posted
I don't think Bush deserves ALL of the criticism, but I do think he deserves some. This is all IMHO, as I don't really know enough of the details in responsibility lies at mayor, governor, FEMA, president, etc.
The reason I think he deserves some criticism on how the whole thing was handled is that "safety of American citizens" has been one of the big things he keeps pushing as a priority of his administration. The ball was dropped on multiple levels, but when it's a particular ball that the president has been claiming as his own, I think he holds some responsibility there.
Mind you, that doesn't mean I'm letting anyone ELSE off the hook for things that should have been done. Oversights at the local level like the buses that have been mentioned, those are things the respective mayors and governors should have to answer for. But oversights at the federal disaster relief, multi-state level, those are what FEMA and Bush should answer for.
Again, just my opinion as a citizen. I am far from a civics or politics expert.
quote:My, my. NO voted mostly for John Kerry, and so Bush said, "to hell with hurricane safety for THOSE jerks! They can all drown for all I care!"
Hard to take that sort of stupidity seriously.
And yet, there are definitely going to be some people in predominantly Democratic areas that wonder if the resources were slow to trickle down to them for political reasons. I don't buy into that logic either, but it's a measure of just how frustrated people are with the feelings of being ignored by this administration.
In an atmosphere where events are staged and only dyed-in-the-wool supporters of GWB ever get a chance to be near him, it's easy to succumb to a feeling that if you aren't his supporter, it doesn't matter that you are a citizen.
He helped foster that attitude by being so insular, so I don't really feel upset that he has to field that kind of criticism, even if it is nonsense. There's an expression of genuine frustration with his leadership style behind those statements and I don't think he should be let off the hook for that. It doesn't surprise me that that frustration might boil over and take on an unreasonable tone when disaster strikes.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What y'all have to understand is how frightened and neglected people are feeling. Every day we're hearing new stories from just about everyone we know about all the misery and disaster that's going on quite near us.
(Example: My boyfriend's parents were volunteering at an animal shelter, and there was supposed to be a shipment of pets coming in from New Orleans, to be restored to the loving arms of their owners or at least taken to somewhere not flooded. The U-Haul truck wasn't ventilated properly, and very nearly all of these animals died, and it was the responsibility of the volunteers at the shelter to take the dead animals out of their cages so that the cages could be reused.)
We're hearing way, way worse than that on a daily basis, and it's really personal, because it's right here near our homes, it's happening to people we know. People are scared to go volunteer because we keep hearing stories of carjackings and rapes, but we can't just sit at home and do nothing. Every day, we run into some new stupid inconvenience, and it's such a minor complaint that it makes us think of the real horrors people are facing, and it's frightening. And just about everyone has family and friends to worry about: If it's not people who lost their New Orleans homes, it's family members whose professions require them to go into New Orleans on a daily basis, and we're reading about looting and shooting in New Orleans, and we're desperately worried for our loved ones.
Even if the response had been perfect, we would still be facing such tremendous loss, the loss of family and homes and this city that defines our state. And the response hasn't been perfect, or even as close to perfect as might be expected; and people are scared and angry. We aren't getting the help we need. We feel that no one is listening. We are looking to the federal government for aid in the biggest natural disaster ever to strike our country, and we don't feel that we are getting it.
So before you blast the people who wrote this letter, Chad, please think about what it's like for the people who have been stricken. Please understand that we have good reason to be angry and afraid.
quote: We're mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore! -- Network
posted
Rakeesh said: " My, my. NO voted mostly for John Kerry, and so Bush said, "to hell with hurricane safety for THOSE jerks! They can all drown for all I care!""
Bush's record has made it absolutely clear that those that supported him are put first in line for funding.
It's perfectly reasonable to look back with hindsight and see that when the destruction of New Orleans was merely a possibility, the Bush administration cut funding that would be wasted if this storm had never materialized.
That's not what I'm blaming him for.
What I'm blaming him for is his reaction when this disaster was all but inevitable.
Dag said: "Sorry, Glenn, if you can't even present an accurate story, you're one of the ones making political hay out of this. "
Excuse me? What precisely is inaccurate about saying that you can't mount a rescue from within a disaster area?
Are you reacting to the New Orleans voter comment? Is it innacurate, or merely unprovable?
Or are you actually claiming that Bush did something proactive that the rest of us never heard about?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
It hasn't. Half the complaints I've read have started, "FEMA's been here since Monday and they haven't yet..."
It's interesting you feel free to make such statements when you don't even know when they arrived on site.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My statement began with: "In what numbers?" FEMA being "on site" doesn't constitute "sending in help" unless they are prepared to do something.
My comment about it being kept secret was sarcastic. You are making the claim that help was sent in, (or actually opposing my claim that help was not sent in, without providing any evidence to the contrary) and acting like my statement is so obviously inaccurate that it doesn't even deserve comment.
Yet even Bush admits that the response was insufficient, he just fails to take responsibility for it.
What was that I said about blinders?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Enigmatic. I don't think the President is blameless, but I think the truth of it is that there is plenty of blame to go around.
I DO think that the president should expect to get most of the blame, deserved or not, just because he's the president and that's one of the downsides of that position.
Is it fair? No. But people want to blame somebody for everything, and he's very visible. Is it all his fault and nobody else's? Not that either. Will people who are also partly to blame come off smelling like roses? Probably.
It's a highly emotional time for all of us, really. A lady I know pretty well just found out her father-in-law is dead. The body has been identified. The man's house is gone, and along with it any documents showing who his insurance was with and where his funeral arrangements, etc. were made (not that the place is still there, probably).
It's a nightmare for her and her husband. He's on antidepressants, and may even need to be admitted somewhere. It's devastating.
We're raw, still, and someone is going to get burned by the blame game we're playing in this state of hightened emotional stress.
It will probably be the President, and I'm okay with that. It's really hard to sympathize with him in the middle of theis horror. Sorry. It justr IS.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think it is a shame that the mayor couldn't have taken a better example from someone like Guiliani. Guiliani took personal charge of his city. He organized things, and kept everyone on the same page. He didn't just sit there, do nothing, then blame others. Guiliani saw NYC as his city. Mayor Nagin should have had his police, fire, and all emergency personnel out there on the streets. He could have been directing where to go in his city. He didn't take charge like a leader should.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't find it so hard to believe that help was slow in coming at least partly because NO voted for Kerry.
Look what happened in California with the energy "crisis" a few years ago. Enron (friends of Bush, of course) cynically charged California more and more for energy, and laughed about it, and not only did the Bush administration not do anything about it, but in the aftermath refused to give the state any kind of help in getting satisfaction for what was clearly unethical, if not outright illegal, price gouging by his little friends.
And, gee, guess what? The governor of California at the time was a Democrat (Gray Davis), and the state had voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election. I am convinced that if the administration in California at that time had been Republican, Enron would never have gotten away with that nonsense.
So, call me a cynic. That's how I see it, and I'm far from the only one.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a disaster, it's important to know as early as possible who's to blame for everything that's gone wrong to that point. It makes the relief and recovery effort so much more effective. It focuses people's minds on the tasks at hand and ensures crucial cooperation. It steels people so well to face the many troubles and inconveniences that lie ahead. As long as it's somebody else's fault, any situation can be handled.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am convinced that if the administration in California at that time had been Republican, Enron would never have gotten away with that nonsense.
What, exactly, has convinced you of this? Do you have access to information that hasn't been made public.
What people putting out these conspiracy theories are forgetting is that politicians are well aware of the benefits to be gained from disaster relief, and the political pitfalls associated with doing it badly.
Without a modicum of proof, it's fiction-writing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Guiliani took personal charge of his city. He organized things, and kept everyone on the same page. He didn't just sit there, do nothing, then blame others. Guiliani saw NYC as his city. Mayor Nagin should have had his police, fire, and all emergency personnel out there on the streets. He could have been directing where to go in his city. He didn't take charge like a leader should.
New York City still had electricity and all of its communication systems intact. The mayor of New Orleans had no way to communicate with pretty much anyone. Even cell-phone service was out. Its virtually impossible to lead anyone when you can't communicate with them.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: New York City still had electricity and all of its communication systems intact. The mayor of New Orleans had no way to communicate with pretty much anyone. Even cell-phone service was out. Its virtually impossible to lead anyone when you can't communicate with them.
Oh....so how was FEMA and Bush supposed to do better? Why didn't the mayor plan for this? How did he not know that was going to happen? Still doesn't answer the question of where did he send the emergency responders.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, mostly the rhetoric that came out of the White House at the time. It was a while ago, so I don't have any links to post to news stories, but basically Bush wouldn't even talk to Davis about the issue. I do recall very well one occasion when Bush was taking questions and, while I can't recall the exact quote (it was several years ago, you know), the gist of what he said was that California had gotten itself into the situation, and they could get themselves out. As if the state could have just refused to pay the exorbitant fees Enron was charging for the energy and go on blackouts. I don't think that was a very realistic assessment.
There was also a fairly widespread feeling in California that Bush's reason for not doing anything about the situation was that he was trying to make the voters of California angry enough at Gray Davis to get rid of him and elect a Republican governor. And I'll give this to Bush...it worked. And that's not cycnicsm, it's plain fact. If it hadn't been for that whole situation, there never would have been a recall of Davis and Arnold would not be governor now.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Bush is even more brillant than I thought he was. That is an incredible plan to come up with!
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do recall very well one occasion when Bush was taking questions and, while I can't recall the exact quote (it was several years ago, you know), the gist of what he said was that California had gotten itself into the situation, and they could get themselves out. As if the state could have just refused to pay the exorbitant fees Enron was charging for the energy and go on blackouts. I don't think that was a very realistic assessment.
So Bush presents a specific reason realated to a long-espoused free-market philosophy for not intervening, and this is evidence that he actually has an entirely different reason?
quote:And I'll give this to Bush...it worked. And that's not cycnicsm, it's plain fact. If it hadn't been for that whole situation, there never would have been a recall of Davis and Arnold would not be governor now.
Or, if CA hadn't decided to create half a free-market and ban construction of power plants, there wouldn't have been a recall.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure Bush was behind the 1996 decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deregulate the energy markets.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: Okay. I surrender. Nothing is ever Bush's fault. He's a saint.
Sheesh.
Oh, I see. Disagreeing with someone (and providing reasons for that disagreement) proposing that Bush let people die for political gain must mean that I think he's a saint.
posted
Or, maybe just a Republican-controlled Congress:
quote:As late as 1994, electric utilities slightly favored Democrats over Republicans with their campaign contributions. But like many industries, electric utilities dramatically increased their preference for Republican candidates and committees following the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. Between the 1994 and 1996 election cycles, the proportion of contributions from electric utilities going to Democrats dropped by nearly half, from 53 percent to 32 percent. During the same period, the proportion of contributions to Republicans leapt from 47 percent to 68 percent. Electric utilities continue to favor Republicans with their campaign contributions by more than 2 to 1.
posted
In the aftermath of death, grief cries out for justice.
If we want to blame anyone for this, let's please blame the person who made the hurricane. He's got broad shoulders. I'm pretty sure he can take it.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he either created the hurricane, or at least knew it was coming, had the power to prevent it and decided to do nothing to prevent it. In human terms that amounts to almost the same thing. Granted, you may believe that God is above human judgement, but that doesn't prevent humans from judging him and his works.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that he requires that you actually believe in him to blame him for it.
johnsonweed, I'm not ignoring your question. I just don't want to go into a discussion of whether or not God made the hurricane. My point is that ultimately, the deaths were caused by the hurricane, not by Bush or anyone else. The problem with hurricanes and earthquakes and volcanos is that we have no one to blame. Yet grief cries out for justice. This is natural and normal, and *should* happen as part of the process of working through grief. It must be someone's fault.
Feeling this deeply, crying out for it, is normal and expected, but it shouldn't be taken very seriously.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And this is why the world needs supervillians! If the hurricane had been caused by Dr. X's weather machine from the seclusion of his island volcano lair then we would totally have someone to blame for it. So much more clear cut than discussions about politics and state/federal jurisdictional responsibilities.
posted
No problem jeniwren,I was just baiting you for fun. I habe Katrina burn out and needed a new think to discuss.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: If we want to blame anyone for this, let's please blame the person who made the hurricane.
Wasn't that Bush? An ingenious plan to wipe out the non-white Democrat population of New Orleans? From what I've been hearing, it sounds like Bush orchestrated the whole disaster.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, and while everyone is evacuated from the area, he'll send in some legislators to redistrict the place in favor of Republican candidates.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
