When I heard that Pres. Bush was taking responsibility for the problems with the response to Hurricane Katrina, I thought of an old David Frye comedy bit about Richard Nixon. There's a speech by then-President Nixon where he says he takes full responsibility for the Watergate break in... but none of the blame. "Let me explain the difference: People who are responsible keep their jobs. People who are to blame, don't."

That's the general feeling I get about Bush's bold stance: In what practical and real way does his taking responsibility actually affect him? Usually people who have made mistakes of this magnitude are subject to penalties, reprimands, demotions, firing, etc. Responsibility also includes accepting judgment. Who is able to judge and assess the culpability of the President of the United States? In government, he's the top of the food chain. Even the Supreme Court isn't usually too keen to slap the ruler over the President's hands. And Congress? Please! They won't say "boo!" to the Pres.

Does his "responsibility" extend to restitution? I expect the Bush administration will do what they always do: Make loud announcements of an aid package, touting how much it works out per person affected by Katrina or some other creative perspective on the numbers. They will proclaim their compassion and brag about how big it is (Insert penis inadequacy joke here.) In reality, the package will be much less than the actual needs of the area and Congress will actually do the dirty work of creating a package more suited to the situation. Then Bush will berate Congress for its spendthrift ways.

I've seen this scenario too often and I am less impressed each time it plays out.