News-Record.com

I appreciated the very Presidential speech. It was the kind that can galvanize a lot of positive, cooperative action, and make us feel like one nation again. It was also nice to hear an acknowledgement of the root causes of poverty in that region instead of another round of blaming the victims.

Tomorrow night, I'd like to hear the speech that outlines where all that money is going to come from, what sacrifices we will be asked to make, and what priority shifts in budgets have been planned to make this possible. I'd like to hear a justification for continuing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at a time when our country seems to be sliding deeper into a bottomless deficit. Given the extreme economic situation, I also want to hear his plan for ending our involvement in Iraq on a very rapid timetable.

I'd like to know how, once the Cabinet members review what happened, the President plans to report back to the people on what the government learned from Katrina, and what changes are being made to address the shortcomings. I'd like to hear that this reportage will happen within 30 days -- hopefully before the next disaster.

I'd like to hear a detailed rationale for cutting the pay of reconstruction workers, and putting Karl Rove, a political advisor, in charge of the logistical, financial, and engineering challenge that will be the reconstruction effort. I'd like some assurances that where there is profit to be made from these efforts, those opportunities in the form of government contracts will be equitably and broadly distributed.

That type of action, not a pretty speech, are steps on the road to taking responsibility and being accountable.

Good luck with that other dialogue, Allen.

Allen, the notion that "the buck has tended to stop ... somewhere else in this administration" is a media created slogan to beat Bush with. Put some substance behind it. Exactly where and when should Bush have taken the blame for something that he did not take? I am definately not suggesting that he is infallible, but I am fascinated by this notion that Bush owes an apology or mea culpa for something without plugging in specifics.

Compare that to Clinton who never apologized for anything either, most of all for pointing his finger in our face and flat out lying. He dragged the country through the whole Lewinsky affair for nearly a year when it could have been avoided with a simple mea culpa and apology from the start. Did he apologize for the Waco disaster? No.

If you are going to tow the line that Bush never takes the blame, please provide some specifics.

Also, I don't dispute that some poverty in minority communities is the result of historical racial discrimination. However, I think that many of the large number of dirt poor white people in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana might take offense to the suggestion by the President and apparently endorsed by you that race is somehow a large factor in poverty. What is their excuse?

I also welcome the dialogue because I believe that there is a big gap in perceptions between the races. I prefer to deal with logic and facts, but that only works if everyone agrees to those two limitations (just logic, just facts). It is the perceptions that cause the conflicts more than the reality. However, without a dialogue the conflicts will never be resolved.

Say something about Bush that isn't 100% positive and there's sure to be a "What about Clinton?" retort as if Bush is "good" in comparison only to the fact that Clinton did 'a very bad thing' so therefore President Bush is 'better.' Or some such logic. Can't we get over this comparison and think about Bush in terms of Bush alone?

Last night, I read the comments on a thread about reaction to the speech in the grass. Every other post (these were thoughtful, non-deranged commenters) asked the same question.

"How's he going to pay for this?"

(Most mentioned something about NOT giving another tax break right now to the 20,000 richest Americans.)

Unprecedented debt. Unprecedented tax cuts. Might there be a connection?

When did President Bush NOT take responsibility for the actions of the federal government?
He's never denied that he was responsible for the actions of the federal government. Quite the contrary, he's had a very public hands-on presence throughout this whole disaster.
Those on the Left look at this unnecessary "admission" somehow as evidence that he was hiding from something; as if he had to publicly affirm that he is the President or we wouldn't realize it.

Sue,

I understand your point and completely agree about comparing Bush to Clinton. Totally different Presidents with totally different platforms and ideologies. So why compare them? I get tired of that response by Republicans as well. I guess it is just human nature or something.

The problem isn't just on the individual level. Just this morning, one of the news stations had Bill Clinton on an interview questioning his reaction to Bush's speech.

Of course, Clinton did his best to be polite given the circumstances. I thought he presented himself fairly well with the exception of doing what you did which was try to somehow link tax cuts for the wealthy with all problems in America. That has been repeated about a zillion times before the last election and it didn't work. That attack is old, somewhat dishonest and I'm frankly tired of hearing it.

But let me get back back to comparing. Why ask a former President his opinion of how the current President handled this and that? Clinton's term is over. He has his time in the spotlight. What he thinks has little bearing on anything. And it just fuels the whole Clinton/Bush comparison.

In my opinion, both are slick politicians who lack real substance and I hope for better the next election.

My point was not simply to compare Bush to Clinton. Rather, it was to point out that the press seems obsessed with Bush's refusal to admit mistakes or apologize, yet they never really tell you what mistakes he should admit (beyong policy differences they disagree with) or things he needs to apologize for.

It is one of those things that if you say it enough, it becomes reality. The Clinton aspect was only thrown in because the press never seemed to raise the same "he never admits mistakes/never apologizes" mantra when 42 was President. Suddenly, they seem to believe that apologizing and admitting mistakes IS necessary even when it IS NOT necessary if you get my drift. All I want are some examples, but no one has brought any forward except for policy disagreements (e.g., "he should apologize for not signing Kyoto, or for sending troops to Iraq) and a President should not apologize or admit he is wrong because not everyone likes his policies.

Here's one: The president has not admitted poor planning and execution following the successful invasion of Iraq.

Here's one back at you, Mr. Johnson:
President Bush has always made it clear he's responsible for the invasion and everything that's happened since.
Your characterization that it was "poor" is just your opinion. Many viewing it from a different angle would disagree with you.
War is a fluid and ever changing environment. The best one can do is have a goal in mind and adjust your response accordingly as things progress to achieve that goal.

Allen, your example is an opinion and a policy difference with Mr. Bush. You feel he should apologize for a policy you don't agree with. That is ridiculous. That's like saying he should apologize for tax cuts or admit they were a mistake- according to who? You and the rest of the media by and large are calling him hard headed and stubborn simply because you disagree with him. We all should be so lucky that those we don't agree with admit they are mistaken merely for disagreeing.

Perhaps the post war planning was wrong in some respects, but wars rarely go as planned. History will be the judge of Mr. Bush. How many sitting Presidents ever admit they made mistakes?

Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs (an Eisenhower plan), but did not apologize for our policy on Cuba. Reagan withdrew our troops from Lebanon, but never admitted it was a mistake. Clinton did not apologize for Somalia, (or Waco, or Haiti- which was ultimately a disaster), Johnson did not apologize for Vietnam, Carter never apologized for allowing hostages to be held for over 400 days and being utterly incompetent in securing their release. So what should Mr. Bush say to please you? "I was wrong about the post war planning, I should have done....X?" What is "x"? and hindsight is 20/20 isn't it?

The man has made mistakes on a number of fronts. All presidents do. But you and the rest of the MSM seem to want him to do what few other presidents have ever done and that is to undermine his office everytime things don't go exactly as planned.