Unpacking Accountability

My not-so-favorite DLC blogger, Garance Franke-Ruta asks this question:

I hear so many people saying the same basic thing as Krugman — Bush must be held accountable — that I thought maybe it would be good to get a discussion going and unpack this....What one thing has to occur in order for it to be clear that Bush has been held accountable by voters or the opposition party?

In typical DLC tradition, she feels this questions requires some kind of political, wonky-type discussion? Hey, I know. Let's convene a conference on the definition of "accountable", publish a very logical position paper on it, and then label anyone who varies from that definition as "radical left".

Seeesssh.

The answer to her question is simple. If there's an impending election, you vote his ass out! If there isn't, he resigns or is impeached and removed from office. That's accountability. It's way too late in the game of the Bush non-presidency to talk about learning in office, or give him another chance, or to let it go simply as "mistakes were made" and get an apology. And no need to spend time analyzing it. In fact, if Bush were in the private sector, he'd likely be held criminally liable for negligent homicide....on many fronts.

BTW, I realize there's a snow-ball's chance in hell of accountability even remotely occurring with this administration. So Garance, I don't think it needs too much "unpacking".