Bush accepts responsibility

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It is two weeks too late.

Quote:

Bush accepts blame for hurricane response failures
PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
AM - Wednesday, 14 September , 2005 08:08:00
Reporter: Mark Simkin
TONY EASTLEY: The floodwaters are slowly receding in Louisiana, but in Washington, the political storm over the slow response to the tragedy is intensifying.

Today George W. Bush acknowledged that the hurricane exposed serious problems in America's ability to respond to disasters, and for the first time, acknowledged that he bears responsibility for the Federal Government's failures during the relief effort.

From Washington, Mark Simkin reports.

(Sound of knock on door, "anyone home?")

MARK SIMKIN: It must be one of the worst jobs on earth.

(Sound of boat engine)

Men are going door to door in New Orleans trying to find bodies that have been in the heat and water for two weeks.

David Johnson is a member of the search and rescue team.

DAVID JOHNSON: If we do come across a body we've been identifying their location with GPS coordinates and basically securing them to something fixed to where they can be relocated later.

MARK SIMKIN: In one hospital, 45 corpses have been discovered. There's dispute about the circumstances of the deaths, but one official says some of the people died four days after the flood, while they were waiting to be evacuated. The electricity was out; the temperature exceeded 40 degrees.

Dave Goodson is the hospital administrator.

DAVE GOODSON: The care to those patients was heroic, we had patients and family members that stayed up around the clock fanning those patients. It was a 24-hour operation.

MARK SIMKIN: The suggestion that the tardy relief effort was partly to blame for the deaths will only inflame criticism of the Government.

Opinion polls suggest that two in three Americans believe the Government responded too slowly. The President's approval ratings are falling, and the political storm is not blowing over.

Today in Washington, George W. Bush appeared at a press conference alongside Iraq's President. The very first question wasn't about the Middle East or the insurgency, it was about something much closer to home.

REPORTER: Given what happened with Katrina, shouldn't Americans be concerned that their Government isn't prepared to respond to another disaster or even a terrorist attack?

GEORGE BUSH: Uh, Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of Government.

MARK SIMKIN: For days now, federal and state officials have been indulging in the blame game. Politicians are discussing plans for an inquiry into the relief effort. And today, for the first time, George W. Bush acknowledged he would shoulder some responsibility.

GEORGE BUSH: 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.

MARK SIMKIN: The hurricane has claimed a victim in Washington. The head of the Federal Emergency Response team, Michael Brown, resigned yesterday after fierce criticism of his performance. His replacement, David Paulison, says now is not the time to discuss past problems.

DAVID PAULISON: I can't deal with what happened in the last two weeks, but I can tell you from this point forward, we are going to be focussing on the victims of this hurricane. We've had a hurricane of unimaginable proportions.

MARK SIMKIN: George W, Bush will make his fourth trip to the devastated region later in the week. He'll make an address to the nation, another sign of how serious the political issue is, and how worried the White House is about it.

This is Mark Simkin in Washington for AM.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,405 • Replies: 20

No top replies

Whoopee. Bush accepts responsibilty for an act of god. How about he accepts responsibility for some of the crimes against humanity he perpetuates?

Red wine, loosener of tongues.

0 Replies

I gotta give it to Bush on this one. Its about time he realize that accepting responsibility is something the president of the United States is supposed to do when it comes to screw ups of this caliber.

Lots of people dropped the ball on this one, including him and his adminstration. Unfortunately, I have the sneaking suspicion he did it more out of playing the political situation and seeing how it was his best bet, as opposed to constant denial of responsibility, since when the dust settles, its going to be clear that he f*cked up just as much as everyone else.

Still, its a good start.

0 Replies

<sigh>

it makes no difference.......

people would gripe if he didn't
people will gripe that he did....

If Kerry had won the election people would be griping about him.

in my entire life, I have never seen a president elected that anyone liked, once he was in office.

0 Replies

I loved Clinton.

I'm glad Bush accepted responsibility.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I loved Clinton.

I'm glad Bush accepted responsibility.

sorry, must edit....I meant according to the media......

it's all just one big joke.

0 Replies

Hmm. Overall, I'd prefer an over-critical media to an under-critical one.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

Whoopee. Bush accepts responsibilty for an act of god. How about he accepts responsibility for some of the crimes against humanity he perpetuates?

Red wine, loosener of tongues.

Please give an example of one of Bush's crimes against humanity.

0 Replies

The invasion of Iraq flaunted international law. How many are dead now that wouldn't have been if he hadn't ignored the UN?

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

The invasion of Iraq flaunted international law. How many are dead now that wouldn't have been if he hadn't ignored the UN?

UN resolution 1441.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

hingehead wrote:
The invasion of Iraq flaunted international law. How many are dead now that wouldn't have been if he hadn't ignored the UN?

UN resolution 1441.

UN WTF???

Quote:

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Kofi Annan

Watch Kofi Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".

Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.

The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.

"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.

'Valid'

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

You can not have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now
Kofi Annan

Annan interview excerpts
UK Colonel accuses Allies

Mr Annan's comments provoked angry suggestions from a former Bush administration aide that they were timed to influence the US November election.

"I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC.

"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."

A UK foreign office spokeswoman said: "The Attorney-General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time".

Australian Prime Minister John Howard also rejected Mr Annan's remarks, saying the legal advice he was given was "entirely valid".

The BBC's Susannah Price at UN headquarters in New York says Mr Annan has made similar comments before.

He has said from the beginning the invasion did not conform with the UN charter - phrasing that was seen as a diplomatic way of saying the war was illegal.

Our correspondent says Mr Annan's relationship with the US might be made a little uncomfortable for a while following his comments, but both sides are likely to want to play it down.

US President George W Bush is due to speak at the UN General Assembly next week.

Iraq elections

Mr Annan also said in the interview the UN would give advice and assistance in the run-up to the elections, but it was up to the Iraqi interim government to decide whether such a vote should go ahead.

He warned there could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now".

The UK foreign office spokeswoman said there was a full commitment to hold elections in January.

Election and political party laws had already been passed and an independent electoral commission established.

"The task is huge and the deadline tight, but the Iraqi people clearly want elections," she said.

On Wednesday, the head of the British army General Sir Mike Jackson said national elections in Iraq were still on track.

On Monday, Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said elections must go ahead as planned although he conceded the violence might stop some Iraqis voting.

However, a day later a car bomb close to an Iraqi police station in central Baghdad killed 47 people and gunmen opened fire on a police minibus in Baquba, killing 12.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
hingehead wrote:
The invasion of Iraq flaunted international law. How many are dead now that wouldn't have been if he hadn't ignored the UN?

UN resolution 1441.

UN WTF???

Quote:
Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Kofi Annan

Watch Kofi Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".

Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.

The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.

"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.

'Valid'

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

You can not have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now
Kofi Annan

Annan interview excerpts
UK Colonel accuses Allies

Mr Annan's comments provoked angry suggestions from a former Bush administration aide that they were timed to influence the US November election.

"I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC.

"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."

A UK foreign office spokeswoman said: "The Attorney-General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time".

Australian Prime Minister John Howard also rejected Mr Annan's remarks, saying the legal advice he was given was "entirely valid".

The BBC's Susannah Price at UN headquarters in New York says Mr Annan has made similar comments before.

He has said from the beginning the invasion did not conform with the UN charter - phrasing that was seen as a diplomatic way of saying the war was illegal.

Our correspondent says Mr Annan's relationship with the US might be made a little uncomfortable for a while following his comments, but both sides are likely to want to play it down.

US President George W Bush is due to speak at the UN General Assembly next week.

Iraq elections

Mr Annan also said in the interview the UN would give advice and assistance in the run-up to the elections, but it was up to the Iraqi interim government to decide whether such a vote should go ahead.

He warned there could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now".

The UK foreign office spokeswoman said there was a full commitment to hold elections in January.

Election and political party laws had already been passed and an independent electoral commission established.

"The task is huge and the deadline tight, but the Iraqi people clearly want elections," she said.

On Wednesday, the head of the British army General Sir Mike Jackson said national elections in Iraq were still on track.

On Monday, Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said elections must go ahead as planned although he conceded the violence might stop some Iraqis voting.

However, a day later a car bomb close to an Iraqi police station in central Baghdad killed 47 people and gunmen opened fire on a police minibus in Baquba, killing 12.

This coming from the same guy who allowed Saddam to scam on the Oil for food program?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

This coming from the same guy who allowed Saddam to scam on the Oil for food program?

So the same administration that allowed US enterprises to scam on the Oil for food program and said that the UN is insignificant justifies the war against Saddam with a UN resolution?

0 Replies

The question is whether or not the US had UN approval to invade Iraq. Oil for Food is a separate issue entirely-it has nothing to do with this at all.

The UN forced Iraq to accept a first inspections round. Iraq agreed, fearful of US/UK intervention. The first round of inspections were not satisfactory, as Iraq did not comply with the rules.

The UN decided to hold a second round of inspections. Here, the Iraqis DID cooperate the way they were supposed to, and the inspection team reported that good progress was being made.

That's when Bush, either on his own or with support from only Blair, ordered the inspectors out-even though the Iraqis were cooperating-and invaded.

The UN said that invasion was imminent if Saddam did not allow inspectors in. Those inspectors were let in, and cooperated with in the second round of inspections. The UN never authorized Bush to go ahead and invade, and indeed there was no reason for Bush to invade other thant he fact that he had whipped the US into a war frenzy, and he was afraid the inspectors might find no Weapons Of Mass Destruction and ruin his invasion plans.

The Oil For Food program had nothing to do with this at all.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
This coming from the same guy who allowed Saddam to scam on the Oil for food program?

So the same administration that allowed US enterprises to scam on the Oil for food program and said that the UN is insignificant justifies the war against Saddam with a UN resolution?

Which US enterprises were these?

0 Replies

How about Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco or El Paso Corp. ? That's what the Duelfer report said.

But then there was of course the Senate investigations committee on the oil for food program (remember Coleman/Galloway?)...

This committee presented documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them. The Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

0 Replies

Baldimo, in case you missed the whole episode somehow, I found you an article from the Guardian as well as the REPORT ON ILLEGAL SURCHARGES ON OIL-FOR-FOOD CONTRACTS AND ILLEGAL OIL SHIPMENTS FROM KHOR AL-AMAYA. It's a big pdf file, though, and a long report.

I can understand if you can't be bothered reading it and rather stick to Fox News, but the truth is: the oil for food scam was largely a US scam.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Hmm. Overall, I'd prefer an over-critical media to an under-critical one.

I'd like one that factually just stated the news and didn't manipulate public opinion. I'd like to form my own thank you.

As long as I'm creating a wish list, I'd also like a media that didn't take a relatively small event and turn it into the most important event the world has ever experienced.

I'd like a media that didn't pound the same thing into the ground ad nauseum.

I'd like a media that didn't chase down and cruxify people publiclly, carelessly skipping off in a new direction when they smell fresh blood.

I'd like the media to assume a realistic place in this world. Their word is not the be all and end all.

But, since I know there is no Santa Claus, I won't be getting any of that for Christmas.

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Hmm. Overall, I'd prefer an over-critical media to an under-critical one.

...As long as I'm creating a wish list, I'd also like a media that didn't take a relatively small event and turn it into the most important event the world has ever experienced.

I'd like a media that didn't pound the same thing into the ground ad nauseum.

I'd like a media that didn't chase down and cruxify people publiclly, carelessly skipping off in a new direction when they smell fresh blood...

You mean like Gary Condit re: Chandra Levy murder?

That one changed some political coareers.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Chai Tea wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Hmm. Overall, I'd prefer an over-critical media to an under-critical one.

...As long as I'm creating a wish list, I'd also like a media that didn't take a relatively small event and turn it into the most important event the world has ever experienced.

I'd like a media that didn't pound the same thing into the ground ad nauseum.

I'd like a media that didn't chase down and cruxify people publiclly, carelessly skipping off in a new direction when they smell fresh blood...

You mean like Gary Condit re: Chandra Levy murder?

That one changed some political coareers.

EXACTLY SQUINNY!!!!!

I was going to mention that, but I didn't want to get too long winded.
When appropriate, ask anyone this question: When was the last time you heard any news about Gary Condit?

Answer: September 10, 2001

Were the actual facts regarding condit, and levy disappearance and murder any less important?

No.

Was a juicier story found?

Yes

If 9-11 hadn't happened, how long would Condit have been hung out to dry?

How many times has the news media built up a person to hero status, only to destroy them later.

The media isn't over critical, it's an out of control monster child who feels perpetually entitled to get it's way.

When it is called on its actions, it cries "freedom of the press" or "I don't have to site my sources" just like a brat who takes his ball and goes home.

The emperor is indeed naked.

0 Replies

Bush accepts responsibility

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know