• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Bush: 'I take responsibility' for U.S. failures

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,747
6,762
126
I just hope we can prevent the Pres from developing some sort of complex over having a failure in life. It would be terrible if he got a feeling of being cursed.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: darkcyber
Yeah, everyone seem really quick to bash Bush, but I have been in emergency services for a long time and the response to a disaster is local, county, state...then federal. The local and county pretty much couldn't respond...but my question, is where was the STATE and the Governor in this response? Oh, she's a demo...so everyone skipped her and went to blame Bush. And besides that she was to busy doing TV interviews to worry about doing anything. She even admitted that she delayed Federal response by at least 2 days herself, because she didn't like the wording the Federal government sent her.

Come on people...the response wasn't what it should have been...by a long shot...but you need to start the blame at the state level, not the federal...the state didn't do crap...period...expect to complain that the federal wasn't doing anything.

At least Bush finally took responsibity for the federal stuff...LA's governor never has that I know of...she just keeps blaming the feds.

Maybe the city was overly concerned about the effect on the environment if they used those thousand busses to transport people to safety.

The President again shows that he is a class act. Only to my Wife do I admit fault when I was not at fault. Perhaps he believes that he blundered by the appointment of Brown. I still have never seen a reliable report that exhonerated or condemned the actions of FEMA. I probably wouldn't want to send in rescuers into an area so they could be shot.

I understand that FEMA can suspend the Constitution and Laws if they want but that would be an extreme situation and perhaps this situation warranted it. Any government agency that would tell the citizens they no longer have any rights, move or be shot, would bother me a lot. However, there were many that said we should have done t his and the general population in that area supports their party so maybe it would have been ok.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I just hope we can prevent the Pres from developing some sort of complex over having a failure in life. It would be terrible if he got a feeling of being cursed.

The fluffers in his administration wouldn't let that happen. I am sure they are all right back at making him feel like a King again.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
thousand buses


BWA HA HA HA HA!!


By next month it will be up to 10,000 buses with fully-trained drivers waiting at the wheels for the phone call.



:roll:
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday said he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Text

So, are you liberals happy? Breaking out the champagne? Because the destruction of Bush is all you care about, more so than the Katrina victims.

BTW, I agree with some of the other posters. If things were done wrong they need to be changed. Since a very similar situation happened in 1992 it would be surprising if the reasons for both situations were the same and after 13 years (President Clinton 8 + George Bush 5) nothing was done.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday said he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Text

So, are you liberals happy? Breaking out the champagne? Because the destruction of Bush is all you care about, more so than the Katrina victims.
BTW, I agree with some of the other posters. If things were done wrong they need to be changed. Since a very similar situation happened in 1992 it would be surprising if the reasons for both situations were the same and after 13 years (President Clinton 8 + George Bush 5) nothing was done.
But plenty had been done in between. The Propagandist just broke what Clinton worked to fix.

Hmmm...James Lee Witt vs. a horse judge?
 

digiram

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2004
3,991
172
106
Originally posted by: BBond
Does this mean that Bush is playing the "blame game" now? And doesn't that qualify, along with "You're doing a 'heckuva' job, 'Brownie"!, as another Bush flip-flop???

What next? Will Bush admit he lied about Iraq?

No need to admit, it's already a known fact.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday said he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Text

So, are you liberals happy? Breaking out the champagne? Because the destruction of Bush is all you care about, more so than the Katrina victims.


Dude, I like you. Don't be a dick. The vast majority of Americans want this fixed. Bush doing a mea culpa does nothing.

Make changes. Responsibility without accountability is worthless.

The vast majority of liberals love Bush about as much as you love liberals. Even so most are genuinely concerned about Katrina's victims, and what to do to prevent future problems as are most conservatives.

If you pull the liberal card in this way, then you validate the use of silly arguments saying all conservatives are power hungry, poor people kicking, psychotic martinets foaming at the mouth ready to kill anyone different from their mindset. Does that describe you? Are you secretely hoping to get out to a city near you to kick a homeless person? Thought not.

I see idiots all day. Don't be one.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I just hope we can prevent the Pres from developing some sort of complex over having a failure in life. It would be terrible if he got a feeling of being cursed.

LOL, looking at his past record, I don't think that will be a problem. I'm betting he will stay right on track and should succesfully have the country bankrupted before 2008.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday said he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Text

So, are you liberals happy? Breaking out the champagne? Because the destruction of Bush is all you care about, more so than the Katrina victims.

:cookie: Here you go you hack. Hope you choke on it.
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday said he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Text

So, are you liberals happy? Breaking out the champagne? Because the destruction of Bush is all you care about, more so than the Katrina victims.

Sh*t man, never knew taking responsibility meant destroying yourself.

At least that's not what my parents taught me, maybe you were taught differently?
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday said he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Text

So, are you liberals happy? Breaking out the champagne? Because the destruction of Bush is all you care about, more so than the Katrina victims.

Sh*t man, never knew taking responsibility meant destroying yourself.

At least that's not what my parents taught me, maybe you were taught differently?

Why the fvck should he? This was not Bush's fault, despite the media's drumbeat to the contrary! Who is at fault? The city of New Orleans (mayor), the state of Louisiana (governor), and a welfare state that waited before it was too late to be rescued.

If anything the 100-ton guerilla that is Federal bureaucracy and red tape, is an argument for a much smaller federal government. How the Libs expect to fix the problem by making the guerilla even heavier and even more cumbersome, I have no idea.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,747
6,762
126
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday said he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Text

So, are you liberals happy? Breaking out the champagne? Because the destruction of Bush is all you care about, more so than the Katrina victims.

Sh*t man, never knew taking responsibility meant destroying yourself.

At least that's not what my parents taught me, maybe you were taught differently?

Why the fvck should he? This was not Bush's fault, despite the media's drumbeat to the contrary! Who is at fault? The city of New Orleans (mayor), the state of Louisiana (governor), and a welfare state that waited before it was too late to be rescued.

If anything the 100-ton guerilla that is Federal bureaucracy and red tape, is an argument for a much smaller federal government. How the Libs expect to fix the problem by making the guerilla even heavier and even more cumbersome, I have no idea.
You have no idea and you should leave everything right there. You have no idea.

And please don't be alarmed. When Bush says he takes responsibility it's his way of saying he won't. He has taken responsibility end of subject. But but but,,,but nothing, I take full responsibility. The problem has been cured. Bush takes responsibility,,,that's the end. What a guy. Steps right up to the plate.

 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday said he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Text

So, are you liberals happy? Breaking out the champagne? Because the destruction of Bush is all you care about, more so than the Katrina victims.

Sh*t man, never knew taking responsibility meant destroying yourself.

At least that's not what my parents taught me, maybe you were taught differently?

Didn't you get the memo? Personal responsibility doesn't apply to Bushpublicans (only lieberuls, and other "America hating people")
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And please don't be alarmed. When Bush says he takes responsibility it's his way of saying he won't. He has taken responsibility end of subject. But but but,,,but nothing, I take full responsibility. The problem has been cured. Bush takes responsibility,,,that's the end. What a guy. Steps right up to the plate.
Well, it's what he's taken responsibility *for*. His words were measured carefully. Now, look for the blame game to pick up the intensity toward state/local officials thereby relieving the Propagandist from the heavy burden of fault.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Why the fvck should he? This was not Bush's fault, despite the media's drumbeat to the contrary! Who is at fault? The city of New Orleans (mayor), the state of Louisiana (governor), and a welfare state that waited before it was too late to be rescued.

If anything the 100-ton guerilla that is Federal bureaucracy and red tape, is an argument for a much smaller federal government. How the Libs expect to fix the problem by making the guerilla even heavier and even more cumbersome, I have no idea.

You seem to be saying that, regardless of the scope of a disaster or the extent of its failure to respond (since this was demonstrably the worst natural disaster in US history and FEMA's response was essentially nonexistent for several days), FEMA can never be at fault.

This begs the question of what disaster, if any, could be so severe as to warrant a federal response in your opinion. Moreover, even if you're saying FEMA should be gutted as irrelevant, what about the billions of taxpayer dollars we've sunk into it over the years? Are we to expect literally nothing for our expenditures?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
I'm all for it, this is just another blunder he has been directly involved with (naming 'Brownie' head of FEMA). He can cut brush all year round for all I care. Maybe he can make a book deal, I hear pop-up books are gaining in popularity.

I love the critics,
Tell us you would have put in place of Brown.

Not my job to do that. I am nowhere near qualified to make that decision, I know I wouldn't have put someone in who is completely underqualified in every sense of the word. I don't know who I would put in there, but I know who I wouldn't, and Brown fits that bill perfectly.

If you admit to not being anywhere near qualified to make such a decision. What qualifies you to say Brown wasnt qualified? Because the LA times runs an editorial where a pin head who is equally as unqualified as you decides it is time to play the time test liberal policy of personal attacks instead of attacking the problem?

I also find it very unamusing when people throw out the "it isnt good enough" or "that was the wrong decision" without providing a better solution. At that point all you are doing is whining, and whiners are worthless.

Not as worthless as incompetent cronies being placed in highly sensitive government positions.

The question here isn't whether any of us are capable to run FEMA or whatever government agency that Bush has made part of the patronage trough. Although I may not be capale of running FEMA I am capable of deciding whether or not some is capable and Brown, by an almost unanimous decision, is unqualified and he padded his resume to boot.

Complalining about malfeascance in government is not worthless. It's where change begins. If you Bushies had been listening all along people like Brown would never have been given positions like FEMA director without qualifications for the job.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Why the fvck should he? This was not Bush's fault, despite the media's drumbeat to the contrary! Who is at fault? The city of New Orleans (mayor), the state of Louisiana (governor), and a welfare state that waited before it was too late to be rescued.

If anything the 100-ton guerilla that is Federal bureaucracy and red tape, is an argument for a much smaller federal government. How the Libs expect to fix the problem by making the guerilla even heavier and even more cumbersome, I have no idea.

You seem to be saying that, regardless of the scope of a disaster or the extent of its failure to respond (since this was demonstrably the worst natural disaster in US history and FEMA's response was essentially nonexistent for several days), FEMA can never be at fault.

This begs the question of what disaster, if any, could be so severe as to warrant a federal response in your opinion. Moreover, even if you're saying FEMA should be gutted as irrelevant, what about the billions of taxpayer dollars we've sunk into it over the years? Are we to expect literally nothing for our expenditures?
And there's the crux of the "argument" of many on the right ... that somehow FEMA is yet another wasteful "entitlement program" that needs to be eliminated. Even the Bush admin believes this to a certain extent given their actions regarding FEMA since 2001.

 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
I'm sorry, but to me, FEMA != Bush personally. And while Bush accepts blame for all things federal, the media would have us believe it was Bush and Bush only at the federal level who made all the mistakes, who is personally responsible for the hurricane, personally kept poor, black residents from evacuating, etc.

Now, if Bush hired Brown, knowing he fluffed up his resume, that is certainly cause for blame.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It's time for Bush to drop this bipartisan crap he's been trying to pull and start ramming through policy.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: zendari
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It's time for Bush to drop this bipartisan crap he's been trying to pull and start ramming through policy.

welcome to the last 5 years of this terrible administration. When has he been bipartisan? The president is a Republican and he has a Republican Congress and has yet to veto anything - when has he not rammed through policies?

Still, :thumbsup: to GWB for accepting responsibility. I think this is the first time in recent memory this President has done so.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: zendari
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It's time for Bush to drop this bipartisan crap he's been trying to pull and start ramming through policy.

This is the result of him and his cronies "ramming through policy", how much worse off do you want the U.S. to be??? :confused: