Post New Topic

Another Spin/View on the Katrina blame game

Original post by February05

DISCLAIMER: This is an article from the Daily News. I'm posting it just to represent the other side of the 'debate'... to offer another perspective. Either way, the damage is done, and now we need to work on the Solution, But i did feel that the author of this article made some very valid points.

ok, now with that said,,,, here's the article


from Charles Krauthammer in today's (9/9) New York Daily News:

Feds, La. pols, citizenry
were asleep at the switch

In less enlightened times, there was no catastrophe independent of human agency. When the plague or some other natural disaster struck, witches were burned, Jews were massacred and all felt better (except the witches and Jews). A few centuries later, our progressive thinkers have progressed not an inch. No fall of a sparrow on this planet is not attributed to sin and human perfidy.

The three current favorites are: (1) global warming, (2) the war in Iraq and (3) tax cuts. Katrina hits and the unholy trinity is immediately invoked to damn sinner-in-chief George W. Bush.

This kind of stupidity merits no attention whatsoever, but I'll give it a paragraph. There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period. The problem with the evacuation of New Orleans is not that National Guardsmen in Iraq could not get to New Orleans, but that National Guardsmen in Louisiana did not get to New Orleans. As for the Bush tax cuts, administration budget requests for New Orleans flood control during the five Bush years exceed that of the five preceding Clinton years. The notion that the allegedly missing revenues would have been spent wisely by Congress, been targeted precisely to the levees of New Orleans and that reconstruction would have been completed in time, is a threefold fallacy. The argument ends when you realize that, as The Washington Post notes, 'the levees that failed were already completed projects.'

Let's be clear. The author of this calamity was, first and foremost, Nature (or if you prefer, Nature's God). The suffering was augmented, aided and abetted in descending order of culpability by the following:

1. The mayor of New Orleans. He knows the city. He knows the danger. He knows that during Hurricane Georges in 1998, the use of the Superdome was a disaster and that fully two-thirds of the residents never got out of the city. Nothing was done. He declared a mandatory evacuation only 24 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit. He did not even declare a voluntary evacuation until the day before that, at 5 p.m. At that time, he explained that he needed to study his legal authority to call a mandatory evacuation and was hesitating to do so lest the city be sued by hotels and other businesses.

2. The Louisiana governor. It's her job to call up the National Guard and get it to where it has to go. Where the Guard was in the first few days is a mystery. Indeed, she issued an authorization for the National Guard to commandeer school buses to evacuate people on Wednesday afternoon - more than two days after the hurricane hit and after much of the fleet had already drowned in its parking lots.

3. The head of FEMA. Late, slow and in way over his head. On Thursday he says on national television that he didn't even know there were people in the Convention Center, when anybody watching television could see them there destitute and desperate. Maybe in his vast bureaucracy he can assign three 20-year-olds to watch cable news and give him updates every hour on what in hell is going on.

4. The President. Late, slow and simply out of tune with the urgency and magnitude of the disaster. The second he heard that the levees had been breached in New Orleans, he should have canceled his schedule and addressed the country on national television to mobilize it both emotionally and physically to assist in the disaster. His flyover on the way to Washington was the worst possible symbolism. And his Friday visit was so tone-deaf and politically disastrous that he had to fly back three days later.

5. Congress. Now as always playing holier-than-thou. Perhaps it might ask itself who created the Department of Homeland Security in the first place. The congressional response to all crises is the same - rearrange the bureaucratic boxes, but be sure to add one extra layer. The last four years of DHS have been spent principally on bureaucratic reorganization (and real estate) instead of, say, a workable plan for as predictable a disaster as a Gulf Coast hurricane.

6. The American people. They have made it impossible for any politician to make any responsible energy policy over the last 30 years - but that is a column for another day. For them, now is not the time for constructive suggestions; now is the time for blame, recriminations and sheer astonishment. Mayor Ray Nagin has announced that, as bodies are still being found and as a public health catastrophe descends upon the city, he is sending 60% of his cops on city funds for a little R&R, mostly to Vegas hotels. Asked if it was appropriate to party in these circumstances, he responded: 'New Orleans is a party town. Get over it.'

Originally published on September 9, 2005
February05 Posted:

Re: Another Spin/View on the Katrina blame game


Posted by sweetadeline

Posted by neeniebean86
i forgot to answer this part:

Posted by sweetadeline
Why is Krauthammer's blame game more acceptable or 'good points'?


Because, imo, he makes some Good Points


Well, I obviously disagree...



Obviously
sweetadeline Posted:

Re: Another Spin/View on the Katrina blame game

Neeniebean, I have a question for you. And I am not asking this question to be obnoxious -- I really am just curious. Why does it matter that some people are blaming the federal government for what happened after the hurricane hit? (After all, even if we want to blame FEMA instead -- as Krauthammer does, at least in part -- FEMA's leaders were appointed by the feds, weren't they? For example, George W. Bush gave Michael Brown his job, correct?) In short, why shouldn't Bush be held at least partially accountable?

February05 Posted:

Re: Another Spin/View on the Katrina blame game


Posted by sweetadeline

Neeniebean, I have a question for you. And I am not asking this question to be obnoxious -- I really am just curious. Why does it matter that some people are blaming the federal government for what happened after the hurricane hit? (After all, even if we want to blame FEMA instead -- as Krauthammer does, at least in part -- FEMA's leaders were appointed by the feds, weren't they? For example, George W. Bush gave Michael Brown his job, correct?) In short, why shouldn't Bush be held at least partially accountable?



oh i totally think that Bush should be held partially responsible for his 'lacking' performance in this situation, and especially for not showing the sense of urgency that this called for.
i had said on the other thread that i really didnt see the point in the whole blame game (which i still dont- to a point- though accountablity Should be owned...but i think that the time for that is Later, b/c right now, the main Focus should be on resolving the crisis down there). But, when i read this article, i Had to post it b/c as much as i'm anti the blame game, its frustrating to see people always so quick to make Bush the fall guy. Yes, he has a part in this, But, he's not the only one.... and i feel like everyone's jsut ready to grab their torches and go for his head, but not take the time to see that there were others that failed the people too. When the mayor of NO gave that interview, everyone commended him for his 'tough love/ hard a$$' approach to the situation- but no one commented on how HE had the most direct power to get the people out of there sooner- but he hesitated b/c of 'public interest' (and not wanting to deal with the headache if the hurricane didn't hit in the way that it was expected to).

i just feel like people tend to take one part of the story and run with it.... and i'm definitely Not trying to change anyone's opinions on Bush, but i think that if we are going to start placing balme- it should be for ALL that were involved, not just him.
February05 Posted:

Re: Another Spin/View on the Katrina blame game

Wow. ijust realized that my last post was just one, long, run-on sentence. Sorry 'bout that
sweetadeline Posted:

Re: Another Spin/View on the Katrina blame game


Posted by neeniebean86

Wow. ijust realized that my last post was just one, long, run-on sentence. Sorry 'bout that



Love me some run-ons!

Thanks for the explanation. (Not of the run-on sentence, but of the issue we're discussing!)
February05 Posted:

Re: Another Spin/View on the Katrina blame game


Posted by sweetadeline
Love me some run-ons!

Thanks for the explanation. (Not of the run-on sentence, but of the issue we're discussing!)



i've got More run ons where that came from- just name the topic... i could go on and on (and possibly with no use of punction whatsoever)

and (for the 2nd part) ... Anytime!
julybride44 Posted:

Re: Another Spin/View on the Katrina blame game

SCIENCE ANYONE???? Every real scholar (not paid lobbyist) who focuses on weather patterns will tell you that higher global temperatures (which we've had as a result of global warming) increase the intensity of storms and most natural disasters including hurricans, tsunamis, forest fires...etc.....

My friend works is a PHD scientist at the EPA, and he says his stuff gets censored by this administration ALL the time......unlike anything he's ever seen in the past (he's been there about 25 years).....
september2004 Posted:

Re: Another Spin/View on the Katrina blame game


Posted by Ronkonkomonga
what do you think the difference is between Michael Moore & John Stewart.

They both say essentially the same thing IMO

just curious



I believe Stewart gets away with it because he plays the 'equal opportunity basher', he's so good ...
mka06 Posted:

Re: Another Spin/View on the Katrina blame game

neeniebean- love that article. thanks for posting it!

and i agree stewart gets away with it because he bashes everybody. also, bc he's funny... moore just comes off as an angry man espousing his views. i can take it when stewart makes fun of my politics bc I know he will take every chance to do the same for the other side as well. not so with moore

Reply to this topic

Log in to reply or quote a post.