Bush uses the ‘r’ word

September 13, 2005

Bush doesn’t talk about taking responsibility very often, so when he does, it’s noteworthy.

President Bush on Tuesday said he takes responsibility for the federal government’s failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

“Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government and to the extent the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility,” Bush said during a joint news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

According to the White House website, this is only the second time Bush has used the exact phrase “I take responsibility” since becoming president. The first time was a little over two years ago when Bush acknowledged that he is responsible for putting Americans troops into action in Iraq. (He said, at the time, that it was because “Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security.” How quaint.)

He’s toyed with similar admissions — just two weeks ago, Bush said, “I take personal responsibility for everything I say” — but in general, the president has gone out of his way to steer clear of the “r” word, at least with regard to his personal accountability.

Now, however, we get to understand what he means when he says it.

To be sure, Bush accepting responsibility today was an encouraging development. And while the last thing I want to do is get into a semantics argument with the president, usually “taking responsibility” means something along the lines of consequences.

In one sense, Bush accepting responsibility for Katrina-related failures means he’s accepting blame. Who messed up? The administration messed up, and since he’s in charge of the administration, that means the buck stops at the president’s desk. Good.

But in order for the phrase to have real meaning, there has to be a penalty or cost of some kind. If someone “takes responsibility” but nothing happens, it’s purely rhetorical. It’s at empty phrase. It’s tantamount to saying: The administration was negligent, Bush accepts responsibility, and we can all get on with our lives now.

The question now becomes: what will Bush do with this responsibility?

i wonder if he’ll also offer to resign, just as rumsfeld did, then he can enjoy the little theatre of cheney refusing his resignation, perhaps twice, just as he refused rumsfeld’s.

taking responsibility (note: not fault or blame, nor was he sorry) without penalty means nothing. it’s typical alcoholic thinking: it’s my responsibility, baby, see, i’m being a man now, and are you thinking i might really change yet?

  • I’d like to see the department of homeland security actually do something useful. Other than checking the Lake Champlain ferries for terrorist activities. I’m serious, on the Grand Isle, VT to Plattsburgh, NY ferry I’ve had my car searched by coast guard officers 4 times now. Let’s put our money into something that will do us some good.

  • No CB, no! The question becomes: Now that he has taken responsibility, will he use the “S” word? Will he say, “People of the Gulf Coast, I take responsibility and I am sorry. I’m sorry my administration was tardy in assisting you. I’m sorry that our delayed response may have cost people their lives.”

    And that is just the beginning. Also in his little news conference, he said, “Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm? And 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.”

    According to W circa 2004, this was already answered. He was going to be tough on terrorism, he was going to make Americans safer. Now he doesn’t know the answer to the question?? Wonder how the Security Moms feel now?

    So I also demand that he say “I’m sorry” for his claims during the 2004 election that he would make the country safer after 9/11. He would make the country safer by following the 9/11 commission’s guidelines and establishing a Homeland Security Department. It’s all blather and half-hearted efforts with this administration. Other than spend a lot of money and create new levels of beauracracy, what has this admin done??
    Anyone feel safer?

  • The lines I find most interesting from the article are these:

    “As for blunders in the federal response, “I’m not going to defend the process going in,” Bush said. “I am going to defend the people saving lives.” He praised relief workers at all levels. “I want people in America to understand how hard people worked to save lives down there,” he said.”

    I guess that criticizing the president regarding Katrina will now be equated to criticizing the “people saving lives,” just like criticizing the president regarding Iraq is tantamount to criticizing the troops.

  • I doubt there is any serious intention on Bush’s part to follow through on the implications of what he said today. More likely this “confession” is intended to deflect further criticism: “I apologized for all the screw-ups — what the hell else do you want?” What we are still waiting for, of course, is the “A” word: accountability. But this administration has already shown itself almost pathologically accountability-shy.

  • David Frye, in a comedy album had it right 30 years ago, doing an impression of Richard Nixon.
    “I’ll take responsibility, but not the blame. Let me explain…let me explain the difference. People who are to blame lose their jobs. People who are responsible do not.”
    Or something to that effect.

  • he took responsibility only “to the extent” that the feds screwed up, which he has yet to actualy concede in terms that would pass muster in a parliamentary democracy….

  • While I can’t argue that all the cynicism here is unwarranted given the track record of this administration, let’s give credit where due: this was a huge step for Bush. This is the first time, to my recollection, that he has ever admitted that anything undertaken by his administration went other than perfectly. Of course, there may be an element of political necessity to this: realizing they can’t entirely spin their way out of a disaster occurring in the United States quite as easily as one taking place halway around the world, the administration may have decided that the best way to control the political damage would be to publicly accept responsibility for their poor performance and hope that would be sufficient to put the issue out of the public’s mind.

    Nevertheless, this suggests a heretofore unknown awareness on the part of the president that he bears a responsibility for the failures of his administration. The abysmal response to Katrina has created a small crack in the bubble through which Bush has been forced to see reality. As both a sign of political weakness and an unprecedented acknowledgment of the responsibilities of his office, Bush’s statement must be viewed as a positive development.

  • James Dillon

    Although it would be nice if that were true, I really do believe this is just the start of an effort to seriously push the blame elsewhere and to try and insulate the administration from further criticism. And as others have noted, without accountability, responsibility means nothing.

  • j dillon

    do not suffer bush through the soft prejudice of low expectations. that’s been his greatest asset: our assumption of his limited capabilities. just because he’s come out of his bubble for a moment doesn’t mean he should get off. we should expect more of our president and stop treating him like a child who doesn’t know better, but does know he did something wrong, which of course is how he acts.

  • the real test, going forward, is how will they do two things: a.) revamp dhs/fema as a result of this fiasco; b.) oversee the federal role in reconstruction.

    if it’s business as usual, of which i have every expectation, then there’s no reason to give bush any credit.

    if they actually learn and change, which would truly be unprecedented for this administration, then we can say he’s actually learned something.

    Me? i like kerry’s response: “The President has done the obvious, only after it was clear he couldn’t get away with the inexcusable.”

  • Yes, Howard, I agree — Kerry said it best.

    I guess “the bullet has not been dodged” after all.

    There’s more to Bush’s comment than meets the eye. It’s not only extremely rare for Bush to make this kind of admission, it’s out of character. Contrition is not in his nature. And it’s a 180-degree turn from just yesterday, when his minions on Fox were still banging the “state and local government did it” gong, and when he seemed irritable and cranky when asked about Brownie’s resignation (which he didn’t know about).

    It’s clear Bush was told to say this.

    Perceptions have had time to harden since the disaster hit. People, at this point, have pretty much made up their minds about assigning blame; you can see it in the polls. Even the media narrative has become harder and harder to influence.

    Rove must feel very frustrated. This was, in the end, something too big for him to spin his boss out of.

    But he’s no more contrite than his boss is. He’s working a new angle.

    I’ll wait for the other shoe to drop.

  • Perhaps now is the time for George to consider “spending more time with his family.” He and Mikie Brown can hang out together and rehash old times. He always wanted to be in Crawford, anyway. Now is the time to let him stay there to his heart’s content. There’s still a lot of brush to be chopped, isn’t there?

  • It is important to look at the phrasing: “Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government and to the extent the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility.”

    First, we have the phrase “at all levels of government”. The Bushies have been pushing the line for nearly two weeks that the major failures were at the local and state levels.

    Second, we have “to the extent the federal government didn’t fully do its job right”. This goes back to the fact once again that the Bushies think the failures were not at the Federal level. And remember everytime they talk about investigating the Katrina response, Bush and Co. say they are going to look at “what went right and what went wrong”. They are going to trumpet what went “right” and claim credit for it. What went wrong will be other people’s responsibilities. The plain meaning of English words is different to these people than to the rest of use. Remember, the rest of us are stuck in out “reality based” world, and they are not. Just because the rest of the world thinks the Federal response was a disaster, doesn’t mean that the Bushies think it was.

  • I’ll wait for the other shoe to drop.

    JohnnyB has it exactly right. DEMs and hopefully the CCCP will not let up. That way when the shoe drops it won’t matter.

  • Before the other shoe drops I’d like to suggest that Bush place a laptop (with internet connection) prominently on his desk in the Oval Office and while he’s doing that get a TV (with cable) installed there too…it might begin to reassure the American public that he’s somewhat aware of passing events…

    THEN he can call the press in for a photo op…

  • Please don’t get all doey-eyed about Bush saying “I take responsibility.” By taking responsibility, Bush is setting the stage for a power grab by the executive branch. If it was his responsibility, then he can say the only way to fix a problem is to give more power to the prez.

  • Howard and MW had the same reaction which I did. In effect what Bush said was: If we find out that the federal government screwed up it’s my fault and an investigation is needed to determine this. Next will come foot dragging on an investigation, in the hope that the public cools off about the snafu. Then the rigged investigation follows. And what do you know, the federal government didn’t screw up. The fault is with those Dems in Louisiana. This is nothing more than a head fake, in the hope finding running room.

    What truly taking responsibility would sound like is: The government’s response to Katrina was a massive failure. I as the head of that government take full responsiblity for that failure. I deeply apologize to everyone that I let down. We can never replace the lives lost, but will will do everything our power to help you recover. This acceptance of responsibility is not conditioned on the future finding of fact. The responsibility is taken here and now.

  • I’ve been wondering how long it would take Bush to try the Reagan route of accepting responsibility (without it actually meaning anything). Now I know.

    Next, watch for general profiteering from Katrina. 1) No-bid contracts to Republican cronies for cleaning up and rebuilding (either direct to Halliburton or via native-“owned” corporations in Alaska). 2) Profiteers of all stripes buying up flooded and damaged real estate and reselling at a huge profit after the government rebuilds the levees and other infrastructure. 3) Loans offered at steep interest against forthcoming emergency relief funds, or mortages & home equity loans that are designed to trigger foreclosures and seizures (basically indirect versions of #2).

  • Good comments all, the thing that really pisses me off about this Idio-cracy is that it’s the same damn thing they say EVERY time they get into trouble. Cases in point: 9/11, intelligence failure. Subsequent formation of the “Department of Homeland Security” (whatever that means) we’ll make sure it NEVER happens again. Next Up: The War in Iraq: What? What do you mean there’s NO WMD’s….yet again….another MASSIVE failure of these idiots, but we’re taking the lessons we learned in Iraq and making a new cabinet level position, “National Director of Intelligence” so that something like this……wait for it……NEVER happens again. Fast forward: Hurricane Katrina. Once again, ineptitude ruled the day, and we get the same shit shoveled right back at us, we’re going to form a Commission, do an investigation…..so that……IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN…..in my opinion…..that’s strike three! Somebody wake me up when this is all over……sheesh. Responsibility my ass.

  • This is pretty big news.
    First and most importantly, Bush admitted failure. Sure he deflected some of it, but really just admitting mistakes were made has never been done before by Bush. Who knows, maybe this will be his Checkers speech and everything will blow over. It could be, but once we forget about Katrina, Fitz, Delay, and the war will still be around. The republican party is dead in the water for a long time.

    And CarpetB, there has been tremendous consequences to bush’s political machine because of it. Those Dems are getting ballsy and BushCo is in no shape to tame them. The party has taken a major hit and lots of jabs in their immediate and long term future. I think today is just the beginning and I think Bush should have saved his Checkers speech until Fitz hands out the indictments.

  • This is big news…..Dubya admitting responsibility and I don’t take away from thiat However, I just watched the video on the evening news here in Sacramento and this guy was pained in his addmission. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Dubya with such a pained expression. I think the expression not only represented the difficulty in making the statement, but rather he
    was admitting to the end of the “Bush Era”.

    Karl Rove has LOTS of work to do. It’s pretty amazing as to what happens when Karl is out on sick leave with kidney stones………..the country is allowed to actually see how jacked up this administration really is………

    Any ideas on how we can keep Karl out on sick leave?

  • Here are the first few paragraphs from a news item on the CBS web site.(Link below). Note the interesting juxtaposition.

    (CBS/AP) The husband-and-wife owners of a New Orleans-area nursing home where 34 people died in Hurricane Katrina’s floodwaters were charged Tuesday with negligent homicide.

    The case represents the first major prosecution to come out of the disaster in New Orleans.

    The owners of St. Rita’s Nursing Home in the town of Chalmette “were asked if they wanted to move (the patients). They did not. They were warned repeatedly that this storm was coming. In effect, their inaction resulted in the deaths of these patients,” Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti said.

    Salvador A. Mangano and his wife, Mable, surrendered and were jailed on 34 counts of negligent homicide. Each count carries up to five years in prison.

    The Manganos had an evacuation plan as required under state law and a contract with an ambulance service to evacuate the patients, but they did not call the company, Foti said. They also turned down an offer from St. Bernard Parish officials who asked if the nursing home wanted help evacuating, he said.

    Foti said the bodies have not all been identified and he was not sure how many of the victims were patients or staff.

    Only a day before the Manganos were charged, officials disclosed yesterday that 44 elderly people had died in flooded hospital that was supposed to be evacuated. CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan takes a tour of what is left of Memorial Hospital (video).

    The attorney general said he is also investigating that hospital.

    In other news, President Bush Tuesday took responsibility for government failures in dealing with Hurricane Katrina and said the disaster raised broader questions about the government’s ability to respond to natural disasters as well as terror attacks.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/13/katrina/main837963.shtml

  • #12 JohnnyB

    Very Good Point!! I shall await also.
    The State of Louisiana is going to prosecute the owner of the Nursing Home where those helpless people drowned?overdosed by doctors?
    Being held responsible for someone death’s requires punishment—will Bush be punished after his “Confession” on live tv????????

  • Did you notice that as he said the fatal words, how he turned his head away, that for me was the big moment! He could not stand what he had been forced to say something he did not believe, he had said that because he was told it needed to be said, but didn”t have to believe it. Norma

  • This is a growing-up moment for the delinquent-teenager-in-chief.

    It’s a big step forward from “shame on… shame on… can’t get fooled again”.

    As a parent, I have to applaud and feel very proud of what he actually summoned up the courage to say. I know how hard it is to get a little child (or a troubled teenager) to admit they made a mistake, to own up to responsibility for it, to actually feel guilt or remorse. And Shrub is, really, a snotty spoiled little boy, a troubled alcoholic, a sadistic frat-boy in a 50-something-year-old body.

    I think Shrub is horrid president, a dangerous, greedy, power-hungry man. But he’s also a human being and he has serious emotional problems– hence the alcoholism and the sadism. Now if he were a minority in a prison rehabilitation program for gang-banging or drug-dealing or alcoholism or spousal abuse, would we not praise a huge step forward like actually feeling remorse for his sociopathic behaviour? Of course we would. The only difference between Shrub and a violent gangsta teenager is his age, skin colour, and blue-blood pedigree. And, because of that, he’s not just killing and doing damage in his own neighbourhood, but on a monstrous, global scale.

    But that’s the liberal in me: I can’t really truly hate anyone, especially in those moments where they show their humanity and imperfection. At the end of the day, I have no choice but to respond to people’s neediness and troubles with empathy, and to cheer their baby-steps forward into responsible adulthood and towards participation in civil society.

    I agree, he didn’t quite say “I’m sorry” yet– that’s the next step. And I don’t expect to see any useful reforms come out of his admission. But it’s a step forward for him as a human being, and, as flawed a human being as he is, I can’t help but praise the step forward he just took.

    Too bad his father wasn’t around to give him such “attaboys” when it really counted. Indeed, if he had, Shrub himself– and our country, and our world– wouldn’t be as fucked up today.

    (I highly recommend James Hatfield’s biography “Fortunate Son” for an excellent, thoroughly-researched inside-peek into Shrub and the Bush family in general. You get a very clear picture of a boy without a father, who was asked to grow up too fast, and responded by refusing to grow up at all.)

    • Comments are closed.