Most historians - liberals, conservatives and others agree that
Abraham Lincoln was one of history's greatest wartime leaders.
Indeed, he is widely credited for saving the union. An interesting
fact about his wartime leadership has many important lessons for us
today - if we are willing to listen. When Lincoln was not happy with
the direction of the war - he acted. He wasn't afraid to "switch
horses midstream." Lincoln replaced the Commander of the Army of the
Potomac (the most important unit in the military) five times during
the civil war. He replaced his Secretary of the War, and replaced
the Army Commander of all land forces at least twice. When Lincoln
saw things were going wrong, he didn't "stay the course" - he
changed the course. This is what great leaders do. Sadly, we are
stuck with a Commander in Chief who has yet to either take
responsibility for, or hold any one in high command accountable for
the deadly blunders that have occurred in Iraq. Since he refuses to
change course or take responsibility, it's time that WE - the
ultimate civilian leaders of this country - take the action Bush
won't. As Lincoln would have done, we need to replace the Commander
who is responsible for the mess in Iraq.
Jim Salisbury

--------------------

I've tried to think of a way to explain this to civilians and those
who've never served. I think this example illustrates the problem
pretty well: When I was a Sergeant in the US Army I once received a
written, formal reprimand for an event that occurred when I wasn't
even present. I fact, I was in the emergency room with a temperature
of 104 degrees. A soldier under my command was supposed to make a
public relations appearance at a social event for families living on
post. He forgot about the event and didn't show up. As his direct
supervisor, I was punished - not him. It may seem harsh to those who
have not served, especially for such a non essential, public
relations event. However, those who understand military leadership
know I thoroughly deserved this reprimand. Military leadership
requires leaders to assume total and absolute responsibility for the
actions of those subordinate to them. I failed to have a plan B
(and/or C,D, and E if that's what it took) for this event. The
responsibility was clearly mine, and I accepted my punishment and
learned from it. My chain of command was right to hold me
accountable. Military Leaders taking unconditional responsibility
for what happens on their watch is a time-honored tradition that has
served our nation, and all great military organizations, throughout
history. In fact it's the bedrock of military leadership. If there's
a more important rule of leadership, I can't imagine what it might
be. Though President Bush's military service was quite limited, I'm
sure he must have been made aware of this expectation of leaders.
Sadly, as President, he has failed to take responsibility, or hold
his senior staff accountable, for the many costly failures in Iraq
and the hunt for terrorists. In the latest failure of
accountability, Bush has refused to take responsibly for 400 tons of
missing explosives In Iraq, despite the fact that the administration
has known their exact location and inventory since at least 1991. A
true leader would say, "I accept responsibility and I'll get to the
bottom of it." But Bush is blaming Kerry for talking about it,
making excuse, deflecting and spinning. This trend of refusing to
take responsibility and hold military leaders accountable is a very
consistent theme in this administration. The administration does not
accept responsibility for the mess in Iraq, the failure to plan for
the occupation phase of the war, soldiers fighting with inferior
equipment, the prison scandals of Abu Ghraib, the weapons of mass
destruction, the escape of Bin Laden, the still unsolved anthrax
attacks at the US Capitol and other locations, the failure to
respond to the al Qeada attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and, of course,
the attacks on 9/11/01. Not to mention the economy and other
domestic issues. In fact Bush has actively tried to avoid
accountability of any type. He was against the formation of the 9/11
investigative committee, then resisted testifying and resisted
allowing senior staff to testify. He resisted the formation of the
Homeland Security Department. He makes a habit of denying past
statements, even when he must know the video tape exists to prove
he's lying. In fact, the only senior official to be held to any
standard of accountability was General Eric Shinseki. His offense?
Performing his duty by warning the administration it would need far
more troops and equipment in Iraq than it planned to use. A position
that has since proven profoundly correct. There are many reasons I
believe we need a new President and Commander-in-Chief. However,
none are as important as President Bush's stubborn refusal to accept
responsibility or even admit he's made mistakes. This is not strong
and consistent leadership - this is a weak and pathetic imitation of
leadership. This man must not be allowed to remain our Commander-in-
chief.
-------
Ronald Reagan, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Jimmy Carter,
John F Kennedy, Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt. What do all
these Presidents have in common? They all had the integrity to
publicly take responsibility for military mistakes that happened on
their watch. All of them stepped up to the plate, took the hit and
changed course. President Bush refuses to take responsibility for
any of his mistakes, and he refuses to hold his leadership
accountable. Consistency is admirable - being consistently wrong,
and refusing to accept responsibility is not admirable. If Bush
won't even admit to his mistakes, how can we trust him to fix them?
We simply can't. All the tough talk and consistent sound bites in
the world can't change that. ACCOUNTABILITY STILL MATTERS IN THIS
WORLD!


=====
Jim Salisbury, Another proud veteran for Kerry!

jimsalz@...

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/

http://www.vote-smart.org/

http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?
fmedia_id=7073&fcategory_desc=The%