. . And Bush's Telling Non-Answer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23013-2004Oct10.htmlBy E. J. Dionne Jr.
Monday, October 11, 2004; Page A23
Noting that the president had made "thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives," Grabel sensibly wanted this piece of information: "Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it." The president's answer was notable in two ways. First, he spent many words not answering at all. He spoke vaguely about how historians might second-guess some of his decisions and that he'd take responsibility for them. He also asserted: "I'm human."
What a difference two debates can make. The first one created queasiness about Bush even in Republican ranks and established John Kerry's plausibility as a president. Bush did better in the second debate -- how could he not? -- and kept himself in the game. But taken together, the two debates have changed the campaign's main subject.
Now, thanks to the debates and the flow of the news, voters are coming to terms with the administration's habits of denial and deflection. The administration glosses over the fact that its primary argument for war was not humanitarian -- that Saddam Hussein should be forced from power because he was a wretched dictator. He was that, but the core case was that Hussein needed to be confronted because he had weapons of mass destruction -- not that he longed for them.
But a president who pushed the country so hard to go to war on the basis of supposedly imminent threats owes his fellow citizens more than a desultory "oops." That's why Bush's refusal to admit mistakes matters. It suggests his belief that voters, even at election time, have no right to a clear and candid explanation of what went wrong, and why.