Taking Responsibility?
by Scott Shields, Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 05:29:11 PM EDT
But do the Republicans understand what it means to "take responsibility?" Taking responsibility isn't just a talking point. It's an action. Taking responsibility means that George W. Bush is admitting that the poor response to what happened in New Orleans is, at least in part, his fault. But that doesn't really seem to be what's happening. He certainly didn't take responsibility in this speech.
Taking responsibility does not mean ordering "a comprehensive review" that is unlikely to cite the fact that Bush stayed on vacation, initially unwilling to change his plans. Taking responsibility does not mean putting together a partisan "investigation" with the primary goal of blaming Democrats at the state and local level. Taking responsibility does not mean using this tragedy as an excuse to experiment with right-wing pet projects. Taking responsibility does not mean putting more energy into coordinating a PR campaign than an actual relief effort. And most importantly, saying that you're taking responsibility does not mean that the federal government is now above criticism.
The good news stories that the President told in this address are great. There are obviously great people across the country doing great things for their fellow suffering Americans. It's great that supplies are moving into New Orleans and that the region will be rebuilt. But none of that changes or hides the fact that the federal government massively botched the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
No "we underestimated the problem." No "we made a mistake." Not even a "hey, I'm sorry." In other words, no actual acceptance of responsibility. This President and his allies in Congress are incapable of taking any responsibility for the federal response. It's up to us to hold them responsible.
Tags: Republicans (all tags)









15 Comments