Katrina: Bush at fault - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 09-13-2005, 04:00 PM

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.

maleficent · 09-13-2005, 04:02 PM

here ya go

Bush: 'I take responsibility'

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush took responsibility on Tuesday for any failures in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina and acknowledged the storm exposed serious deficiencies at all levels of government four years after the September 11 attacks.

"To the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush told a White House news conference at which he openly questioned U.S. preparedness for another storm or a "severe attack."

Bush's rare admission of "serious problems in our response capability" came as the White House stepped up efforts to repair his public standing. Bush will address the nation at 9 p.m. EDT (0100 GMT) on Thursday from hard-hit Louisiana, his fourth visit to the disaster zone since Katrina struck.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush would use Thursday's address to "talk to the American people about the recovery and the way forward on the longer-term rebuilding."

The president's approval ratings have hit new lows, partly due to fierce criticism of the slow response to the August 29 hurricane, which killed hundreds and displaced 1 million people in the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

Fifty-four percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the response, but 57 percent say state and local officials should bear responsibility for the problems, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC poll.

Asked if Americans should worry that the government remains unprepared to respond to another major disaster or a terrorist attack, Bush said: "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government."

Bush himself raised questions about preparedness, after four years of record spending on domestic security since September 11, 2001.

"Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm? That's a very important question and it's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on so we can better respond," he said at a news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Michael Brown resigned as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Monday.

Republican senators with close ties to Bush have urged him to appoint a top official to lead the long-term recovery. White House officials say that is among options being discussed.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and retired Gen. Tommy Franks, former head of the U.S. Central Command have been mentioned for the job.

Giuliani said on CNBC that a commission like the one that investigated the September 11 attacks could assess the response. "Whether there were failures here on the state, city and federal level, I think a commission can decide that six months from now," he said. "No one person is responsible for this."

pan6467 · 09-13-2005, 04:30 PM

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.

StanT · 09-13-2005, 04:37 PM

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?

pan6467 · 09-13-2005, 05:00 PM

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.

genuinegirly · 09-13-2005, 05:26 PM

A little too late.
Sorry.

Elphaba · 09-13-2005, 05:38 PM

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.

spongy · 09-13-2005, 07:23 PM

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+

Rekna · 09-13-2005, 08:34 PM

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.

ratbastid · 09-14-2005, 07:09 AM

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.

Redlemon · 09-14-2005, 07:30 AM

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?

flstf · 09-14-2005, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

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.

Dyze · 09-15-2005, 12:42 AM

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.

loganmule · 09-23-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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.

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"?

Marvelous Marv · 09-23-2005, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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."

...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.

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.

Bodyhammer86 · 09-23-2005, 09:38 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

tecoyah · 09-24-2005, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

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.

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?

stevo · 09-30-2005, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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.

Marvelous Marv · 10-01-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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?

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:

Quote:

Say what you like about Clinton, at least when he admitted a mistake, he admitted the mistake.

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

Quote:

New Orleans evacuation plan was never delivered by FEMA

Congress issued the order in 1997

By Rita Beamish
ASSOCIATED PRESS

September 18, 2005

As much as eight years ago, Congress ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop a plan for evacuating New Orleans during a massive hurricane, but the money instead went to studying the causeway bridge that spans the city's Lake Pontchartrain, officials say.

The outcome provides one more example of the government's failure to prepare for a massive but foreseeable catastrophe, said the lawmaker who helped secure the money for FEMA to develop the evacuation plan.

"They never used it for the intended purpose," said former U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La. "The whole intent was to give them resources so they could plan an evacuation of New Orleans that anticipated that a very large number of people would never leave."

In Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, attention has focused on the inability of local and federal officials to evacuate or prepare for the large number of poor people, many of them minorities, who had no access to transportation and remained behind.

That possibility was one of the concerns that led Congress in 1997 to set aside $500,000 for FEMA to create "a comprehensive analysis and plan of all evacuation alternatives for the New Orleans metropolitan area."

Frustrated two years later that nothing materialized, Congress strengthened its directive. This time it ordered "an evacuation plan for a Category 3 or greater storm, a levee break, flood or other natural disaster for the New Orleans area."

The $500,000 that Congress appropriated for the evacuation plan went to a commission that studied future options for the 24-mile bridge over Lake Pontchartrain, FEMA spokesman Butch Kinerney said.

The hefty report produced by the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission "primarily was not about evacuation," said Robert Lambert, the general manager for the bridge expressway. "In general, it was an overview of all the things we need to do" for the causeway through 2016.

Lambert said he could not trace how or if FEMA money came to the commission. Nor could Shelby LaSalle, a causeway consulting engineer who worked on the plan.

LaSalle said it would be "ludicrous" to consider his report an evacuation plan, though it had a transportation evacuation section, dated Dec. 19, 1997. That part was tacked on mainly to promote the causeway for future designation as an official evacuation route, LaSalle said.

"We didn't do anything for FEMA," he added.

Asked why the congressional mandate was never fulfilled, Barry Scanlon, senior vice president in the consulting firm of former FEMA Director James Lee Witt, said he believes the agency did what it needed when it gave the money to the state.

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."

Marvelous Marv · 10-01-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

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.

You're right, of course.

09-13-2005, 04:00 PM	#1 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

09-13-2005, 04:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-13-2005, 05:00 PM	#5 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-13-2005, 05:26 PM	#6 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	A little too late. Sorry. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

09-13-2005, 07:23 PM	#8 (permalink)
spongy Psycho	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+ __________________ The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed. Stephen King

09-13-2005, 04:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	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?

09-13-2005, 05:38 PM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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.

09-13-2005, 08:34 PM	#9 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

09-14-2005, 07:09 AM	#10 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	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.

09-14-2005, 07:30 AM	#11 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	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 can't read your signature. Sorry.

09-15-2005, 12:42 AM	#13 (permalink)
Dyze Crazy	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. __________________ Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do.