About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Bush wondered, "Are we capable of dealing with a severe [terrorist] attack?" but Wash. Post didn't report it

September 14, 2005 5:49 pm ET
image

6 Comments

In contrast to other major media, The Washington Post ignored President Bush's September 13 acknowledgment that he is unsure whether the United States is "capable of dealing with a severe [terrorist] attack." Bush made his acknowledgment in the sentence immediately following his statement that "to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right [in responding to Hurricane Katrina], I take responsibility," which the Post did feature.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made protecting the nation from terrorism a major issue during the 2004 presidential campaign. Cheney warned in September 2004 that "'if we make the wrong choice [in the election] then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

But during a press availability with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Bush responded to the question, "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?" as follows:

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.

A September 14 Post article by staff writers Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman characterized that answer only in terms of Hurricane Katrina:

President Bush yesterday said he takes personal responsibility for the federal government's stumbling response to Hurricane Katrina, as his White House worked on several fronts to move beyond the improvisation of the first days of the crisis and set a long-term course on a problem that aides now believe will shadow the balance of Bush's second term.

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at a White House news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. "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."

Below are examples of other news accounts that documented Bush's concession about the country's questionable preparedness to deal with another terrorist attack.

The New York Times [9/14/05]:

President Bush said on Tuesday that he bore responsibility for any failures of the federal government in its response to Hurricane Katrina and suggested that he was unsure whether the country was adequately prepared for another catastrophic storm or terrorist attack.

"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," Mr. Bush said in an appearance in the East Room with President Jalal Talabani of Iraq. "I want to know what went right and what went wrong."

In response to a reporter who asked if Americans, in the wake of the hurricane, should be concerned about the government's ability to respond to another disaster or a terrorist attack, Mr. Bush said: "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."

Los Angeles Times [9/14/05]:

After a tour of the flood-ravaged city Monday, Bush had pledged that the federal government would help in New Orleans' recovery. He deflected questions about federal mismanagement of Katrina relief, though, saying he would not "play the blame game" -- a phrase that White House officials used repeatedly after the storm.

But Tuesday, appearing at a Washington news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Bush spoke plainly when asked whether the government was prepared for another natural disaster or a terrorist attack.

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," he said. "And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."

Bush added that he wanted to "know how to better cooperate with state and local government, to be able to answer that very question: 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 so we can better respond."

Associated Press [9/14/05]:

President Bush for the first time took responsibility Tuesday for federal government mistakes in dealing with Hurricane Katrina and suggested the calamity raised broader questions about the government's ability to handle both natural disasters and terror attacks.

[...]

Bush's acceptance of responsibility came in response to a reporter's question on whether the United States was capable of handling another terrorist attack, given its halting and widely criticized response to Katrina.

"That's a very important question," Bush said. "And it's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on -- so that we can better respond."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by danemo (September 15, 2005 10:50 am ET)
         

      Trust us, America is stronger and more secure with us in charge:

      We will remove the threat to America from the (nonexistent) WMD in Iraq.

      We will eliminate the (nonexistent) Al Queda support base in Iraq.

      We will be welcomed with flowers (camouflaging IEDs) in Iraq- there will be no (end in sight to the) Insurgency.

      Our (blackmailed) partners in diplomacy will join our (Crusade) effort. We will capture or kill Osama Bin Laden (or at least destroy copies of his videotapes).

      Iraq will pay for its reconstruction through oil revenues (in the year 2200, if we can overthrow the Islamic Fundamentalist Regime we will install in 2007), making it safe for us to give you (top one percenters) tax breaks.

      We will reorganize homeland defense and emergency response (by putting our college roomates, big donors and horse judges in charge) to make it more effective and efficent (to reward those who help us stay in charge of things).

      We will protect the innocent and vulnerable (embryos and Teri Schiavo).

      Report Abuse
    • Author by zappatero (September 14, 2005 6:23 pm ET)
         

      I love how writers Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman added the "personal" part of Bush's belated claim of responsibility.

      Or maybe Leonard Downie added it. I guess humanizing the Prez is Job 1 at the Post. Then maybe some reporting, or whatever.

      Of course, President Bush was and is responsible, for FEMA, DHS, his appointees, prepositioning help, and halting his vacation when almost anyone else would have (well, except Cheney).

      So this was not the earth shattering statement many (see Tweety) made it out to be. It was only done for political purposes because the political heat was too much to bear. It won't change policy or improve the response next time. It was a temporary strategic move by Rove.

      (inspired by DH)

      Report Abuse
    • Author by packer backer (September 15, 2005 3:47 pm ET)
         

      God help all Americans if we have any other disaster with this incompetent bush administration at the helm. It's scary!!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by losingfaith (September 16, 2005 10:51 am ET)
         

      "Hasn't stopped some of the Republicans from suggesting it, though."

      Ok, now I'm much more left than right by a long shot and have and will be my whole life, but we gotta look at some honesty here. Did you notice that Sensenbrenner was not the sponsor of the bill? Sure that's not a huge deal ofcoarse, but did you notice he's the ONLY Republican on the proposal? The other 4 are Democrats. If you're worried about this proposal, don't blame the Rethugs.

      "James Sensenbrenner may not be one of the more recognizable names in politics today, but he's one of the scarier ones"

      VERY True. Wasn't he the one that shut down the mic's in a dem hearing they had to insist on through House rules? He even broke more rules by ending the hearing out of order. The guy is sick. He has no interest in democracy. To him it's about staying in power, silencing your opposition and constant power abuse.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (September 15, 2005 11:46 pm ET)
         

      This site, and this story, are about the Media. It would be interesting to see the original story submitted by these reporters and what changes were made by the editors.

      When a media organ like the Post "leaves off" such an important fact you can only conclude that they are attempting to practice Managed News. The problem (for them) is that not all the media are as immoral as the Post and so the real facts will get out.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by 1428a (September 16, 2005 12:35 pm ET)
         

      The Washington Post has a reputation for being a flaming liberal paper-that seems to be changing. Didn't report this, I'm not sure it's as liberal as it used to be.

      The answer to the question "pondered" is NO, as we all know.

      Report Abuse