布希總統最後一次記者會（2009.01.13）雲程摘譯

【Comment】

布希常常說錯話，但作為一個全世界最有權力的人，即將卸任之際，他對於權力行使是有反省的，也能適時的幽自己一默，布希與記者的臨時問答證明了這點。相較之下，在遠東國家與集權國家裡面我們沒看到卸任的感性演說，也無公開的自省。他們的首腦只相信陰謀與蠻力，絕不可能犯錯故也無須道歉。要他們道歉，難如要皇帝下詔罪己，所以會還你一句「邪痞者梟叫狼嗥」。

問：我不想「抓包」，但我在想當你回顧這段長長的總統任期中，你是否會想回溯一下自己犯了任何錯誤？若是這樣，最大的單一錯誤會是什麼？

布：讓我「抓包」了喔！我常說，歷史會回顧並認定：哪些事情，或者如你所說哪些我所犯的錯誤，要怎樣做較好。這樣說吧，我在航空母艦上宣布「任務完成」是一項錯誤。我讓人誤會。我們應該用其他的話，但無論如何，這傳達了不同的訊息。顯然的，我的語言能力也是一項錯誤。

我努力思考過卡崔納颱風事件很久，如你所知，我是否能做得更好、更不一樣，比方說讓「空軍一號」降落在紐奧爾良或Baton Rouge。這個問題的關鍵是，執法會妨礙任務。所以，我猜想你的問題是：你怎麼能讓「空軍一號」飛進Baton Rouge，而讓警察在執行任務時為了照顧你一人，而管制紐奧爾良外的交通？

我相信在2004年選舉後的社會安全議題是一項錯誤。我應該進行移民制度的改革。你也許知道，其中一項原因是我從德州州長任內體會到的心得，即立法部門傾向於不顧風險。換句話說，有時候議員會問：風險不見得會發生，我們為何要做這種苦差事？而議員不會考慮到不易發生的社會安全風險。

另外，我們可以真正的以此為競選議題並贏得選舉。那就是說，我不相信討論社會安全是美國政治中難以搞定的議題。事實上，我想在未來，逃避如何修補社會安全會是難搞的議題。

當總統就是做決策而已，且只能就手頭所擁有的資訊做決策。做完決策之後，你不會再有資訊。這並非事實。你捍衛你的決策，你盡力解釋為何你會做此決策。

當然會沮喪。巴格達的Abu Ghraib就是總統任期中令人沮喪的。沒有找到大規模殺傷性武器令人非常沮喪。我不知道你是否要叫這個為錯誤，但事情發展不如預期，就算是個錯誤吧。

無論如何，我想歷史學家將回顧，並且在過了一陣子之後能以較好的角度看待這些錯誤。對於傑克的提問，我想蓋棺也無法論定。我認為即使在卸任後，我們也無法對政權做全盤性的針貶：總統的決策是否在事後如其所預期的產生效果；或者無論環境類似或不同，要如何在一位總統和未來的總統之間做比較？我是說，這根本不可能嘛。我歡喜做，就甘願受。

Q And I'm not trying to play "gotcha," but I wonder, when you look back over the long arc of your presidency, do you think, in retrospect, that you have made any mistakes? And if so, what is the single biggest mistake that you may have made?

THE PRESIDENT: Gotcha. I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better, or, you know, mistakes I made. Clearly putting a " Mission Accomplished" on an aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.

I've thought long and hard about Katrina -- you know, could I have done something differently, like land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge . The problem with that and -- is that law enforcement would have been pulled away from the mission. And then your questions, I suspect, would have been, how could you possibly have flown Air Force One into Baton Rouge , and police officers that were needed to expedite traffic out of New Orleans were taken off the task to look after you?

I believe that running the Social Security idea right after the '04 elections was a mistake. I should have argued for immigration reform. And the reason why is, is that -- you know, one of the lessons I learned as governor of Texas, by the way, is legislative branches tend to be risk-adverse. In other words, sometimes legislatures have the tendency to ask, why should I take on a hard task when a crisis is not imminent? And the crisis was not imminent for Social Security as far as many members of Congress was concerned.

As an aside, one thing I proved is that you can actually campaign on the issue and get elected. In other words, I don't believe talking about Social Security is the third rail of American politics. I, matter of fact, think that in the future, not talking about how you intend to fix Social Security is going to be the third rail of American politics.

One thing about the presidency is that you can make -- only make decisions, you know, on the information at hand. You don't get to have information after you've made the decision. That's not the way it works. And you stand by your decisions, and you do your best to explain why you made the decisions you made.

There have been disappointments. Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment during the presidency. Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way.

Anyway, I think historians will look back and they'll be able to have a better look at mistakes after some time has passed. Along Jake's question, there is no such thing as short-term history. I don't think you can possibly get the full breadth of an administration until time has passed: Where does a President's -- did a President's decisions have the impact that he thought they would, or he thought they would, over time? Or how did this President compare to future Presidents, given a set of circumstances that may be similar or not similar? I mean, there's -- it's just impossible to do. And I'm comfortable with that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090112.html