In short,
no. A lot is being made of a particular part of Wednesday night's
speech by the president in which he said, "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." Apart from admitting something he's apparently the last man on the planet to realize - that few, if any, Americans are pleased with
his party's war in Iraq - the kernel of that statement is that, yes, this president appears to be finally admitting to his failings. Or is he?
To me, the key word in his admission is "where". And to me, adding that modifier drastically changes his meaning. Say he had instead said, "Mistakes have been made; the responsibility rests with me." More direct, sure, but
unequivocal. But he didn't say that, did he? He simply admitted responsibility for mistakes made not by him, but by everyone else. In other words, he adopted a buck-stops-
there philosophy. He gave himself the slightest bit of wiggle room, ample space for those
future historians he's fond of mentioning to vindicate him. Believe me, "where" was intentional. Because he's done this before.
Remember after Hurricane Katrina, when so many people were seeking
true accountability out of the absent federal government, President Bush in particular? Then, in a
carefully worded statement made at a news conference, Bush said, "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." Notice something? In adding "to the extent", Bush gave himself the slightest bit of room to, as he did last night, escape true responsibility.
After Katrina, the administration was quick to deflect criticism by playing the blame game. In fact, before saying what he did, Bush, responding to Nancy Pelosi asking him to fire Michael Brown because of "all that didn't go right",
asked, "What didn't go right?" Then again, refusing to admit mistakes is one of the few things this president has done well since taking office. Just ask
John Dickerson. Shifting the goalposts, too. Just ask
Karl Rove. Wednesday's "admission" should come as no surprise. Bush is loathe to admit failure. That's why he didn't do it Wednesday.
But, for the sake of argument, let's take him at his word and say he did. In citing his previous failings, Bush said, in part, "There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents." The man you see frowning and shaking his head, by the way, is
Eric Shinseki. The reality behind "not enough" American troops isn't a mere 20,000, like the president thinks, it's more like several hundred thousand. Bush's "surge" would only bring our forces to levels they've seen before. So, therefore, the failure to which Bush admitted Wednesday is one he again seems poised to repeat*. And that's madness. Sheer madness.
* For exactly how disastrous this could be, I suggest bookmarking Steve Gilliard.