[QUOTE=BBC]"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Mr Bush said at a news conference.[/QUOTE]
Where I come from, if a government official (say a minister or mayor) after a major screw-up says he "takes responsibility", that usually means he's stepping down, even if he didn't screw up himself personally, but people under his responsibility.
I realise I'm hoping for too much here (and we would get darling Richard for president of the US anyway). But what could Bush possibly mean by "I take responsibility"? Or is it hollow rhetoric with an eye on his approval ratings?
I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
I dont see bush stepping down anytime soon. Thats how we Americans are. Easier said then done
[url=tamriel-rebuilt.org]Tamriel Rebuilt and,[/url] [url="http://z13.invisionfree.com/Chus_Mod_Forum/index.php?"]My Mod Fansite[/url] I am the Lord of Programming, and your Mother Board, and your RAR Unpacker, and Your Runtime Engine, can tell you all about it
It's a gesture thrown out to save the republican party's reputation. Nothing more. The idiots will eat it up again no doubt.
"You can do whatever you want to me." "Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?" "So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
[QUOTE=Magrus]It's a gesture thrown out to save the republican party's reputation. Nothing more. The idiots will eat it up again no doubt.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Remember, the value of an apology is only as great as the value placed by that person upon statements in general. Bush and his associates have a history of saying whatever they want to their advantage, even when the content of their remarks have been disproven again and again, afterwards. Most notable along these lines was Rumsfeld's "taking responsibility" for the Iraqi prisoner abuses scandal. Once he said it, he angrily snapped at the press that the matter was done with, and Bush completely and loudly backed him.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]Agreed. Remember, the value of an apology is only as great as the value placed by that person upon statements in general. Bush and his associates have a history of saying whatever they want to their advantage, even when the content of their remarks have been disproven again and again, afterwards. .[/QUOTE]
Also brings to mind mission accomplished banner and the backlash
[url=tamriel-rebuilt.org]Tamriel Rebuilt and,[/url] [url="http://z13.invisionfree.com/Chus_Mod_Forum/index.php?"]My Mod Fansite[/url] I am the Lord of Programming, and your Mother Board, and your RAR Unpacker, and Your Runtime Engine, can tell you all about it
Bush has finally made the ultimate sacrifice (i.e., admitting fault for the first time in his political life), and he did it to save, uh, his own political life. The only question is whether it was calculated (planned in advance) or spoken spontaneously while he was rambling to avoid giving a direct answer to the reporter's question he was evading at the time.
The reporter asked Bush: "Mr. President, given what happened with Katrina, shouldn't Americans be concerned if their government isn't prepared to respond to another disaster or even a terrorist attack?"
Bush responded: "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."
In other words, he's perfectly willing to blame the mistakes on OTHER branches of government; but IF it can be determined that anything was wrong with the federal government's reponse to Katrina--and Bush has not admitted that the federal government did anything wrong--he will supposedly "take responsibility" for it. But that is not what the reporter asked him. Bush failed to say whether he thinks that America is safe from another terrorist attack or whether he thinks America is unprepared for one. "We're accountable if you can ever make us admit that we made mistakes" does not inspire much confidence, as far as I'm concerned. But who knows? Maybe some Americans will think that Bush has demonstrated "character". All they seem to expect is talk, not action.
He is the polar opposite of Truman, who had "The Buck Stops Here" on a nameplate on his desk. Bush's motto, as I've stated here before, should be "Never accept the blame for anything."
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]He is the polar opposite of Truman, who had "The Buck Stops Here" on a nameplate on his desk. Bush's motto, as I've stated here before, should be "Never accept the blame for anything."[/QUOTE]
...and if you can convince the American people that it was some how Clinton's fault, do that first.
I'm consistently amazed by how effective the Bush administration has been at using examples of their own failures to their advantage whether it is through sheer rhetoric or by placing the blame on someone else.
But, no, Bush will never step down (of course that would leave us with Satan...I mean Cheney...as president anyway, which is just as bad.). And, this is clearly not a genuine apology or a taking of responsibility. It is, however, a very carefully worded attempt at appeasing the populace. We'll see how it works. He's sitting on very low approval ratings (I believe 32%) in the wake of rising gas prices and his administration's handling of Katrina. I imagine that those obstacles - as they have had actual effects on real Americans - will be harder to overcome than previous incidents. Though, probably some of this disapproval will fade with time.
[QUOTE=Magrus]It's a gesture thrown out to save the republican party's reputation. Nothing more. The idiots will eat it up again no doubt.[/QUOTE]
Once again, Magrus pretty much nails it on the head. lol. It's sad, but it's true. And as VonDondu said, he completely avoided answering the question he was asked just so he could do this; did anyone complain at the time? Doubt it (I'm sure the reporters were all just as shocked to see Bush take responsibility for it as anybody).
[QUOTE=fable]Agreed. Remember, the value of an apology is only as great as the value placed by that person upon statements in general.[/QUOTE]
I've come to find that apologies are never truly for the apologized anyway; it's for the apologizer. When I see someone apologize to someone else, they either don't mean it or they're doing it to soothe their own conscience, and it has very little to do with the person they're apologizing to. That, and when you were kids, you were taught to apologize when you did something wrong, and I know for me it's become automatic, and I don't remember the last time I honestly, truly meant it.
General: "Those aren't ideas; those are special effects."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
[QUOTE=HighLordDave]I don't see the "no spam" line on this thread, so I thought I share this with you guys.
It's one of Dubya's vacation photos . . . you know, the vacation he was on and stayed on even after the hurricane hit the gulf coast.
[/QUOTE]
Nice.
Buy a GameBanshee T-Shirt [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68975"]HERE[/url]! Sabre's [url="http://www.users.bigpond.com/qtnt/index.htm"]site[/url] for Baldur's Gate series' patches and items. This has been a Drive-by Hilling.
[QUOTE=Chimaera182]I've come to find that apologies are never truly for the apologized anyway; it's for the apologizer. When I see someone apologize to someone else, they either don't mean it or they're doing it to soothe their own conscience, and it has very little to do with the person they're apologizing to. That, and when you were kids, you were taught to apologize when you did something wrong, and I know for me it's become automatic, and I don't remember the last time I honestly, truly meant it.[/QUOTE]
I can't say the same about myself. When I've made a mistake that has hurt my wife, for instance, I will genuinely apologize. Words are devalued only to the extent to you mint false coin. If you invest words with meaning--and I do, except when joking--then they count.
As for Bush, I'm sure he wasn't meant for himself, but to make people forget about the matter. His actions and words throughout his entire career lend weight to this view of him. He is utterly without concern, a political animal to the fingertips.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Bush? As in our President George W. Bush? Took responsibility for not respondin... not responding to the devastation of the hurricane fast e... oh dear god...
(head explodes)
"Be thankful you're healthy." "Be bitter you're not going to stay that way."
"Be glad you're even alive." "Be furious you're going to die."
"Things could be much worse." "They could be one hell of a lot better."
Honestly I don't believe he should be blamed for the lack of preparedness that Louisiana and New Orleans experienced. The disaster was the result of too many people failing to evacuate and the lack of quick action on the part of the governor of Louisiana. Once the president declared a federal emergency the ball was out of his court and the governors of the states effected are too call in the national guard and other assets as they believe they need them, but the governor of Louisiana unlike the governor of Mississippi and Alabama waited to call the national guard and didn't require a mandatory evacuation until it was too late to aid those people who needed help evacuating. The press however blames the president for not doing enough and by apologizing it forces them to drop the issue for the most part. Besides it's really a token gesture Bush can't run again and no one from his administration will run either. So it keeps him from being attacked in the media and puts focus on other important issues mainly the supreme court. All and all it seems a little silly to accept blame but it has no real effect.
[QUOTE=Dace]Honestly I don't believe he should be blamed for the lack of preparedness that Louisiana and New Orleans experienced. [/QUOTE]
For the most part, it is silly to blame Bush for the hurricane. Obviously, it wasn't his fault. However, certainly his policies have not been in the best interest of protecting the regions. His administration has turned over wetlands to developers, which has robbed the region of its natural protection against hurricanes. Likewise, the controversy has been swarming as to whether Bush deserves blame for cutting levee funding that was earmarked toward protecting New Orleans from the hurricane. Likewise, the Bush administration has continually downgraded the funding and position of FEMA, limiting its effectiveness in responding to emergencies. These are all more complicated issues. Surely, he didn't cause the hurricane, but he can't really be credited with being a protector of the region, either.
Whether his administration deserves some of the blame for the preparedness of Louisiana for the disaster is another issue entirely. Certainly, it was the president's responsibility to coordinate a federal response to this disaster (no, the ball was not, nor should have, been in the governor's court alone). Bush did so by appointing Michael Brown (through Chertoff) head up a response. Despite significant forewarning, the federal response seemed largely unplanned and unprepared. For this, the Bush administration does receive some well earned blame.
The issue of evacuation is more nuanced. The reason that many citizens did not leave in a timely fashion was because many residents lacked cars or had no other place to go. From what I've read, somewhere around a quarter of New Orleans citizen, for starters, did not own vehicles. So, the federal and local evacuation orders probably shouldn't have remained "voluntary" or up to each individual citizen. Some sort of more organized evacuation should have been conducted at a very early date, with shelters set up for those who needed them. Expecting the Federal Government to provide leadership and resources in this effort is perfectly reasonable.
All in all, as leader of the United States, Bush does deserve significant blame for the way in which his administration handled the crisis. This is not to say the governor's office doesn't deserve blame as well. But, certainly, Bush could and should have stepped in at a very early gesture to help ready the region for the impending disaster. And, certainly, his administration could have been more efficient about handling the disaster once it happened. Leaving his vacation early, would have at least been a nice public gesture....This is probably the single biggest problem. Bush and company provided little leadership in the earliest days of the crisis. This is the single biggest reason people are so critical and frustrated with the president in regard to the crisis. Instead, people have in their head images of Bush playing a guitar or going fishing while this was going on.
And, certainly, Bush is sort of apologizing as a way to appease people. There is little doubt of this. But, sure, Bush has a lot to lose by declining popularity ratings. He's trying to push through 2 Supreme Court candidates and will, undoubtedly, be attempting to push through an ideological successor in the next presidential primaries. He won't be able to succeed in these tasks, or will encounter some serious roadblocks, if he's looked as a lame duck president with little political weight.
[QUOTE=Dace]Honestly I don't believe he should be blamed for the lack of preparedness that Louisiana and New Orleans experienced. The disaster was the result of too many people failing to evacuate and the lack of quick action on the part of the governor of Louisiana.[/quote]
And the fact that every federal government since Nixon has turned down both the state and city requests to adequately redesign and rebuild the levies. To this extent, each federal government since 1970 has borne responsibility, but Bush and his pet Congress had the latest watch, and they failed it.
Once the president declared a federal emergency the ball was out of his court and the governors of the states effected are too call in the national guard...
Not so. Jurisdiction for a federal emergency falls under the balliwick of the new federal division, Homeland Security, whose leaders were handpicked by Bush, and whose budget he, and the leaders of both Congressional houses, lobbied for, hard. Didn't you hear that New Orleans' disaster relief plan wasn't under FEMA's control? And that's FEMA's chief stepped down under continuing national pressure? FEMA stands for Federal Emergency Management Agency. The connection to federal control of the situation in a bureau under the President's watch is inescapable.
As for the guards: half the supplies nationwide of all National Guard units--helicopters, humvees, trucks, weapons, munitions--were moved by the President's executive order to Iraq. A total of 78,000 national guard troops are now in Iraq--again, by executive order. There were no guards to send. Didn't you hear that the troops which finally showed up were actually shipped back from Iraq?
...and other assets as they believe they need them, but the governor of Louisiana unlike the governor of Mississippi and Alabama waited to call the national guard and didn't require a mandatory evacuation until it was too late to aid those people who needed help evacuating.
While no one is belittling the extent of the damager in Mississippi and Alabama, it wasn't the absolute disaster of New Orleans. That's why the respective state governors could wait. There really is no grounds for comparison between the situations.
The press however blames the president for not doing enough...
Actually, no. You make it sound as though "the press" is gunning for Bush, when for the last five years, he's been given a very hands-off approach. (Compare this to Clinton, whom the newspapers had a field day upon; and mind you, I personally loathe Clinton. Remember, most of the large media in the country was sold off to three huge conglomerates back in the early 1980s under a new FCC adminstration, and while one doesn't affect policy, the other two are diehard ultra-conservative. Ever heard of Rupert Murdock?) The complaints came from the state and local governments, and the huge number of residents--some of whom got out in time and called their Congressional representatives, some of whom went on radio and television. Do you think it's the duty of a radio call-in host to cut short anybody complaining live about a nationwide disaster in the making down in New Orleans?
...and by apologizing it forces them to drop the issue for the most part.
Facts show nothing of the kind. Bush's ratings still haven't risen even the slightest since his crash following New Orleans, and there's no evidence this blunder, or its consequences, are going to go away anytime soon. Do you watch only Fox News?
Besides it's really a token gesture Bush can't run again and no one from his administration will run either.
Either Bush apologized because he needed the press to drop the matter, which argues its importance, or his apology was really just a token gesture and Bush doesn't care, because he can't get reelected. You can't have it both ways.
So it keeps him from being attacked in the media and puts focus on other important issues mainly the supreme court. All and all it seems a little silly to accept blame but it has no real effect.
I agree with you the statement of responsibility has had little effect, but that's probably because Bush has simply told too many lies, too often, in full public view. Even many Americans, notoriously willing to forgive a leader because he's a "leader," seem to have had quite enough.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
(and we would get darling Richard for president of the US anyway). But what could Bush possibly mean by "I take responsibility"? Or is it hollow rhetoric with an eye on his approval ratings?
