Katrina: Bush at fault
 

Today in a press confrence bush said he accepts responsibility for the failures to the Katrina response. I have to give him props for biting the bullet and accepting responsibilty. I don't have a link but I just saw it on ABC.

here ya go

Bush: 'I take responsibility'

It's a good gesture on Bush's part, it's all PR and to try to get his numbers up, but at least he is showing some leadership finally.

I'm far from being a Bush supporter, but I think it's a good sign.

Now we just need to get a mayor and a few governors to do the same.

... Then maybe they'll learn how to play nicely together.

I can dream, can't I?

Sadly, I believe that this was used to both parties for partisan warfare and when Bush saw that his poll numbers had hit bottom and that FEMA and he were taking the most heat he had to do this to try to raise his poll numbers.

As stated in a previous post, once my passion and disbelief have subsided and I can think rationally about the situation, noone (not a mayor, not a governor, not a president) are truly to blame over the storm and the help. Maybe some blame can be put on FEMA.

However, the partisan political warfare that ensued is flatout disgusting and should make each of us feel horrendous and want better.

Perhaps, Bush will be non partisan and work with everyone to make sure the effort is truly for the best interest of EVERYONE and not just 1 party, or blame the other party for inefficiencies that EVERYONE in government had. Or perhaps, he'll maintain the partisan warfare and try to keep this all partisan. In which case I hope the governor and mayor can be more adult and just work to rebuild and not bring politics into any of it.

However, no matter which road Bush takes, I have a feeling the talking heads, the Fox news', the Drudge's and so on will continue the partisan warfare and take sides of whatever Bush says.

Pathetic our country is so divided and what is worse is our media, and people who know better keep the fires alive, feasting on people's passions, compassions, fears, and so on to fuel their own purposes and agendas.

When will we realize both sides truly want what is best for the country, and somewhere between philosophies is the answer. That neither side is all right nor all wrong. And this tragedy is no, not never the place to use to divide us further. It should be used to bring us all closer together, to unite.... instead everyone from the President, Governor, Mayor, media and ourselves have used this tragedy to divide us further.

A little too late.
Sorry.

In terms of damage control, it was the best possible PR move for Bush to take. It was a very Harry Truman "the buck stops here" response.

I truly feel we are entering an interesting phase in Bush's Presidency. He can't run for office again, so he can either do what he wants, mostly disregarding politics.. ie try to push for things normally seen as "democratic", or knowing that he can't be hurt in a re-election can really try to ramrod a hard Right agenda.

We will see from right about now, as this is a great litmus test. I sincerely hope he tries to make this nation a better place, and gets a nicer legacy than the one he has now.

This was a very good first step.

+fingers crossed+

not quite spongy. if he cares about the republican party or the conservative agenda he can't do anything to extreme otherwise people will start to vote for democrats in the midterm elections and even in the next election. Going to far to the right could cause this to happen easily.

It's amazing that this actually sounds like taking responsibility and apologizing to some people. Let's look at the actual words, though:

"To the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."

There are at least three hedges in that one sentence. (Count them! It's a fun game!) It's the single most irresponsible taking of responsibility I've ever heard. It would be possible for him to back out of this statement entirely, simply by limiting the "extent to which the federal government didn't fully do its job right."

That's like saying, "I'm sorry if I hurt you." What's that "if" doing in there? That's no apology. Do you care so little that you actually don't know whether you hurt me or not? And you can just HEAR the unspoken "but...." in there. "I'm sorry if I punched you in the face, but you shouldn't have pissed me off like that!" It's funny, the sentence starts with "I'm sorry", but... where's the apology?

Say what you like about Clinton, at least when he admitted a mistake, he admitted the mistake. This guy's so buffered by yes-men he actually thinks he walks on water. This statement is clearly and transparently a PR move.

Here's what Bush could say that would have him actually be responsible for this mess: "Federal agencies under my direct authority failed to perform the duties that America expects of them. I personally take responsibility for that." If he said that or something clear and direct like that, I would (after picking my jaw up off the floor) applaud him wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, statements like this can fool some of the people some of the time, but cause the rest of the people contribute to his plummetting approval rating--which I don't think, by the way, has hit bottom yet.

I brought this up in the "FEMA failed us?" thread, but I'll restate it here. My problem is that Bush's statement is meaningless, even putting aside Ratbastid's parsing. Now that he has taken responsibility... what? In Japan, a politician who said that would follow it up with "...and here is my resignation". What does Bush do with the responsibility?

I think he should try to determine what we did well and encourage it and try to determine what we did wrong and work to fix it.

Of course it´s his fault. Who else is there to blame? It is the only option he had in order to keep at least some of his dignity.

Good point, RB. I liked your unambiguous version of an acceptance of responsibility, and believe it would have worked better for Bush. There were multiple failures at the local, state, and federal level. If he wanted to hedge, maybe his statement should have started with that observation and then gone on with his true acceptance of the failings occurring at the federal level. No matter...the chance to improve his numbers was lost when he didn't jump in with both feet immediately after Katrina hit.

I didn't get your reference to Clinton readily admitting mistakes however. Maybe you meant "with the exception of Monica"?

You must not have been watching when Clinton said "While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information."

In other words, he said he spoke truthfully when he said he remembered Monica Lewinsky when she was ordering a pizza, but not when she was delivering oral sex.

Then, of course, he spent the next ten minutes or so saying it was all the Republicans' fault.

There's also the matter of Janet Reno taking "full responsibility" for Waco, and propagating the many lies told about the FBI's illegal actions there. I still can't believe there hasn't even been a trial for the FBI's burning about 80 men, women, and CHILDREN to death.

So don't tell me BUSH was insincere.

Actually Marv, it was the ATF that burned 80 innocent men, women, and children. But other than that little slip-up, I agree with you.

I am left to wonder....does the fact that others (Clinton/Reno) were insincere, change the position held by the thread starter concerning Bush. Or does bringing up the actions of others simply justify it in some way?

Not that I think Bush was insincere....I am simply pointing out the weakness of your post as a bebuttal, and the tendency to sideline, or whitewash the debate by redirecting it. I have noticed this defense of our current Administration on a regular basis, and noted also, that by doing so we quite effectively postpone or disregard the discussion of what accually occured. Instead focusing on the actions of others to justify a situation that may be distastful.

So a simple question here:

By qualifying Mr Bushs' actions, and placing them in the context of Clintons/Renos Lies....are you in effect admitting to a belief that he is guilty of the charge?

I think MM is just pointing out the double-standard republicans are held to in the media and by fellow countrymen. There are plenty who believe whole-heartedly that republicans are evil and nothing is going to change that, even evidence that shows that democrats are more evil. Remember, our whole political process is choosing the lesser of two evils.

No. I don't believe he was insincere at all.

I was giving examples of TRUE insincerity, particularly regarding what I felt was an absurd statement, to wit:

For Bush to play in that league, he would have had to "take full responsibility," and then blame the Democrats.

Which would have been easy, considering the mountains of evidence. Here's one example:

Link

Witt is another Arkansas crony of Clinton. He was appointed FEMA head in 1993.

Which I believe is correlated to the thread title, "Bush at fault."

You're right, of course.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...dbangsmall.gif