I saw the video. The right wing has the spin on this. You remember when Bush said that no one could have anticipated the breech of the levees, both Trent Duffy and Byron York said that Max Mayfield never mentioned the breaching of the levees, only the topping of them.
   Now the right wingers are parsing their words. It's like what the meaning of is is. These baldface cowards always protect this criminal don't they!!

Yes, they always will protect him because they are all just like him.

When water comes over an earth dam (like a levee), you know it is going to erode away in a matter of minutes. So when someone says "top" is not equal to "breach," that is just nonsense.

These really are pathetic, weak, liars, and the only way to not beat them is through appeasement, weakness, and lack of will.  Are Dems "angry?" I don't think that's a liability. These are cowardly, lying, thieves who will try to ingratiate themselves so they can get thrugh the next election so they can right back to lying and stealing. Let the GOP ridicule Bush "lied," - add "thieves" and "cowards" and "dictator wannabes"

This is really something that needs to be focused on.  Sun Tzu's analysis produces what he calls "the Bush meme," which I claim is grounded in a basic trust of Bush, which is the root of how he has been sold--as a strong, honest leader.

Bush is not alone in this, of course.  Matt is 100% correct that it is a more general trait of conservatives, just as the opposite image is generally seen as applying to conservatives as well.

So why is this so?  Why do they appear to be the opposite of what they are, and why are strength and honesty the traits they appear to have, but lack?

Here's a simple explanation, and it comes straight out of Lakoff's Moral Politics, the book in which he explains the logic of the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent models.  Toward the end of the book, after he's explained the logic of the two models, he turns to the question of whether one is superior.

Based on a review of childrearing research, Lakoff concludes that the Nurturant Parent model is superior, because it actually produces what it sets out to produce--children who grow up to be strong, autonomous, nurturant adults.  But the Strict Father model does not deliver the goods.  It produces children who lack moral autonomy and strength--much less nurturance.

Indeed, one can readily argue that strength is so important to the Strict Father mentality precisely because it is missing.  Nurturance is missing as well, of course.  But one who is weak can't even allow themselves to think about nurturance.  Strength, however, is something they can fantasize about.  And fantasize they do.  And dress up in flight suits with codpieces, and pretend.

So, that's where the pretence to strength comes from. That's why it's so central for conservatives.  Not just for Bush, but for all of them as a group.  That's why they're so concerned about "standing tall" and all.

But what about honesty?  Why's that such a big deal?

Well, isn't it obvious?  If you're lying about being strong, and nothing is more important to you than promoting and defending that lie, avoiding the fact that you're weak, then the next most important thing to be worried about is the fact that you're lying about what matters most to you--about your strength.  And so you must vehemently (i.e. with force and strength) assert that you're honest, and not just honest, but strong.

And everything you've got you pour into preserving and defending those two fundamental lies.

And that's how you get a party of cowardly liars parading about in drag as strong and honest men.

The video vindicates "Brownie." He was expressing all the right concerns, while monkey boy sat quietly watching like a disinterested spectator.

The Bush Crime Family set up Michael Brown to be the goat for their pre-planned negligence to federal emergency responsiveness ("Don't just do something, stand there").

The nation needs to understand that Katrina is one of many tragic milestones epitomizing the governing failure of the callous conservative world view.

I second Matt-- bush is too effing weak.

What's the one thing presidents can do that no one else can? They can order people to get information and do things (especially in their very own playground, the "unitary executive branch").

If they sense a problem or think there might be one, they can order their people to get someone on the phone or get his/her sorry ass into the Oval Office and make the heat felt. That's the point of being boss.

bush did none of that. The moment Rove comes to him and says something isn't 100% (or if, shockingly, he's to look at some news outlet all on his own), all bush has to do is say "who's in charge down there? I want him/her on the line and I want to know what the hell is going on there and what they need."

Personal attention from the boss-person gets results. Anybody who's ever been in a real-world situation understands that. The only result bush cares about, though, is image burnishing.

A miserable excuse for a human being, so self-centered and so unheeding of anyone else that he can't be bothered to use the authority his position gives him in order to help anyone but himself. All hat and no cattle indeed.

You're all missing the point. You have twisted Bush's comment INTO a lie. The fact of the matter is, contrary to what I heard on RadioPower.org this morning, Bush could not have done ANYTHING to prevent Katrina. Yes, the levees were not strong enough to hold back the floodwaters...AND, yes, there have been many presidents that knew this fact. Including Mr. Clinton!...nothing was done. The point is this...our (technical) ability to predict what size storm will, or will not, totally destroy the levees is obviously not accurately "predictive" enough. To say that it was Bush's fault that New Orleans was destroyed by Katrina (as I heard on RadioPower.org is morning), is ridiculous! It is also ridiculous to assume that we will ever to able to rebuild the levee system to GUARANTEE that the next big storm won't destroy New Orleans again. (I would speculate, that, in 5 years from now, when the levee system is again compromised, that everyone will still be blaming Bush for not fixing it correctly!). ENOUGH politics already...instead of wasting time critizing, help the people of New Orleans put their lives back together...