the Oval Office either, but, the Republicans never let that die. Broder knows better. The public needs to know how and how much they were lied to. They need to know what thier government does in thier name and to what length they go to to serve thier own interests…..think Haliburton.

  • How come our media doesn’t mention that our ambassador to Iraq is “reaching out to Iran and some rebels for help in quelling the uprising that has raged since the fall of Saddam Hussein.” Weren’t the Bush windbags going to take Iran to the UN or was that last week? Maybe it’s North Korea this week. Might as well be Iran. Iraq will be part of Iran or a clone when all the dust settles.

    Al Jazeera article

    Maybe it’s a sign that Bush’s dumbasses are finally willing to talk to people or negotiate, unfortunately, it’s 2 and a half years too late and the damage is already done. Alternatively, it could be that Bush’s dumbasses are just wildly flailing around trying to pull something positive out of their asses to save poll numbers

  • The line of thinking that Broder – and presumably others on the hot seat – sets forth is not only wrong, but also a very dangerous precedent in a “civilized” society. So, CB, the comparison to the Monty Python scene is quite relevant on a number of levels.

    To take Broder’s line of thinking to the next level, this would mean that the corporate executives (i.e. Enron) who financially raped and pillaged companies, employees and shareholders should not be held accountable for their actions. Punish the perpetrators? Why worry about that? Let’s just get the company back on its feet.

    At another level, this would mean that the serial killers (i.e. Ted Bundy) who brutally murdered sometimes dozens of innocent people should not be held accountable for their actions. Punish the perpetrators? Why worry about that? Let’s just help the victims’ families cope with their losses.

    In fact, this insane line of thinking would effectively exonerate any criminal or immoral act in the “let bygones be bygones” framework. Does that make any sense whatsoever?! And it seems even more ludicrous coming from “conservatives” who constantly rail against individuals who can’t or won’t take responsibility for their actions. They talk a good game about accountability but they will not demand it of themselves or their followers.

    The utter hypocrisy continues to flow like blood from a gaping wound. But, not to worry…it’s just a flesh wound. 😉

  • Seems to me the Dem’s are actually gaining traction by quibbling over “who killed whom”…

    My thinking is, as long we’re denied a serious discussion about Iraq – God forbid the media would entertain a real conversation here – let’s just keep up the winning tactics and keep quibbling…

  • How natural it is for David Broder to come up with such an inane line of reasoning. His career and exalted status in Washington punditry is one of life’s great mysteries to me. For someone whose career is following all the ramifications of national politics, his insights are mundane at best. His writing is terminally boring – I don’t believe I have ever made it through one of his turgid columns. And yet, he is widely acknowledged to be the dean of the Washington pundits. Now this feckless observation. It’s time to set him adrift on an ice flow.

  • Accountability is necessary, and not just for its own sake. My response to this “what’s past is past” line of rhetoric is to point out that a lack of accountability weakens American national security. How can we hope for effective international cooperation in the face of future threats if our allies and would-be allies question not only the reliability but the good faith of American leaders?

  • It sure seems to be getting results. The administration doesn’t want to talk about either the cause for war or the current reality…but given a choice, they’d rather talk about what’s going on now. So what I see is a lot more discussion on Iraq’s status than we had at this time last year. That can’t be a bad thing.

    • Comments are closed.