Unbeliever

A prominent Democratic congressman wants Condoleeza Rice to explain one thing: why did Bush used forged evidence to push the Iraq war?


Condi, you got some 'splainin' to do!

Misso

I don't get it. There's all this "wir haben es nicht gewusst" crap, but isn't it the job of the administration to know, aren't they ultimately responsible? It's not just in the US with this forged evidence, but the same in the UK. Maybe someone could clarify this for me, but isn't there something in the constitution/common law that says that the ministers or heads of government are ultimately responsible, and will thus have to bear the consequences?

seanie

In the UK the constitutional convention was that Ministers were responsible for the work of their departments, regardless of their personal involvement.

However that's largely been junked. They've now developed the notion that Ministers are responsible for "policy" matters and civil servants for "operational" matters. This ensures that when the shit hits the fan Ministers are rarely to be seen.

In the unlikely event anyone does carry the can it'll be some hapless career civil servant, who'll get a knighthood and a cushy appointment to some quango for falling on his sword.

Godless Dave

Their defense seems to be "The president and his cabinet are too stupid to know what's going on in his own administration." It worked for Reagan.

seanie

When it comes to George that seems an entirely credible defence.

Unbeliever

It may be credible, but it's not a defense.

"Plausible deniability" is just a cop out that everyone sees through. It will be very interesting to watch what takes place in the next year or so. If the Democrats don't pick up this ball and run with it, then they don't deserve to even be in the game at all!

seanie

"Plausible imbecility" would surely be more appropriate.