NationStates Jolt Archive

Now I am not a citizen of the United States, but I am an undergraduate International relations and Politics student, and I thus do have a considerable understanding of these affairs. However I am confused as to the continuing labeling of the responsability of the lack of propper aid provision to the citizens of Lousiana after Katrina onto the Presidents sholders. The United States is a Federation. IE a Fedural state. Surely this kind of thing is the responsablity of the state governer. And all this talk of President Bush being at photo oppotunities as people in New Orleans were dieing is somewhat foolish if it is not his responablity to deal with the response to such a crisis. Also it is in many cases the fault of those citizens who refused to leave their homes when the evacuation was ordered.

Presidents often get credit, or blame, for pretty much whatever happens in their government. It's what happens when you're the chief executive - all the bucks get passed to you. It's very much how like if the economy is doing well, Bush gets credit, but if it does poorly, illegal immigrants get the blame. (Or vice versa, if you're a democrat).

Because Bush is the president?

Because Bush is the president?

Did you read my post at all. If it isnt his responability, he should not be blamed.

Let me take a wild guess here:

He's the one who put one of his idiot friends at the head of FEMA who then screwed up the job.
A lot of the money that would have gone into maintenance was spend elsewhere (this change can be found in the records IIRC) after GWB got into office.
Then his ignorance doing some show in California while there's a(nother) national emergeny going on...

Guess that's at least three points that he is to blame for.

Everyone likes blaming the idiot. Hence, Bush got blamed.

They didn’t. They blamed that guy who was head of FEMA. Contrary to popular belief he had a great deal of experience in the field on the state level and had only recently worked for the Arab Horses thingy. Also, he had been trying to change FEMA for years but nobody would listen. They fired him. Bush and his supporters, the ones who didn’t listen, are still in the White House.

Er, because Bush appointed Chertoff and Brown and spearheaded the reorganization of FEMA under Homeland Security?

Or maybe it was because he and his administration encouraged widespread budget cuts in FEMA?

Or perhaps it was because he was off in San Diego playing the guitar when at a time when it was pretty much acknowledged (yet poo-pooed by the Bush administration,) that tragedy was about to strike?

Did you read my post at all. If it isnt his responability, he should not be blamed.

Sorry, but the poor spelling and grammar was distracting.

Er, because Bush appointed Chertoff and Brown and spearheaded the reorganization of FEMA under Homeland Security?

Or maybe it was because he and his administration encouraged widespread budget cuts in FEMA?

Or perhaps it was because he was off in San Diego playing the guitar when at a time when it was pretty much acknowledged (yet poo-pooed by the Bush administration,) that tragedy was about to strike?
My points exactly! :D

(We can't both be wrong, right?) :p

Did you read my post at all. If it isnt his responability, he should not be blamed.

Perhaps, but you asked why he was being blamed. She answered your question correctly at least.

The whole Hurricane Katrina mess was a little more complicated than that.
First, the President is in charge of the military, which he could have ordered to evacuate the city but did not. Second, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was headed at the time by Michael Brown, a low level White House crony with relaitvely NO experience to head such a complex organization. His ineptitude lead to massive disorganization that contributed to the mess after the storm. Also, the majority of the residents who refused to leave the city had placed too much faith in the outmoded levee system that surrounds New Orleans. They were also some of the poorest residents of the city who had little resources and feared if they left their homes would be looted or completely lost. The Governor of Louisiana was also slow to act and was overwhelmed by the aftermath, as well as the Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin.

So if blame is what people are looking for, there is plenty to go around.

Did you read my post at all. If it isnt his responability, he should not be blamed.

Part of the responsibility of becoming the the Chief Executive Officer is accepting blame in cases where one might not be personally at fault (though it can very easily be said that the organizational skills that start at the top and trickle down are definitely at fault.) If one can't shoulder that load, one has no business being the "Leader of the Free World."

In other words, if you want to be President, you have to be able to accept ultimate responsibility, both good and bad. If you can't, or if you send your subordinates around to constantly make excuses, then one simply doesn't have the backbone for the job.

Since Bush constantly tries to dodge responsibility, that is just one more reason he is an unsatisfactory President.

"Strong Leader" my ass.

because people like to blame others for mistakes but never themselves.

The whole Hurricane Katrina mess was a little more complicated than that.
First, the President is in charge of the military, which he could have ordered to evacuate the city but did not. Second, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was headed at the time by Michael Brown, a low level White House crony with relaitvely NO experience to head such a complex organization. His ineptitude lead to massive disorganization that contributed to the mess after the storm. Also, the majority of the residents who refused to leave the city had placed too much faith in the outmoded levee system that surrounds New Orleans. They were also some of the poorest residents of the city who had little resources and feared if they left their homes would be looted or completely lost. The Governor of Louisiana was also slow to act and was overwhelmed by the aftermath, as well as the Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin.

So if blame is what people are looking for, there is plenty to go around.


Sure, but I'm not a resident of New Orleans or Louisiana, to the mayor and governor have relatively impact on my life. I am, on the other hand, a resident of the USA. I save my breath for criticizing those who are put in a position of power over me. Therefore, I elect to criticize Bush, the most ineffectual and cowardly President of at least my and my parent's lifetime.

Now I am not a citizen of the United States, but I am an undergraduate International relations and Politics student, and I thus do have a considerable understanding of these affairs. However I am confused as to the continuing labeling of the responsability of the lack of propper aid provision to the citizens of Lousiana after Katrina onto the Presidents sholders. The United States is a Federation. IE a Fedural state. Surely this kind of thing is the responsablity of the state governer. And all this talk of President Bush being at photo oppotunities as people in New Orleans were dieing is somewhat foolish if it is not his responablity to deal with the response to such a crisis. Also it is in many cases the fault of those citizens who refused to leave their homes when the evacuation was ordered.
Yes we are a federation, however, State and Fedural power is devided. Please read are Cunstitution for the power set-up. In case of a national emergicy, the fedural goverment takes care of the federation. In a state emergency, the state goverment takes care of the state. This was declared an emergecy on both levels and so was the job of both the president and govenor. Nether did thare job and so, along with the points already given, bothe got the blame. You should have seen Niggin or whaterver his name is cuss out the state and fedural goverments.:D

Sorry, but the poor spelling and grammar was distracting.

Yes, they were, weren't they? :)

because people like to blame others for mistakes but never themselves.

(Reviews what impact he himself had on the Katrina mess...hmmm, absolutely none.)

How exactly am I more to blame than Bush?

Oh, I forgot. The only way one can continue to support Bush is to imagine that the position of President is a completely emasculated and ceremonial post of no importance whatsoever.

The actions of one's underlings ALWAYS reflects on their leader Junii. If a leader can't accept that, then the leader needs to be replaced. Period.

Now I am not a citizen of the United States, but I am an undergraduate International relations and Politics student, and I thus do have a considerable understanding of these affairs. However I am confused as to the continuing labeling of the responsability of the lack of propper aid provision to the citizens of Lousiana after Katrina onto the Presidents sholders. The United States is a Federation. IE a Fedural state. Surely this kind of thing is the responsablity of the state governer. And all this talk of President Bush being at photo oppotunities as people in New Orleans were dieing is somewhat foolish if it is not his responablity to deal with the response to such a crisis. Also it is in many cases the fault of those citizens who refused to leave their homes when the evacuation was ordered.

Disaster response is a miltilayered issue. There are local responsibilities, state responsibilities, and federal responsibilities. And there were failures at all three levels.

If you want some of the issues regarding GW:

1) Because Bush signed legislation folding an effective Federal Emergency agency into a monolithic Department of Homeland security, cut it's funding, and appointed an underqualified person to run it.

2) Because GW cut funding to levee maintenance programs in preceeding years - programs that had been earmarked as critical.

3) Because much of the state capability to respond was hamstrung by good portions of it's available capabilities being overseas in Iraq at the time.

4) Because accepting help from other states for national guard members to help out requires, by law, federal approval to move said troops across state lines. It took several days for the president to sign the approvals.

5) Because, despite the news in the preceeding days talking about all the "what ifs" of the hurricane hitting new orleans, and despite having been personally briefed on the "what ifs", and despite having had FEMA run an exercise on that very same what if just a year before, the President had the chutzpah to stand up and say "gosh - we never considered that the levees could break".


There was more. His apparent lack of concern for several days while he kept stumping in California etc.

But yes, there is blame to be spread around. However the fact that there were failings at the state and local level do not give the administration a pass for their foul ups.

He gets some of the blame for one single reason: because he deserves some of it.

He's not an American, so give him a brake. He hasn't had to live under a leader that has draged the most powerful 1st World nation into the 2nd World and contenue on the path to the 3rd World. Unless he is a Briton, then he has lived under Bush's slave boy, Blare.

Now I am not a citizen of the United States, but I am an undergraduate International relations and Politics student, and I thus do have a considerable understanding of these affairs. However I am confused as to the continuing labeling of the responsability of the lack of propper aid provision to the citizens of Lousiana after Katrina onto the Presidents sholders. The United States is a Federation. IE a Fedural state. Surely this kind of thing is the responsablity of the state governer. And all this talk of President Bush being at photo oppotunities as people in New Orleans were dieing is somewhat foolish if it is not his responablity to deal with the response to such a crisis. Also it is in many cases the fault of those citizens who refused to leave their homes when the evacuation was ordered.

Why would we fund the heck out of a federal agency that didn't do anything? The hurricane dealt some serious damage to at least four states - this is exactly the kind of emergency that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is supposed to handle. That's we fealt cheated - we dutifully payed for our national insurance policy, and Bush didn't hold up his end of the bargain just because it was the minorities who got shafted.

Finally, I think people may have overracted in some regards because of our sense of altruism (not as Americans, but as Homo Sapiens, a social creature). If that had happened to my state, I would have wanted a helping hand. In fact, that HAS happened - during the energy crisis. People got mad at our prez because he failed in his responsiblities AND he just acted plain disrespectful.

Now I am not a citizen of the United States, but I am an undergraduate International relations and Politics student, and I thus do have a considerable understanding of these affairs. However I am confused as to the continuing labeling of the responsability of the lack of propper aid provision to the citizens of Lousiana after Katrina onto the Presidents sholders. The United States is a Federation. IE a Fedural state. Surely this kind of thing is the responsablity of the state governer. And all this talk of President Bush being at photo oppotunities as people in New Orleans were dieing is somewhat foolish if it is not his responablity to deal with the response to such a crisis. Also it is in many cases the fault of those citizens who refused to leave their homes when the evacuation was ordered.

Why would we fund the heck out of a federal agency that didn't do anything? The hurricane dealt some serious damage to at least four states - this is exactly the kind of emergency that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is supposed to handle. That's we fealt cheated - we dutifully payed for our national insurance policy, and Bush didn't hold up his end of the bargain just because it was the minorities who got shafted.

Finally, I think people may have overracted in some regards because of our sense of altruism (not as Americans, but as Homo Sapiens, a social creature). If that had happened to my state, I would have wanted a helping hand. In fact, that HAS happened - during the energy crisis. People got mad at our prez because he failed in his responsiblities AND he just acted plain disrespectful.

I was going to say that everyone blamed Bush more out of force of habit than anything else. Presidents are useful scapegoats because one can blame them publicly, and yet be anonymous, while completely absolving one of any responsibility.

Do I think Bush is an idiot? Yes, but do I think pointing that out is in any way helpful? Of course not!

I would say next time disaster strikes, organize a relief effort. After all, there are plenty of people that want to help and it doesn't require any position of power to get people to do what they want to do anyway.

I was going to say that everyone blamed Bush more out of force of habit than anything else. Presidents are useful scapegoats because one can blame them publicly, and yet be anonymous, while completely absolving one of any responsibility.

Do I think Bush is an idiot? Yes, but do I think pointing that out is in any way helpful? Of course not!

I would say next time disaster strikes, organize a relief effort. After all, there are plenty of people that want to help and it doesn't require any position of power to get people to do what they want to do anyway.

So, it's just habit, even though people have specific and well-thought out reasons for criticizing Bush's response (or, actually, Bush's reorganization of disaster-relief agencies prior,) to Katrina?

Or is it just habit for you to use an ad hominem against those who criticize Bush?

As for organizing relief efforts, that'd be a great idea if everyday citizens had the resources to do it...unfortunately, how many people do you know own helicopters, ambulances, massive amounts of fresh water and the means to transport massive amounts of supplies?

The whole Hurricane Katrina mess was a little more complicated than that.
First, the President is in charge of the military, which he could have ordered to evacuate the city but did not. Second, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was headed at the time by Michael Brown, a low level White House crony with relaitvely NO experience to head such a complex organization. His ineptitude lead to massive disorganization that contributed to the mess after the storm. Also, the majority of the residents who refused to leave the city had placed too much faith in the outmoded levee system that surrounds New Orleans. They were also some of the poorest residents of the city who had little resources and feared if they left their homes would be looted or completely lost. The Governor of Louisiana was also slow to act and was overwhelmed by the aftermath, as well as the Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin.

So if blame is what people are looking for, there is plenty to go around.
Not without basically usurping control of the Nat Guard from the respective controllers. In fact Blanco was asked several times to release control of the Louisiana Nat guard into federal hands but she refused. Not to mention she sat on her ass for about 48 hourse after the hurricane before doing anything about it.

Not without basically usurping control of the Nat Guard from the respective controllers. In fact Blanco was asked several times to release control of the Louisiana Nat guard into federal hands but she refused. Not to mention she sat on her ass for about 48 hourse after the hurricane before doing anything about it.

You know, Nazz and others have produced numerous documents showing that BLanco, while her respnse was indeed flawed, did not sit on her ass and that her requests to the federal government sat on some flunky's desk for days before a response was issued.

Now, if the federal government was doing a half assed job (as everything suggests,) would YOU turn over control to them? Hmmmm?

THis does not excuse Blanco's other failings, but your argument, in this case, is another repetition of lies and blame-shifting that has never been supported by hard documentation as the other side of the argument has.

In other words, you choose to keep repeating refuted talking points in the face of overwhelming evidence. Yet more proof that you're an unabashed Bush apologist.

While I'm not blaming bush exclusively for this, we had quite some time to predict this. What if Terrorists gave us less than a day before they attacked a major city, for some one who claims to be thought on defense shouldn't we have a plan in case we have to do this again?

So, it's just habit, even though people have specific and well-thought out reasons for criticizing Bush's response (or, actually, Bush's reorganization of disaster-relief agencies prior,) to Katrina?

Or is it just habit for you to use an ad hominem against those who criticize Bush?

As for organizing relief efforts, that'd be a great idea if everyday citizens had the resources to do it...unfortunately, how many people do you know own helicopters, ambulances, massive amounts of fresh water and the means to transport massive amounts of supplies?

I have no doubt that the reasons were specific and well-thought out. Much in the same way that the reasons for intelligent design are specific and well thought out: there was a theory that someone wanted to prove, so they organized their facts in such a way that would prove it.

It's not my intention to attack Bush critics as much as people that put more value on assigning blame than accepting responsibility.

Interesting point about the helicopters, ambulances, and massive amounts of fresh water. I would say nobody, not even Bush. Ok, so he may have use of a helicopter, but I doubt he could tell you who owns it. Even so, that did not stop helicopters, ambulances, and massive amounts of fresh water being brought in for the survivors. When you get down to it, we are talking about people here and what one person can do, anybody can do.

Not without basically usurping control of the Nat Guard from the respective controllers. In fact Blanco was asked several times to release control of the Louisiana Nat guard into federal hands but she refused. Not to mention she sat on her ass for about 48 hourse after the hurricane before doing anything about it.

Exactly my point. The Feds, Retard Bush, Governor Blanco, FEMAs Brown, Mayor Nagin, and the people of New Orleans are ALL to blame, in that order. Just my two cents. This was an absolute disaster from the top down.

Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read "The Buck Stops Here." Meaning that, as President of the United States, he was responsible for conditions in the country; whether or not his actions or lack thereof were actually responsible for problems was irrelevant, as the leader he was responsible.

Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read "The Buck Stops Here." Meaning that, as President of the United States, he was responsible for conditions in the country; whether or not his actions or lack thereof were actually responsible for problems was irrelevant, as the leader he was responsible.

Exactly. It comes with the job. If you can't handle that, don't bercome President.

It's be like a Programming Director for a network not taking responsibility for the crappy shows on his network. Sure, he's not doing the writing, directing or acting. It's still his responsibility though.

Because Bush is the president?

4 people who were blamed the most for the "trouble" that went on in Katrina.

1. President Bush
2. FEMA (It's a federal agency-it's not tasked with killing or destroying, something the Gov does best so it's gonna suck at what it does although it did a good job)
3. Blanco
4. Nagin (He deserved it, stupid racist)
5. president Bush
6. President Bush
7. The halliburton 2.0 Hurricane generator
8. KBR levee shaker machine
9. VRWC (Vast right wing conspiracy)
10. And our most popular person to blame, President Bush. Again. Whatever happens it's HIS fault!

4 people who were blamed the most for the "trouble" that went on in Katrina.

1. President Bush
2. FEMA (It's a federal agency-it's not tasked with killing or destroying, something the Gov does best so it's gonna suck at what it does although it did a good job)
3. Blanco
4. Nagin (He deserved it, stupid racist)
5. president Bush
6. President Bush
7. The halliburton 2.0 Hurricane generator
8. KBR levee shaker machine
9. VRWC (Vast right wing conspiracy)
10. And our most popular person to blame, President Bush. Again. Whatever happens it's HIS fault!

Hey, don't forget, people also blamed:

1. Clinton (for the levees not being repaired/upgraded during his term.)
2. Environmentalists

and let's not forget:

3. Gays
4. Abortions.

Now I am not a citizen of the United States, but I am an undergraduate International relations and Politics student, and I thus do have a considerable understanding of these affairs. However I am confused as to the continuing labeling of the responsability of the lack of propper aid provision to the citizens of Lousiana after Katrina onto the Presidents sholders. The United States is a Federation. IE a Fedural state. Surely this kind of thing is the responsablity of the state governer. And all this talk of President Bush being at photo oppotunities as people in New Orleans were dieing is somewhat foolish if it is not his responablity to deal with the response to such a crisis. Also it is in many cases the fault of those citizens who refused to leave their homes when the evacuation was ordered.


The Katrina efforts were a total and systematic fubar, on all levels.

The man on the spot - let us tag him as the divisional commander, the major general - the right honourable major of New Orleans could not be bothered to use his own assets ( such as the police ). Instead, he send them off gambling.

The next command level - corps commander, or Lt Gen - the Governor of Lousiana, did nothing, except spout off numbers of reinforcements she would need to do anything. No efforts to use her own assets was visible.

And finally, we come to the highest level in the chain of command - General Dubya - who, despite being the highest commander, was utterly lost in the question of whether he had the authority to do anything at all.

Total and endemic incompetence and failure. All were busy covering their asses, and none did a blessed thing.

Why blame Bush? He is the supreme commander, the chap who bears all responsability.
In wartime, he ought to have been shot for his failures.

but I am an undergraduate International relations and Politics student,

Oh how nice. Another Interpol student.

Both a shame and a pleasure that we hold different views.

Now I am not a citizen of the United States, but I am an undergraduate International relations and Politics student, and I thus do have a considerable understanding of these affairs. However I am confused as to the continuing labeling of the responsability of the lack of propper aid provision to the citizens of Lousiana after Katrina onto the Presidents sholders. The United States is a Federation. IE a Fedural state. Surely this kind of thing is the responsablity of the state governer. And all this talk of President Bush being at photo oppotunities as people in New Orleans were dieing is somewhat foolish if it is not his responablity to deal with the response to such a crisis. Also it is in many cases the fault of those citizens who refused to leave their homes when the evacuation was ordered.

The official verdict is the whole thing was a fiasco from top, down.

The rerasons Bush comes in for SPECIFIC pressure:

1) He appointed Brown to head FEMA... because Brown is 'a friend'. Brown mismanaged the event hopelessly - thus, Bush is responsible for putting the wrong man in the job.

2) Redirected earmarked levee-repair funds to other areas.

3) Ignored warnings that came in substantially BEFORE the destruction, but did nothing. Bush is largely blamed for his inactivity.

4) No federal response for three days. A lot of people think, with all the warnings, Bush should have had Guard and emergency supplies ready to deploy as soon as the disaster was 'finished'.

5) The continuing fiasco AFTER the worst was passed... blackmarket trading of FEMA supplies, lack of response, changing the response every few days - remember the 'emergency spending cards' idea?


Next time you watch one of those alien invasion movies, or one of those 'natural disaster' movies about volcanoes or storms, etc... imagine that the movie response matches what we saw 'in real life' after Katrina. If you look at the possibility of Katrina, but as a nationwide phenomenon, you can see why so many people are unhappy with the ENTIRE government response...

Did you read my post at all. If it isnt his responability, he should not be blamed.

I agree 100% but in someways, he was slow to respond and for that he should be criticized. The bulk of the blame however should be on Mayor Nagin (damn the man) and the Governor (damn her too) for being stupid and not following through on their moral obligations to their citizens.

The whole Hurricane Katrina mess was a little more complicated than that.

Yep.

First, the President is in charge of the military, which he could have ordered to evacuate the city but did not.

because it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to do that. That is done at the State and Local level. Hence why we have county disaster centers. It is their jobs to get the evac warnings out and the jobs of those in power at those levels to make sure it is carried out.

Second, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was headed at the time by Michael Brown, a low level White House crony with relaitvely NO experience to head such a complex organization. His ineptitude lead to massive disorganization that contributed to the mess after the storm.

This part I can agree too.

Also, the majority of the residents who refused to leave the city had placed too much faith in the outmoded levee system that surrounds New Orleans.

Another accurate statement.

They were also some of the poorest residents of the city who had little resources and feared if they left their homes would be looted or completely lost. The Governor of Louisiana was also slow to act and was overwhelmed by the aftermath, as well as the Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin.

Somewhat accurate yep.

So if blame is what people are looking for, there is plenty to go around.

Agreed :)

Sure, but I'm not a resident of New Orleans or Louisiana, to the mayor and governor have relatively impact on my life. I am, on the other hand, a resident of the USA. I save my breath for criticizing those who are put in a position of power over me. Therefore, I elect to criticize Bush, the most ineffectual and cowardly President of at least my and my parent's lifetime.

If he was a coward, he would not have embarked on a retalitory strike in Afghanistan.

The actions of one's underlings ALWAYS reflects on their leader Junii. If a leader can't accept that, then the leader needs to be replaced. Period.

I wish they would do that in NO. It is apparent that there is absolutely no leadership at the Mayorial or Gubernatorial levels of government.

He's not an American, so give him a brake. He hasn't had to live under a leader that has draged the most powerful 1st World nation into the 2nd World and contenue on the path to the 3rd World. Unless he is a Briton, then he has lived under Bush's slave boy, Blare.

HAHAHA!!! Dying of laughter

THis is so wrong on all levels I'm not even going to debunk it.

If he was a coward, he would not have embarked on a retalitory strike in Afghanistan.

But Afghanistan is over there rather than over here (or there if your me). :D

If he was a coward, he would not have embarked on a retalitory strike in Afghanistan.

Funny. I haven't seen Dubya ( unlike his dad who did ) anywhere close to the actual battles. I think he's best classified as just another War Virgin.

If he was a coward, he would not have embarked on a retalitory strike in Afghanistan.

He strapped on a gun and a flak jacket and waded into Afghanistan himself, did he?

Amazing what Bush apologists DO give him credit for.

He strapped on a gun and a flak jacket and waded into Afghanistan himself, did he?

Amazing what Bush apologists DO give him credit for.

I'm not going to turn this into that type of thread and I advise you don't either. Also, I am not a Bush Appologist either. I criticize him when I feel the need to, which is often but on this board both sides got to be represented to have any type of structured debate.

You do not have to strap on a jacket and pick up a gun to fight a war. In that case, most of our politicians are cowards for not being on the front line either. Instead they did the right thing in authorizing the Afghan attack.

But this isn't that type of thread. Don't call someone a coward unless you look into what a coward really is. A coward backs down from a fight. A coward runs from trouble instead of tackling it. That is a coward. If anything, Bush is the opposite of that for he didn't back down from the fight. He has stuck to his guns which is the opposite of being a coward.

And yes....Bush has admitted mistakes wether you want to believe that or not.

Now I am not a citizen of the United States, but I am an undergraduate International relations and Politics student, and I thus do have a considerable understanding of these affairs. However I am confused as to the continuing labeling of the responsability of the lack of propper aid provision to the citizens of Lousiana after Katrina onto the Presidents sholders. The United States is a Federation. IE a Fedural state. Surely this kind of thing is the responsablity of the state governer.

Actually, national disasters usually fall under FEMA - a federal state organization. And the leaders of FEMA are appointed by, and answer to, none other than George W. Bush. The national guard, also the purview of Bush, was also involved.

It would be one thing if Bush hadn't made a habit of appointing and hiring completely inept people who are either yes-men or buddies. Then we could just say, "Ok, this guy sucked, but every president will make mistakes." Bush, unfortunately, seems to intentionally surround himself with the inept, so he is directly to blame.

Also it is in many cases the fault of those citizens who refused to leave their homes when the evacuation was ordered.

Because, you know, everyone has the resources to just pack up and leave.

If he was a coward, he would not have embarked on a retalitory strike in Afghanistan.

He didn't.

He sent other people to do it.

I'm not going to turn this into that type of thread and I advise you don't either. Also, I am not a Bush Appologist either. I criticize him when I feel the need to, which is often but on this board both sides got to be represented to have any type of structured debate.

You do not have to strap on a jacket and pick up a gun to fight a war. In that case, most of our politicians are cowards for not being on the front line either. Instead they did the right thing in authorizing the Afghan attack.

But this isn't that type of thread. Don't call someone a coward unless you look into what a coward really is. A coward backs down from a fight. A coward runs from trouble instead of tackling it. That is a coward. If anything, Bush is the opposite of that for he didn't back down from the fight. He has stuck to his guns which is the opposite of being a coward.

And yes....Bush has admitted mistakes wether you want to believe that or not.

So - by never taking part in active service, and by weaseling his way out of his military training he is.... what, a hero?

Because, you know, everyone has the resources to just pack up and leave.

More importantly... the President's response plan is supposed to be capable of dealing with disasters, like terrorism, that can strike at ANY moment, without warning, on a NATIONAL scale.

Would the Busheviks be saying ALL Americans should have packed up and left, if we have a NATIONAL disaster?

So - by never taking part in active service, and by weaseling his way out of his military training he is.... what, a hero?

Do we have to debunk this conspiracy in another thread? Let us stick with the topic at hand please.

Do we have to debunk this conspiracy in another thread? Let us stick with the topic at hand please.


Okay. Which things did he do RIGHT during his presiding over the Crisis?

Do we have to debunk this conspiracy in another thread? Let us stick with the topic at hand please.

Sure. It's okay for you to bring it up, but not for anyone else to question it.

Check.

Some things to consider...

Many criticize government inaction, especially as regards evacuation. While many can rightly accuse Nagin and city and state officials for not using all available resources, think about it before you suggest that the government should have forced people to leave. The same people who criticize the government for not getting these people out (most of whom chose to stay) would have flipped at the first news footage of government police or troops forcibly removing citizens from their houses and loading them on military trucks.

Secondly, the president cannot send troops into a state, be they regular military, reserves, or national guard from other states without the direct authorization of that state's governor. This is a central part of this country's Federalism. Many like to claim that Bush is a tyrant, and then criticize him for not doing what would have been the most tyrannical move of his presidency. Methinks some like to criticize him for the sake of it, at times in absence of analytical and objective thinking.

Even if there were tons of material aid available just outside of the city, who was going to see that it was distributed? What few local and state officials were present in New Orleans at the time were barely in control of their own affairs, much less the entire city. Blanco was protecting her turf. Nagin and Broussard were pleading for water, food, fuel, and rescue assistance - sometimes directly to FEMA officials and on news networks - which angered Blanco for them appearing to go over her head. She did hold up key personnel for sometime immediately after the levees broke.

I grew up in New Orleans. I still have family and friends there. My mother rode out the storm at East Jefferson hospital in Metaire, along with my uncle and grandmother. I went in just days after the storm broke to shore up their houses and get my mother and her things (and cat) out of there for a month. I spent a few days living down there just after the storm while doing the above. This may not make me the foremost expert on the storm and its aftermath (I'm sure I'm not) and I do not claim any "moral authority" but this is something I've followed very closely.

Everyone living down there knew this was likely to happen one day, knew the risks involved. While I'm sure that many could not leave on their own, most of those who stayed chose to accept those risks for whatever reason. The city and state governments did the most harm in not evacuating those who wanted to leave but couldn't and preventing aid (in it's various forms) from getting to needed areas as fast as possible.

I'm no fan of Bush for a variety of reasons. However, I think this "buck stops here" nonsense is a bit trite. If we don't levy accountability where is is warranted, we lessen the chance that things will go better then next time a major disaster strikes the nation. We need to learn from the mistakes, not score political points at the expense of people's lives, both past and future. I'm sorry, but there is a lot of responsibility that was unfulfilled that needs to be addressed long before we get to the president's role in this one.

Good arguments could be made for either side.


In my opinion, people should be a little more responsible for their own well being, as well as the people in their care.

I know many people's options were severerly limited as far as transportation,etc..-Maybe some didnt want to believe it could be that bad-maybe they couldnt picture such total destruction. You may feel safe sitting in a city and not able to picture it wiped out.

But now we've all seen it can and DID happen.

When you have two or more days notice, when the President makes a speech that its going to be really bad, you could WALK away and live. You cant protect your house or most of your property, but you can make sure you dont have to die in a 170 degree attic two days later because you trapped yourself there.

Everyone should have learned a lesson after Katrina. Wether it was a hard, in-person lesson where you suffered tragic loss, or simply watching on tv with morbid curiosity-we all should have learned.
Its not reasonable to expect local,state or federal government to stop the disaster or protect you from it. maybe they will respond faster and more thoroughly next time.
There will be a next time and we all need to be aware if we are in harm's way, we should expect to do something within reason to help ourselves. Then hope for needed assistance afterwards.

I'm sickened by the thought of people suffocating in attics, old people in senior home-trapped and drowning, people baking in high heat and humidity on roof tops. I dont think they're stupid or that they deserve it- I just think they really had no idea of the reality that it was going to happen.

and I hope no one has to learn the hard way next time.

Good arguments could be made for either side.


In my opinion, people should be a little more responsible for their own well being, as well as the people in their care.

I know many people's options were severerly limited as far as transportation,etc..-Maybe some didnt want to believe it could be that bad-maybe they couldnt picture such total destruction. You may feel safe sitting in a city and not able to picture it wiped out.

But now we've all seen it can and DID happen.

When you have two or more days notice, when the President makes a speech that its going to be really bad, you could WALK away and live. You cant protect your house or most of your property, but you can make sure you dont have to die in a 170 degree attic two days later because you trapped yourself there.

Everyone should have learned a lesson after Katrina. Wether it was a hard, in-person lesson where you suffered tragic loss, or simply watching on tv with morbid curiosity-we all should have learned.
Its not reasonable to expect local,state or federal government to stop the disaster or protect you from it. maybe they will respond faster and more thoroughly next time.
There will be a next time and we all need to be aware if we are in harm's way, we should expect to do something within reason to help ourselves. Then hope for needed assistance afterwards.

I'm sickened by the thought of people suffocating in attics, old people in senior home-trapped and drowning, people baking in high heat and humidity on roof tops. I dont think they're stupid or that they deserve it- I just think they really had no idea of the reality that it was going to happen.

and I hope no one has to learn the hard way next time.

But the fact remains, one of Bush's big election promises has been security... emergency response. He has sold that almost exclusively as his manifesto... protecting americans from terrorists or whatever. Fine - if that is what you are going to market, don't be too surprised when people ask where it was when it fails to turn up.

I'm thinking of the fact that we DID have warning, this time. That we KNEW this was coming, but the response was so poor.

Also - I have said it's the WHOLE chain that is at fault, not just the Weaklink-In-Chief.

It is ONLY a matter of time until we get hit by something national. Something where 'get out of the city' is not going to be enough, and will not satisfy people as an absolution.

This time, we had a local problem, and the WHOLE system failed us. What are we going to do when something hits us all?

Because, you know, everyone has the resources to just pack up and leave.


Sometimes, if your life is at stake, you cannot afford NOT to do so.

I think many people had no comprehension of how bad it could be. And now in hindsight, they know.

Next time, many more people will take the warning much more seriously.

I'm hoping both individuals and government HAVE LEARNED many lessons on a better way to deal with a total distaster, that they will lay out a clear plan and execute it properly if and when the time comes.

Here's who to blame:
1. Those who could leave, but didn't. If a television or a home is more important than your safety, you deserve to die. After all, if you didn't take the time to get out of the way of a powerful hurricane when you could have, you deserve what you got. It's called personal responsibility.


2. Mayor Naggin. There are few leaders who are more incompetent. There were school buses that he could have used. Where were they? Well, after the hurricane, they were several feet underwater. Why didn't he use those buses? Mayors, your cities are your responcibilities. You don't have to worry about neighboring cities. You have to be able to serve your city well. After all, the job of the leader is to serve his or her followers. You lead them. You take care of them.

3. Governor What's-her-face. Your state-your responsibility. If you don't send YOUR national guard troops to help in a HUGE disaster, you should be overthrown.

4. The Federal Government. Yes, this includes government agencies, Congress, and Dubya. Government agencies are supposed to do their duties well. Congress okays the budget. The president has huge responsibilities. He has to control and take responsibility for the military and foreign relations. If he does ANYTHING, and I mean anything, people will get pissed.

Here's an alternative scenerio:
Augest 2005. President, I mean Evil Dictator, Bush has overstepped his bounderies and forced citizens to evacuate New Orleans a few days before Katrina hits. He has also abused his power severely and sent troops to New Orleans to forcibly evict citizens from their homes.

Every president has learned that this is the law of the presidency: You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Whatever happens, it's always your fault and never anyone else's. If anyone screws up, you are to blame, even if it isn't your fault. Your biggest job is to be the scapegoat. If Nagin screws up during the Katrina thing, it's your fault and not his. If the governor screws up, it's your fault. If anyone screws up, it's your fault. It doesn't matter what you did and what someone else did, it's your fault. You will be hated. You will be loathed. People will want to kill you because, no matter what happens, it's your fault. Deal with it, because nowadays, leaders are convenient scapegoats for any screw ups. Hoover learned this. Carter learned this. Clinton learned this. Lincoln learned this. Every president learned this. If you are Mr. President, it's your fault.

But the fact remains, one of Bush's big election promises has been security... emergency response. He has sold that almost exclusively as his manifesto... protecting americans from terrorists or whatever. Fine - if that is what you are going to market, don't be too surprised when people ask where it was when it fails to turn up.

I'm thinking of the fact that we DID have warning, this time. That we KNEW this was coming, but the response was so poor.

Also - I have said it's the WHOLE chain that is at fault, not just the Weaklink-In-Chief.

It is ONLY a matter of time until we get hit by something national. Something where 'get out of the city' is not going to be enough, and will not satisfy people as an absolution.

This time, we had a local problem, and the WHOLE system failed us. What are we going to do when something hits us all?


Well, my friend-you dont have a lot of argument from me there.

We both know that no matter what a polictician promises us-wether soley to get elected or in good faith and then they cant reasonably keep to it- you cant count on them to be there when you need it.


All we can do is vote with common sense and hope it works out for the best. It likely wont, so the backup is to count on yourself and your loved ones.

Take any reasonable steps you cant to be prepared. Have a basic plan to stay and survive or be prepared to run to safer ground.

And dont count on elected officials at any level to keep promises or prevent/protect you. All you can do is expect them to react too little and too late and spend more time and energy trying to shirk blame.

I'm as prepared as I can reasonably be without crossing the line into paranoia. I like to think I've made a significant step towards having good luck if anything occurs that would disrupt power/fuel/communications, etc...
Above that, it really isnt in my hands.

Well, my friend-you dont have a lot of argument from me there.

We both know that no matter what a polictician promises us-wether soley to get elected or in good faith and then they cant reasonably keep to it- you cant count on them to be there when you need it.


All we can do is vote with common sense and hope it works out for the best. It likely wont, so the backup is to count on yourself and your loved ones.

Take any reasonable steps you cant to be prepared. Have a basic plan to stay and survive or be prepared to run to safer ground.

And dont count on elected officials at any level to keep promises or prevent/protect you. All you can do is expect them to react too little and too late and spend more time and energy trying to shirk blame.

I'm as prepared as I can reasonably be without crossing the line into paranoia. I like to think I've made a significant step towards having good luck if anything occurs that would disrupt power/fuel/communications, etc...
Above that, it really isnt in my hands.

You and I think much alike. I certainly don't argue with your 'physician, prepare thyself' concept.

I'm just explaining why Bush gets such a hard time over it. You sell the goods, you should be prepared to deliver them... yes?

You and I think much alike. I certainly don't argue with your 'physician, prepare thyself' concept.

I'm just explaining why Bush gets such a hard time over it. You sell the goods, you should be prepared to deliver them... yes?


True. In my opinion, I think he trusted the people he appointed to get it done.
I guess as you cant trust anyone as commander in chief either.

Which ever end of this situation you were on, everyone learned a painful lesson.
I just hope they really LEARNED it and wont make the same mistake twice.

We cant even truly comprehend the needless misery people some people suffered.

Secondly, the president cannot send troops into a state, be they regular military, reserves, or national guard from other states without the direct authorization of that state's governor.

IIRC, the problem was not the need for National Guard members from other states. There were forces already in Lousiana. The problem was that their resources had been gutted - and no one had tallied this up or replaced them. Thus, the NG said, "OK. We'll be here if needed," and then found out only after the storm hit that they didn't have the communications, generators, amphibious vehicles, etc. that they used to have - since it had all been appropriated for Iraq.

Sometimes, if your life is at stake, you cannot afford NOT to do so.

What choice was there, really? Some people literally cannot get up and walk out of town - they can't even walk to the store. Some could walk out of town and.....what? Starve to death out in the woods somewhere because they don't have the money to get a place to stay or eat at a restaurant? If you had to choose between leaving your home with nowhere else to go or braving the storm, what would you choose?

True. In my opinion, I think he trusted the people he appointed to get it done.
I guess as you cant trust anyone as commander in chief either.

The problem with Bush is that he has a track record of intentionally appointing incompetent advisors -so long as they'll tell him what he wants to hear or are powerful business men or what-have-you.

If it were one bad appointee, I could look at it and think, "I'm sure he thought the guy was competent." However, given Bush's record, I've given up on blaming the incompetent people who shouldn't even be in the jobs they are in. I'm going to wonder why my commander-in-chief insists on appointing incompetent people.

Now I am not a citizen of the United States, but I am an undergraduate...
Did Bush do you a favour recently? Why all the recent threads pleading with everyone not to be so hard on him?

Now I am not a citizen of the United States, but I am an undergraduate International relations and Politics student, and I thus do have a considerable understanding of these affairs. However I am confused as to the continuing labeling of the responsability of the lack of propper aid provision to the citizens of Lousiana after Katrina onto the Presidents sholders. The United States is a Federation. IE a Fedural state. Surely this kind of thing is the responsablity of the state governer. And all this talk of President Bush being at photo oppotunities as people in New Orleans were dieing is somewhat foolish if it is not his responablity to deal with the response to such a crisis. Also it is in many cases the fault of those citizens who refused to leave their homes when the evacuation was ordered.
Short answer has quite likely already been handed to you: he deserved what he got for it.

Did Bush do you a favour recently? Why all the recent threads pleading with everyone not to be so hard on him?Could've been something like this?
http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Bush-BJ.jpg

Because when you're a liberal, it's always in vogue to hate on W.

Because when you're a liberal, it's always in vogue to hate on W.
And when you're young and inexperienced, it's always in vogue to either rebel like an idiot or fellate your masters like a good bootlicking sycophant.
Generally speaking.