Now He Wants to Know?

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?

PRESIDENT 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. And it's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on and -- so that we can better respond.

Despite the ballyhoo the press will make out of what sounds like a long-awaited admission of imperfection by President Bush, I refuse to be mollified by the phrase "I take responsibility."

"To the extent" that he takes responsibility, he has to be able to explain what, exactly, he's taking responsibility for, and what he intends to do about it. He hasn't, and probably won't.

And isn't it a bit late for him to show up without an answer to the "are we prepared?" question. Hasn't it been his number-one job for the last four years to make sure we were? Isn't that what he campaigned about, loosing his attack dogs to besmirch the reputation of a decorated war veteran? How long do you think it would have taken President Kerry to respond to Katrina?

It's not acceptable for President Bush to say that it is "a very important question!" It shouldn't be a question for him. It should be a known fact, because he's been working to assure it, and he has tested it himself. He doesn't get to be the surprised by-stander, saying "Aw, shucks, we oughta go look into that and see if we're ready or not."

And the fact that he takes that rhetorical posture proves that, in fact, he doesn't actually take responsibility at all. This pretense that he is able to take responsibility, while simultaneously suggesting that we don't know what went wrong is just plain silly.

We have plenty of specific knowledge already of things that went wrong; which is he taking responsibility for, exactly, and why? Gutting FEMA and filling it with cronies? Ignoring the many voices complaining about the short-shrift state and local authorities were getting for years? Gadding about in Arizona while New Orleans flooded? Failing to catch even half-an-hour of CNN coverage Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday? What?

This is like Dennis the Menace with a bat standing outside the broken window saying, "I'd like to know what went right with that window, and what went wrong. To the extent that our playing baseball in the front yard might have not fully done its job right, I take responsibility." I don't think Mr. Wilson would be satisfied.

"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right," what is he going to do? How is he going to "fix the window?" Will he resign? Will he ask for resignations from others, perhaps the cronies at FEMA and other government agencies? Will he offer to bring back the Louisiana National Guard equipment in Iraq? Will he appoint James Lee Witt to head a commission? Or will he move on to something else, leaving others to clean up his mess?

Just how will he act to turn "responsibility" from a mealy buzzword into something real? Now that is a "very important question."