Forgive me, but I think it's fatuous to dismiss discussion of Bush's responsibility as "merely partisan". This is, after all, an election year, a referendum on the performance of incumbents, and Bush has chosen to make his performance in the conduct of the war in Iraq a central argument for his reelection. He calls himself the "War President". So be it. Let's judge him by the progress and conduct of his war.

Why are people unsatisfied by Bush's general and vague apology for the disgusting events at Abu Ghraib? Because he tries to take personal responsibility for the successes, while trying to evade responsibility for the failures with pledges to find and prosecute the perpretrators...AKA scapegoats. He can't have it both ways. He's responsible for the good, the bad, and the ugly. The whole package.

As for the analogy with Bill Gates, it extends all the way. In the last year Gates has loudly and publicly declared that Microsoft's #1 priority henceforth shall be security, forever and ever, amen. So if one of his employees perpetrates a security threat such as a virus, I do indeed think Gates should be held personally responsible. It's normal in business that when an company's leader bets the company on a major new initiative and fails, his head will roll. Can Gates realistically be removed when he holds more than 50% of Microsoft stock? Probably not. And maybe Bush can't be removed if he wins more than 50% of the electoral votes. But that practical ability to evade the consequences doesn't erase personal responsibility for either one.