Bush is ‘taking responsibility,’ but that wasn’t the question

The political world did an understandable double-take yesterday when Bush sort-of accepted responsibility for failures the federal government made in responding to Hurricane Katrina. But it’s worth noting that Bush was responding to a question that sought entirely different information.

Q: 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: 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. I want to know what went right and what went wrong. I want to know how to better cooperate with state and local government, to be able to answer that very question that you asked: Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm. And that’s a very important question.

I’m delighted to see Bush use the “r” word, but this was a chance for the president to explain to the nation and the world that the United States government — more than four years after 9/11 — has taken all necessary steps and is prepared to respond to a massive disaster, even if it came by way of a terrorist act. The correct answer is, “America is ready.” The wrong answer is, “That’s a very important question.”

The fact is, Bush praised the question but never answered it. By any reasonable standard, this is unacceptable. The president and his administration have had years of warnings, years to prepare, and years of studies, commissions, and investigations. But when asked directly if the public should be concerned about the nation’s readiness, Bush can do no better than to say he wants to know how to cooperate with local officials so he can answer the question.

I feel safer already.

It may sound unseemly, but Slate’s John Dickerson explained well how Bush’s weakness on this question matters in a partisan political context.

[Democrats] need suburban voters, and for suburban voters, Katrina isn’t so much about race, it’s about homeland security — about what would happen if someone bombs their mall.

This sounds largely correct to me. I suspect a lot of middle-class suburban families backed Bush last year because, for reasons that I can’t understand, they believed he could help keep them safe from “evildoers.” With this in mind, I wonder how many of them shuddered when they saw the president (if they saw the president) respond to a question about American preparedness for a disaster by saying, “I want to know how to better cooperate with state and local government, to be able to answer that very question that you asked.”

Heck, how many of them (lower middle class suburban families) that lived in St. Bernard Parish (almost the entire Parish) and who voted for Bush (almost all of them) are now shuddering because they have no homes, no nothing. You get what you pay for. Buyer’s remorse? I think there is a lot of that going on these days. Many of these folks are our friends who have lost everything. And many of them, belatedly, are starting to realize that their voting actions have real world consequences. But I’ve (and many, many others) always said that it is going to take a serious smackdown of some sort to make people wake up. I always thought it would only be a huge economic smack-down (high interest rates, foreclosures, losses of jobs) that would jolt these sort of folk to their senses. I guess a huge natural disaster works as well. But at what cost…

  • As I wrote on another site, watch the video of Bush making his apology. The body language is startling. He looks just like a pre-teen who is being forced to “make-up” with someone he’s had a fight with. He is clearly experiencing extreme agony at having to apologize and refuses to look directly at anyone. Someone (probably the puppet-master Rove) put him up to this. It was clearly not his own idea.

  • Take another look at that video. Watch Dubya’s body language, listen to the slurred speech. Is it my imagination, or is the guy drinking again?

  • Jeff R is correct. Bush never has good ideas. This situation reminds me of the story of the professor who grades a student’s work with the comment
    :Your ideas are both good and original. But the good part is not original
    and the original part is not good.”
    Who knows, maybe his old man slapped him upside the head off camera
    for being a complete idiot in front of the whole world. The fortunes of the
    Bush Family Dynasty are not looking too good these days. W has
    blown it for Jeb in 2008. Maybe its time for them to start looking for
    a new place to live, say, Aruba.

  • Re: Charles’ comment and GW drinking–I’m so glad someone has finally said something, because there’s something I’ve noticed over the last several months and I’ve wondered if anyone else is seeing it.

    Beginning with his TV appearance announcing Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, I noticed a strange new tic on George. His bottom jaw kept grinding and jerking side-to-side. And I’ve seen it more times than I can count since.

    This is exactly what happens when a person is doing cocaine. The jaw makes that same grinding, jerking motion.

    If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t there a question about GW and an affinity for the white horse some time back? Keep an eye out for it–you can’t miss it…

  • The jaw-grinding and jerking is a side effect of a lot of drugs other than cocaine. Interestingly, Prozac causes grinding, as to a lot of other psychotropics. I would think he’s taking one of those. His father depended on Halcion during his term. That was actually the culpret when he puked all over the Japanese PM.

  • Comments are closed.