"He shouldn't have gone on primetime if he wasn't prepared to accept some blame for attacks that happened on his watch and to at least say he's sorry it happened. It may all be a game, but it has rules"

I really and truly don't know what you are talking about. I don't think he should accept blame for something he didn't do. (As far as saying he's sorry for what happened, surely he is saddened by what happened, but that is different than "sorry" as in apology)

I think he answered the question perfectly correct. The blame lies with Bin Laden. No one apologized for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the Oklahoma City bombing. This is one of the things that divides this country, always wanting to place blame.

Twenty guys came here to hijack four planes and fly them into four buildings. We caught one. The other 19 suceeded in the hijackings and only one plane was stopped from its goal--that by the passengers.

If you're the president you bear some responsibility for such a massive lapse in security, no matter how screwed up the system you inheritted was.

OJ - I understand where you are coming from. However, given the political environment and the media's anti-Bush stance any admission, or even hint thereof, of sorriness by Bush would be spun as Bush acknowledging he was responsible for 9-11.

for proof of AAW's statement, look at how the press fawned over Richard Clarke's accusations against Bush but is practically silent about the Goerlik FISA interpretation that forbid information sharing between the FBI/DOJ intelligence and criminal branches, a far more proximate cause of the failure to prevent 9/11.

It is amazing to read the stories this morning about Tuesday's Sept. 11 hearing and see that the Picard claim that Ashcroft was uninterested in terror information before 9/11, given during the morning testimony, is still being played up as the major detail to come out of the hearing, while Ashcroft's revelation of the Gorelick "wall" memo is given about as much space as the reporting of a sixth inning foul out in a 14-1 baseball game.

Under that reality, any apology by Bush in specific terms might as well be a confession of guilt for all the failures in U.S. foreign and defense policies since January 20, 1993. It shouldn't work that way, but those are the ground rules for Republicans set by the major media and the spinners in the Democratic party.

AWW:

Taking responsibility, especially when you aren't directly responsible, always plays to your favor.

Did Clinton apologize for the Oklahoma City bombing? Of course not, though he had a knack for apologizing for lots of things other people did.

Not that he should have apologized. The Oklahoma City bombing was the fault of Timothy McVeigh and a few accomplices. 9/11 was the fault of Osama bin Laden and a few accomplices.

Bush was absolutely correct in not falling into the media trap of an apology which would be used to discredit him in the campaign.

I'm with the crowd above on this one and feel intensely enough to say so. However, I don't think he should have fielded questions from the biased, hostile press. They just come up with the same dumb DNC line ... sometimes rephrased. Why give them the platform?

Ashcroft's characterization of Gorelick's "wall" memo appears to be quite bogus.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040413-013015-1993r

a senior commission official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the memo related to only one particular case and was quickly superceded by a set of guidelines issued in 1995 by Attorney General Janet Reno.
Asked what relevance to the broad picture of policy the memo might have, the official replied "almost none."
The principles underlying the so-called wall between intelligence and law enforcement are simple: In the absence of a probable cause requirement and other constitutional safeguards in intelligence gathering inquiries, it was considered important that they be separated from criminal investigations to make sure that they were not run merely as a way to get around legal and constitutional restrictions on the latter.
"The origins and facts about the wall are not disputed," said the official, pointing out that both administrations had followed essentially the same policy on this matter prior to Sept. 11. The 1995 guidelines were "restated and clarified" by the new Bush administration in August 2001. In his testimony, Ashcroft argued that the August 2001 policy had been "a step in the direction of lowering the wall," but the official said the commission had concluded that any "modifications (of the policy in 2001) were modest."

I learned the hard way as a kid and in high school: If you accept responsibility for anything, definition ANYTHING, you wind up getting all the blame for everything from Eve munching the apple on down. Everyone else is happy to shift the blame to you. Why volunteer to be the scapegoat for everybody else and for everything?

"Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
Before any one can think of blaming us!"

Rick:

That's not what sources other than Ben Veniste say:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/012120.html

Casey:

Bush is a better man than Clinton.

The apology is easy: Had I known then what we know now, I would have made destroying al Qaeda anbd reforming Islam the centerpiece of my presidential campaign and of the first 9 months of my presidency. I'm sorry I did not do so. In the months since I've sought to remedy that error.

genecis:

Yes, dodging the forum was another, better, option.

Pres. Bush is CINC, and any commander should know that he is responsible for anything that happens or fail's to happen under his command. Not acknowledging some level of responsibility just seems like quibbling.

He could say, "The fact that 19 terrorists were able to commit such a despicable act of terrorism on US soil, in and of itself demonstrates a failing on the part of the US Government, of which I am the leader. Had we invaded Afghanistan on Jan. 21, 2001; had we enacted the Patriot Act on Jan 21, 2001; had we tightened airport security on Jan. 21, 2001; had we created the Homeland Security Department on Jan. 21, 2001 the attacks of Sept. 11th may have been prevented. I regret the incredible loss of life inflicted on us by madmen that day and it troubles me that there may have been actions I and our government could have undertaken that would have prevented the attacks. While there may have been errors that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, the responsibility for that awful day lies with Osama Bin Laden and his band of Islamic terrorists. Since the attacks of Sept. 11th, we have taken the offensive and made reforms to our government and its laws to help prevent similar attacks in the future. While I believe these measures have made us safer and I hope and pray that we will never endure another terrorist attack; it is clear that prevention can never be completely successful 100% of the time. It is only through offensive action and eliminating the terrorist threat that we will know true peace and security. I don't believe that our great nation, nor the world community, were prepared to undertake these vital actions prior to 9/11; it is my fervant hope that we will not forget the lessons of 9/11 and allow ourselves to slip back to that mindset, for if we do, the war is lost."

Stephen:

Isn't that in effect, though not in style, what he meant when he said that we were at war before 9/11, but not on a war footing?

David:

I suppose it is, but how about admitting that a failure to prevent the attacks was a failure.

Isn't the point that in retrospect we can see a war footing was required, but we weren't on one?

There was a SNL skit before Gulf War I which showed a military press briefing in which the reporters kept asking questions like "What is the one piece of information that you would least like the Iraqis to find out about your plans" and "What would be the most demoralizing information for the troops to find out". Finally it all ended with a reporter from the Baghdad Times asking "Where are your troops, and can I go and count them?" That skit is all I could think about as the "What did you do wrong" questions kept piling up last night.

"I am sorry for my continuation of the Clinton policies regarding terrorist threats, after I was in office. Obviously those were boneheaded and stupid policies and I won't repeat that mistake."

More I think about, I like the sound of that apology. Thank you "Other Brother"

Orrin, sorry sorry sorry but the UPI reporter cconfirms to me that the high commission source was a Republican.

Rick

I have to side with those people against an apology. First of all, I'm not at all convinced by oj that an apology is appropriate. But, even if it were, Bush should not do it in this poisonous political atmosphere. It would be a Kerry campaign ad by the next day and the media would be celebrating it for weeks. That's why the press corps asked him this same question 4 - 5 times. It was a trap which Bush was wise enough to avoid. The people responsible for 9/11 were Osama Bin Laden and his followers. Clinton and all other Western leaders who failed to take this threat seriously enough, emboldened the terrorists to attempt this attack with confidence that the U.S. would just roll over in response.

I'm not sure about that Orrin. Sometimes an apology is just "cheap grace" -- those which have no effect on the future or present behaviour being apologies of this kind. Richard Clarke apologized: and that apology implicitly said that the government was omnipotent but feckless. You're not responsible for what you couldn't help, and that includes 9/11. The people who could help that mostly died in the airplanes they hijacked.

I'd have fun reading this press conference instead.

Mr. Williams:

Precisely, give the people their cheap grace--it's harmless for them and does much for you.

Whether Clinton was a better man than Bush is irrelevant. He wasn't responsible for Oklahoma City, so he shouldn't have apologized. Bush wasn't responsible for 9/11, so he shouldn't have apologized.

Case closed.