The failure of any serious accountability for Abu Ghraib etc. has mainly driven me crazy because of what it means for our image abroad. But there's a side issue: we've consistently opposed the ICC on grounds that it'll be misused against Americans. How dare we, when it's being made clear that no justice from within America will be brought to bear on our war criminals?

I suppose your 'most talented political advisors and communications specialists' would have to concede that, unfortunately, it has become so much more difficult to generate public demand for accountability, with the political situation as polarized as it is and with the discourse completely poisoned by suspicions of partisanship.

But the big problem with the Bushies has always been that the fundamental spinning axis of their operation is based on that awful ideology, and not around any notion of corporate governance. Or else, why would they not be able to let go of even a single one 'of theirs'?

Don't forget the horendous overcharging of Halliburton and the loss of miliions of dollars sent to Iraq for reconstruction that has disappeared and, of course, our country's own players in the Oil For Food fiasco. What really galls me is our government's constantly harping on messes other people have made while turning a blind eye to their own corruption. I am ashamed to be represented by such sleezy people. Shame doesn't seem to be a word they understand.

I don't like to make excuses for anyone, but I will in this case.

What was damaging to critics of Bush Administration policies in 2004 was that it was an election year. In this time frame, legitimate discrepencies are easily reframed into partisan political squabbles with end game being that of a sweeping change in the executive. Out with the old, in with the new.

For these reasons there were attemtps by the Bush administration, and supporters in Congress, to delay some of the inquiries such as the 9/11 commisssion. Were the administrations intention's to change perception of the critique; hardly. But they did publicly declare their opposition to the commission being held at that time because of the election.

Senator Fred Thompson was a voice absent this important development. He left the Senate in 2002 but was well aware of oversight and independent commissions tainted as executive branch witchunts. Furthermore, I never liked the way members of an independent commisssion are selected. The 9/11 commission was 10 members, five chosen by Democrats and five chosen by Republicans. Perhaps it would have been a better play if the Republicans chose the Democrats five and the Democrats chose the Republicans five.

The real culprit here is President Bush. He didn't call for Kofi to step down. On the contrary, he pledged support for Kofi. The President also pledged support for Rumsfeld even after post war execution, Abu Ghraib, Tora Bora and Guantonamo. Rumsfeld said he would continue to serve the President for as long as he requested.

I think the difference today is that the world plays by different rule sets. Growing connections through globalization are changing the way we think long term strategy. The sacrafice has been short term accountability. Can anyone remember when someone got a second chance in foreign relations?

We all know what the approval figures for the prez look like - a nasty little downhill slope ever since, uh, Sept 12, 2001. But as low as they are, they are probably not even touching the level of public distrust directed at the media. Last time I checked, _any_ change in corporate leadership happens _in reaction_ to either shareholder and sometimes public pressure, with the media playing a critically important role. With public trust with respect to both govt and the media at current levels, there seems little chance of that happening.

But hey, aren't there _any_ polls out there that measure support for an INDEPENDENT inquiry into the morass that Steve is describing so vividly instead of asking whether they'd like to switch the channel from Republicans to Democrats right now or not?

Or is it simply that I can't find them anywhere because the media have decided that public opinion doesn't matter ?!

This is a great post! Unfortunately the day for accountability with regard to the civilian leadership was November 2, 2004, but it didn’t happen. My sense is that prior to that date the grown-ups in the rest of the world were giving the USA the benefit of the doubt, in the knowledge that our country was being led by an administration that had gained office while losing the popular vote through a fluke of our electoral system. Now it’s all too likely that future generations will come to view the reelection of George W. Bush as one of the pivotal turning points in American, and indeed world, history. One that they will very much wish could be done over again.

As for the military leadership, avoidance of accountability is what you have to expect from an institution in which the path to advancement has become doing whatever it takes to keep the procurement pipeline full. When you have a military in which too serious a study of the arts of war and leadership is not a good career move, in which people can accede to the command of a brigade while having only three or four years of actual troop command during twenty or more years of active service, you’ve got a problem. That problem goes far beyond just the uniformed military itself, however. It is an utterly dysfunctional military-industrial-Congressional-Administrative complex that continues to buy F-22s for almost $300M a pop in spite of the fact that they were designed 20 years ago to fight an enemy that no longer exists, while at the same time is unable to provide body armor in a timely manner to troops in the line of fire. It is President Eisenhower’s worst fears realized.

It isn't as if the opposition hasn't had opportunity to find something wrong with the way the government has handled things. What would you look for as a measure of public outrage ? The press is being vilified because it doesn't seem up to the job of independent commentary. I think people are mad as hell but aren't being recognized.

opit,
the press has been the government's best friend with respect to this war. Therefore, any accountability process that would be worth anything at all would make them look _really bad_ as well.

The NYT apologized to its readers last year and promised to try harder next time.

Now, the CIA apologizes (!) and says it will sure try harder next time.

And the goverment...?

The most basic questions about this war are STILL not being asked. Even though Luntz seems to have made more of a fool of himself lately, Karl continues to manage the press with ease.

Are people mad as hell ? I suppose you are absolutely right about that. But how come public opinion remains almost completely inivisible and pretty much never plays any role in public discourse?

Oh, the irony. The American Right calls for Kofi Annan's head on a platter while ignoring the much larger sums of money that have vanished in Iraq via contractors like Halliburton...

Just to bind my previous comments together a little with another post:

I think that much of the current polarization of the discourse is down to the media's presentation of the few issues they decide to cover with ratings-friendly "he said-she said" spiels.

If an overwhelming majority of the public is in fact demanding accountability from both the civilian and military leadership now (and if this majority can be reliably measured with widely respected, nonpartisan polls), much of that polarization would be defused by _simply publishing the results_.

Putting public opinion at the center of the debate (instead of sidelining it or ignoring it altogether) would not only reduce the massive democratic deficit of the United States at this point in time, it would also expose the polarization of the public debate as completely artificial.

I've posted a few of the findings of the "Global Views 2004" study of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations at Steve's post regarding questions.

I want to urge Steve's readers to familiarize themselves with its findings (it was published in October I think). It can be downloaded at

http://www.ccfr.org/globalviews2004/sub/usa.htm

Can anyone tell me where the findings of a major study by a respected body like the CCFR have made it into the US media? Anywhere ?!

To my mind, this study does nothing but bolster and confirm my argument:

US public opinion and its portrayal by the media lie poles apart. Virtually none of the positions held by the majority of the American public are represented in the media 'spectrum'. Consequently, public opinion plays _no role_ in the publc discourse.

No wonder people feel profoundly alienated from the political process and are deeply distrustful of the media as well.

Ya gotta be nice ta get access, or else yer personna non grata, your career at being in the in-crowd over, and you drinkin' beer with low class me and not havin' to be nice, saying exactly how we feel, onless yer a wuss under peer pressure. But I don't care 'bout nothin' but the truth, and the harder the truth is the closer I am to it. Schafer is the one beer to have when you're having more than one, and Rheingold Extra Dry ain't bad either, and Schafer's got the most rewarding flavour in this man's world for people who are having fun, Schafer is the one beer to have when you're having more than one ...............

I must admit my doses of Al-Jazeerah, the Economist, C-span, the New York Times, The Nation, and occasionally tiny snidbits of CNN, but I try to stay away from mainstream media for commentary.

This is why I love the blogosphere so much, it is my favorite medium for news, although it is blatantly bias, at least you know what you're getting.

btree you made an excellent point.

Thanks, Chuck, for reminding us of Ike who had it exactly right in his Farewell Address (military-industrial-complex") in 1961 that is well worth reading again.
www.luminet.net/~tgort/ike.htm

And his Chance for Peace Speech in 1953 looks pretty good too. http://beyondterror.org/eisenhower.html.

I agree that Rumsfeld is a bad person. When he finally retires and is able to prop up his feet
on a nice porch railing, I hope he is able to apologize to his family, his god, and his country.

Ah, Democracy. Who needs democratic principles whilst one fears for their life? Where is the attraction in this "greatest" of political processes when the electoral success of the incumbent is so great-perhaps mostly owing to the simplistic acceptance of the two party system? Who is left to remain on watch when the comman man becomes absorbed by the capitalistic dream of greed?
So, let's see. Life or death. Two option universe or multi-option universe. Greed or fairness. Seems simple enough. You all see what is and some of you ask why.
Is it not obvious to you that notwithstanding all the monetary riches and education and progressive understanding of man's physical world, his psychological being is still easily manipulated and ultimately he acts no different than a simple ape?

“…and most importantly moving from a post-9/11 environment of amazing sympathy and support for America after that attack to ambivalence, disdain, and outright hostility towards the U.S. from much of the world today.”

Much of the world loves the United States when it is perceived as a victim. They despise us when we are powerful and successful. Envy and bitterness underpins these childish attitudes. We should simply shrug our shoulders and ignore them.

Isn't it strange how we face life's challenges? I believe I was close to 8-years-old when I first remember an authority figure chastising me with: "So, are you just going to shrug your shoulders and walk away?"
Dave, you keep ignoring and you will remain ignorant.

Nice post by Steve. A bit of advice for anyone who's frustrated by the things Steve writes about: Do something...but not the way you might think. Here is a very good analysis of WHY what we've done up to now has not resulted in accountability, and HOW we can change that...a very nice read:

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/03/angry-keyboards.html

But in speaking to some of them privately, it was clear that all of these communications and public relations geniuses know that sometimes the relative merit or flaws of a leader are less important than a sense of what results that leaders has presided over.

If only the Dems had had someone who could effectively and efficiently communicate the massive failures of the administration last year. Richard Clarke alone had enough ammunition to sink the executive if his message could have been shaped to root itself in the minds of the key voting demographics. Bush, Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz and (unfortunately) Powell failed in the one key test, protecting US citizens on their own soil.

Throw in the whole record surplus > record defecit magic trick and Bush should be clearing brush in Crawford for the rest of his life instead of leading a great nation down the wrong road.

Hedley - have you seen The Fog of War?

In "Plan of Attack," by Woodword, we see how Rummy pressed General Frank to cut down the troop numbers needed for the job in Iraq. Did Frank, who had planned to retire come July, subconciously ignore the fourth phase, the afterwar, because he knew he would not have to deal with it? Many thousands have died because the afterwar "bad case" had been ignored. Not considering, and being prepared for, the bad case possibility, needs to accounted fore

In other words, guilt or innocence are irrelevant. Truth is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether enough accusations reach the public's ear. Once the mob shouts loudly enough, the leader must go.

I suppose from a pure public relations viewpoint this is truth - but it stinks.

Dems can't defend the UN's lack of accountability while attacking Bush's. They are both unacceptable.

And we shouldn't hold up reforming the UN until Bush reforms his administration, because Bush isn't going to do it.

Dems should develop and push their own ideas of how the UN should be reformed, and conduct Harry Truman WWII-like hearings into cheating by military contractors and government officials. But don't wait on one to start the other.

Not watching FoxNews, I have little idea of the UN oil for food scandal I just returned from Europe and the European press has given Kofi a pass, although his son takes a hit. My jaded cynical view is that the Oil for Food Scandal has about as much substance as Whitewater did and it is primarily a vehicle for the right wing American media to beat up on the UN.

The GOP beat the Whitewater investigation dead horse even though Ken Starr did not get any Clinton convictions out of it. Starr allowed GOP politicos to funnel money to his Star witness (the lying David Hale who was trying to beat embezzlement charges and was the real criminal). Starr threw Susan McDougal in jail for 2 years for refusing to talk and become entangled in Starr's Catch 22. Starr also threatened and tried to intimidate Hiatt Steele. The only convictions were Jim McDougal who was clinically depressed and had been on the outs with the Clintons for years and Clinton's political rival Jim Guy Tucker (who was probably convicted by false testimony). Nothing about Whitewater, other than the failed real estate deal had anything to do with the Clintons, we find out later. I suspect when the dust settles, there really is no more substance to the Oil for Food Scandal. The media likely has the story just as wrong as they got Whitewater.

Was there some corruption within the UN program? Probably. However, that corruption was tiny compared to the dollars flowing to Saddam through corporations and other government sources. The whole scandal is akin to spending millions prosecuting a shoplifter while big crooks like Ken Lay go free.

This is what the Canadian media is writing. Blaming Kofi for the actions of his son is like blaming Jimmy Carter for Billy.

The Rightwing 'Smear Campaign' Against World Body

The real agenda here seems to be undermining the U.N., which, for all its flaws, represents the world's best shot at some semblance of international law. Sadly, America today doesn't appear to support international law.

In case that sounds like just my opinion, let me quote someone who should know — John Bolton, the Bush administration's choice for ambassador to the U.N.

Here's what The New Yorker recently quoted Bolton saying: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so — because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States."

Constrict the U.S.? It's called the rule of law and it's hard to imagine a civilized world without it.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator.

Bakho- regardless of Kofi's personal involvement, Dems can't defend the UN's lack of accountability while attacking Bush's.

Yes, Kofi has been cleared, but that's no reason the Dems can't focus on what DID go wrong at the UN. Otherwise they lose credibility in addressing Bush administration corruption.