One of the things I do in the Real World is try and manage problem projects projects that are failing or otherwise in trouble in technology and some other areas. (Editors note: Im looking for a project in Southern California right now, and if anyone hears of one, drop me a note at armed-at-armedliberal.com) One thing I tell my team members at the beginning is this:
The only thing I want to hear when youre messed up is this: I messed up. Heres what I did, heres what happened, heres how we need to fix it. I dont want to hear how the SA caused it, or you had bad docs, or anything else except in the context of how you messed up and what we need to do to a) fix it right now; and b) make sure it doesnt happen again.
I do this, because on thing that always happens in troubled projects is blamestorming, in which everyone spends all their time figuring out how it wasnt really their fault.
I find admitting fault a liberating experience, and when I learned to admit my own faults in projects it was a major step in my maturation professionally and personally.
Thats why the current furor over the Time Magazine article on the current and last Administrations terrible track record on terror is making me mental.
As long as the Democratic and Republican (I’m looking for a link, will have one in a bit) operatives spend all their energy spinning this so that it looks like the other side caused it, well never get out of this. As far as Im concerned, every one of these fools ought to be flipping burgers as far away from the levers of power as possible, right now.
Lets make it clear: The Clinton administration had a chance to do something about Al-Quieda, and failed to take the opportunity. The Bush Administration had a chance before 9/11 and failed to take the opportunity. All I want to hear from these people and their handlers is this: I messed up. Heres what I did, heres what happened, heres how we need to fix it.
Otherwise, shut the f**k up. Im not interested in hearing it.
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
Why create equivalence where none exists? Clinton might have not done enough, but the man was under fire for “wagging the dog” and did do what he could to get Bin Laden. Whereas with Bush, the problem appears to lie in no legitimate reason, but just the desire to distance itself from the previous administration. I mean, this sounds like a “circle of violence” argument in IvP… they just aren’t the same thing, and should be criticized proportionately. Besides, Clinton is out of office, and Bush is going to try to derive electoral success from blaming the whole thing on Clinton. As a liberal, I imagine that you wouldn’t be too happy were that to happen. Articles like this one, even if they are frustrating, are an important tool to prevent that.
Date: 08/07/2002 00:00:00 AM
Back in WWI, a young man in the British government (assistant Minister of the Navy, or something like that), took full responsibility for the disastrous landings at Gallipoli. The public forgave him, and he became more prominent politically. In the 1930’s his position in regards to Hitler was unpopular – but in 1940, after a worse military disaster than Gallipoli, Winston Churchill became Prime Minister.Sounds a whole lot better than whining “It wasn’t my fault”, doesn’t it?
Date: 08/06/2002 00:00:00 AM
Roublen – If Bush said “Clinton made mistakes. I made mistakes. . . .” all you would hear from the Democrats, and most of the media, would be the edited sound bite “I made mistakes.” Count on it.
Date: 08/05/2002 00:00:00 AM
reuben -If any elected official would say that (“Clinton made mistakes. I made mistakes. This is not a partisan issue. lets learn from the past and move on”), they’d have my vote in perpetuity. It’s the fact that no one is willing to do this simple, honest thing that’s so frustrating.A.L.
Date: 08/05/2002 00:00:00 AM
fair enough. another point is that going after bin laden and the afghanistan training camps wouldn’t have prevented the WTC attacks, or any al quaeda attacks, in the short term (long term is another matter). Mohammed Atta was in this country in January 2000. If anything, it would have made them more likely, by pissing off the Al Quaeda sleeper cells.Offhand, the three things that might have prevented September 11 are 1) reinforcing cockpit doors 2) racial profiling 3) cutting off the money supply. More generally, to the extent that people were thinking about airplane safety, they were thinking about saving the lives of the people *on the plane*, and to the extent people were thinking about mass casualty terror attacks, they were thinking about nuclear/biological/chemical weapons. The intermediate case of arlines into skyscrapers slipped through the radar.I think the more important issue with the Time article is the Bush administration’s penchant for concealing inconvenient facts from the public (think missile defense, budget projections, cheney’s energy plan, etc) and and their tendency to think of themselves as infallible. Imagine if Bush had said “Clinton made mistakes. I made mistakes. This is not a partisan issue. lets learn from the past and move on” Democrats would have completely embraced that sentiment.
Since your last transmission in 2002, when has the media ever mis-quoted or taken out of context anything Bush has said about any of their involvement or lack thereof ? The guy gets a free pass. I too would have more respect for him if he said “We all made mistakes…”