Tag Archives: taking responsibility

Taking responsibility

We may never get to the end of the Susan Rice story.

History tells us that Rice rattled off a false tale on several networks after the attack and death of Four Americans – including the ambassador to Libya — in the Benghazi. Her detailed lie was that the deaths were the result of a semi-spontaneous anti-American demonstration occasioned by broadcasts from the then pro- Muslim Brotherhood broadcasts from radio Cairo that had spread throughout the Arab and Moslem world.

The truth was, of course, that the Libyan jihadists had plotted to kill Americans for some time, that the local U.S. diplomatic corps had been pleading unsuccessfully for weeks for additional defenses against what it knew were plots against them. Although Rice’s performance was almost immediately exposed, she suffered no particular consequences and continued as a high national security official.
The Rice story has barged into the headlines again with the revelation that she “unmasked” American citizens who, presumably, were only incidentally recorded in secret U.S. intelligence agencies’ search of communications for important leads. Theoretically such persons were protected unless specific requests were made for their identity by Administration officials, presumably because they would lead to further insights on the principal target of the surveillance.

When word eked out that Rice had been responsible for “unmasking” some of these names, she initially denied the role. But, again, she has backtracked and admitted that it was she who unasked some of these conversational participants. Why? is not yet to be explained since theoretically she was only a recipient of intelligence as she served as the 24th United States National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2017. It was in this role as a consumer of intelligence that she had access to the surveillance but theoretically had no authority except in unusual circumstances to direct its contents, a role for the several American intelligence agencies who produced the material for the president’s office to examine.

What is still at issue is whether having “unmasked” various U.S. persons who fell into the hands of the surveillance teams, she passed this material on to others in the Obama Administration, perhaps to be used against the Republican candidate in the run up to the presidential election last fall. Rice says she did no such thing, but given her record of stretching the truth, there is considerable speculation that is precisely what she did do.

It is here that we begin to enter the territory of does the punishment fit the crime?

Much too often recently, in “the swamp” in Washington that Donald Trump says he was elected to drain, there has been no penalty for either skirting the outer reaches of the law or, indeed, breaking it.

Instead, American public and private life has fallen into the speech formula of “taking responsibility” for the infraction. That epithet has moral and propaganda implications but it does not actually penalize the miscreant. In most cases, he [or she] either does not pay the price in dollars and cents for his failure to conform to the law nor does he surrender privileges and prestige that surround the position that has been violated. The most notorious example, of course, is Hillary Clinton’s use of her private e-mail [for whatever reason] to move official documents, which among other things increased their exposure to foreign espionage.

In both these instances of outright violation of the law, Hillary Clinton has announced that she “takes responsibility” for these missteps. But she has paid no other price.

This new version of the formula “I take responsibility” but requires no actual pain or suffering — either in prestige or in wealth – has eroded the whole concept of right and wrong in public life. It may be too late to fill the widening gap. But an effort ought to be done to take up this responsibility.



Taking responsibility

Perhaps the most overused and least significant phrase in the English language these days is “I take responsibility”.
As we speak, Gina McCarthy, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, repeatedly says her agency takes responsibility for cleaning up a monumental spill of waste mining waters in Colorado. She should. Local government officials have complained bitterly that whatever its complicity in the accident – and EPA was running the show — it took a day to alert downstream communities and then the volume of the spill was grossly underestimated.
What should happen, eventually, is that a thorough investigation should take place: what caused the spill? Was something like this predictable? What measures were in place in case there was an accident of this sort? Given their complicity, who will monitor the EPA’s cleanup? Who will pay the immediate costs of the cleanup? When a bottom line is drawn, does the EPA failure in this instance reflect – as many would argue – Ms. McCarthy’s mismanagement of the Agency and therefore time for her to go. In other words, who will take responsibility?
It has become the fashion in such misadventures for a leading government or private sector figure to announce from a podium that he or she will take responsibility. But what does that mean? Generally, it means little if anything. Often it doesn’t even mean resignation or a fine. It just means, well, I take responsibility and do a tearful mea culpa in front of the cameras and go on my way.
It should mean that the person assuming the responsibility pays a price for his malfeasance. That could be resignation from a top job or at least some monetary penalty. But these days it rarely does.
President Barack Obama is not a stranger to such statements. One cannot expect the president of the United States of America to resign his office on the numerous occasions when he has stated he is taking responsibility. But too often in the recent past, it has simply meant that Obama went on to the next disaster with little or no assurance that the reasons behind the failure of policy or strategy have been reexamined and corrected. It is part and parcel of his “evolution” toward different, often explicitly contradictory policies, in his search for “transformation” of the American society he finds so wanting.
One could hope that this disaster in Colorado would be a turning point. After all it is an environmental disaster; the kind of accident that the environmental fanatics believe is constant and brought on by malicious intent of commercial perpetrators. But, ironically, in this instance, the accident – if it can be called that – was perpetrated by the EPA which is the shrine at which all the big governmental environmentalists worship. And it was done in pursuit of what the EPA calls it special talents and technology for cleaning up old environmental debris. There really has to be a good explanation for why the agency charged with policing the environment is the perpetrator of one of the most recent dramatic violations of natural surroundings.
It comes at a critical moment when Obama has stretched his concept of what the constitution permits to an expansion of EPA jurisdiction that many believe not only runs counter to the Agency’s purview, but one which the Supreme Court has already rule indirectly against. Unfortunately, the process of again appealing its latest clean air dictates will take years to work its way through the courts, meanwhile penalizing an private sector seeking to renew healthy growth. Furthermore, it ignores the market forces unleashed by the shale drilling technology and Japan’s progress in coal-fire generator emissions.
This episode argues, too, for a new look by the Congress – which ought also to take up its responsibility – at the legal foundations of the EPA and see if they don’t need reordering legislation.