We don't mean blame for the sake of blame, for the sake of curtailing political damage, for the sake of trying to put some better spin on a glaring failure of the federal government. We mean blame for the sake of identifying problems in people and in policy and correcting those problems -- promptly.
Bush cannot with any degree of credibility lead such an effort himself, as he surely must recognize. He would essentially be investigating his own administration in the wake of a colossal failure that took place on his watch.
<snip>
It shouldn't become a blame game in the political sense, but it decidedly should be about finding the flaws in the federal system of emergency response and homeland security protection. In a sense, that is about affixing blame. The nation needs to know not only what went wrong, much of which is already evident, but also why it went wrong and who was supposed to see that it didn't go wrong.
<snip>
Consider, for example, this all too pertinent question: "If we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf of Mexico for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?"
Who asked that question? It wasn't some left-wing, anti-Bush, Michael Moore type. It was Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House.
Link:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050910/OPINION01/509090397/1012/OPINION