The Blame Game.....fill me in?

[mjs1973]

What a shock! Bush finally stated that he was ultimately responsible for the bungling of the nation's biggest natural disaster. No one really expected that as he has always blamed others for his problems.

Regardless of reasons, fair is fair. I congratulate Bush for taking this step. It is his first honest try at being a real leader and a welcome response to the situation. Good work!

.

I was shocked to hear this too! It was a step in the right direction for Bush.

[paulnj]

Better late than never huh. But what does he have to loose by telling the truth? He has the best benefit package known to man FOR LIFE already and will still command a high figure to lecture like Clinton does. The man was a C average student people! What other C average student makes it to the top with lies and deceit?

Ah yes I am pro bush as you can tell

None the less.... I have to respect a man who admits his errors !

[opus]

Penny, I saw that picture on snopes yesterday. It is, of course, obviously faked.

Here's another hilarious one they had. This one actually appeared on Irish TV. Sky News, to be specific. Sky News kept me informed of the Tsunami day and night for the nearly two weeks I was in London this past winter. They do a very good job of news reporting, and IMO "unbiased", or at least not with an agenda against Blair/Bush. So this is an obvious "oops" on the part of whoever makes up captions. But still very funny.


source: http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/disaster.asp

[adina]

I saw recently (like a day or two after Bush took responsiblilty) that the governer of LA also stepped up and took responsiblity.

While I admit, I'm not Bush's biggest fan, I thought it was well done of him to step up and say that he made a mistake. But with the governer making the same announcement the next day, the whole thing to me seems like a game of one-upmanship. Perhaps I'm just a political cynic, but that was the first thought that popped into my head.

[mjs1973]

I saw recently (like a day or two after Bush took responsiblilty) that the governer of LA also stepped up and took responsiblity.

While I admit, I'm not Bush's biggest fan, I thought it was well done of him to step up and say that he made a mistake. But with the governer making the same announcement the next day, the whole thing to me seems like a game of one-upmanship. Perhaps I'm just a political cynic, but that was the first thought that popped into my head.

I'm glad that he took resposibility for it, but the first thought that came to my mind was "political damage control".

I'm a bit of a political cynic myself and whenever I hear something like this, I always wonder what the motivation is behind it. Is it for the betterment of the people, or is it for the betterment of someones career/image?

[paulnj]

"I always wonder what the motivation is behind it. Is it for the betterment of the people, or is it for the betterment of someones career/image?"



CHOICE 2 is my vote

GREAT images Penny and Kelly. I need the humor these days

[opus]

I'm glad that he took resposibility for it, but the first thought that came to my mind was "political damage control".

I'm a bit of a political cynic myself and whenever I hear something like this, I always wonder what the motivation is behind it. Is it for the betterment of the people, or is it for the betterment of someones career/image?

My first thought when Bush took responsibility was the thought process (or advice) he must have gone through:

--------------------
Bush: But it's not my fault!

Advisor: But Mr. President, other presidents have taken heat for not taking responsibility, whether they were at fault or not! The people are expecting you to to be the "big man" and say that you take responsibility. If you don't, you'll go down in flames. If you do, that's all you'll have to do, and you can go about your normal business afterward and be the hero.

Bush: That's all I have to do to look good? Oh, OK, I'll do it!
--------------------

As for the Governor of LA, I was pretty sure during that first week she was going home at night, curling into the fetal position, and crying, "I don't want to be governor anymore! I don't want to be governor anymore!"

While I think she bears some blame, I'll bet her "taking responsibility" is much more real. I think she tried harder after the storm to get help, and her "responsibility" was in being ineffective at asking ... not for lack of trying. AND, who knows what amount of responsibility she bears for pre-storm decisions.

Ya know who you will NOT hear those words from, and who needs to say them most of all? Ray Nagin. Tough job, tough call, he made the wrong one. Before the storm, not after. He's a folk hero after the storm, but it's because of his decisions (and lack of a plan) that the shelter situation was so bad to begin with.

Oh, and you know who else? The Levee Committee. Wasted funds entrusted to them and let their community down. Not sayin' that if every penny they had would have gone to the levees they would not have broken ... Katrina was a monster storm ... but the fact that a good percentage of their money went towards fountains and parades doesn't help.


Why do I hold these opinions? I pretty much watched TV 24/7 during that first week. My opinions are formed by who I saw and what they said on CNN/msnbc/FOX during that first week. The Gov was one of the first portrayed as asking for help. Nagin only became prominent when the Convention Center crisis became evident.

disclaimer: these are simply MY opinions based on my incomplete and media/internet-fed knowledge.

[mjs1973]

There is growing evidence that the Bush administration grossly inflated the resume of FEMA boss Michael Brown. This runs from the jobs he really held vs those claimed, his managerial experience, even his academic record. This might explain why the hurricane disaster was so completely bungled. Maybe we should have a poll here: Will the Bush Administration ever tell the truth about anything?"

Bush lies, people die. I will be very wary about voting for any Republican ever again.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

The more I hear about Michael Brown, the more I distrust Bush and his cronies. I didn't think that was possible, but I guess it is. I would respect the Bush a lot more if he would just tell us the truth, but that doesn't seem possible. In one breath he says that FEMA's reaction to the storm and the rescue effort is "unacceptable". Then he turns around and tells Brown he's doing a great job... If Brown is in charge of FEMA, and FEMA's actions are unacceptable, then how could he be doing a great job?

[paulnj]

YOU MAY NOT LIKE THIS VIEW, BUT IT IS AMERICA ;)

Not my view completely, but the facts are there to EXPLAIN the unruly behavior that warranted MARSHALL LAW !


75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane,
> and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the
> city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an
> additional, crucial fact: early reports from CNN and Fox indicated
> that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the
> city's jails--so they just let many of them loose. There is no doubt a
> significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large
> number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects,
> and vice versa.


All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent incompetence of
> the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of
> the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. But in a
> city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to
> ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to
> political supporters--not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in
> case of emergency
>
But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about
> saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own
> anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their
> businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried
> about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But
> living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them

Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005

[Michael Fanelli]

YOU MAY NOT LIKE THIS VIEW, BUT IT IS AMERICA ;)

Not my view completely, but the facts are there to EXPLAIN the unruly behavior that warranted MARSHALL LAW !

75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane,
> and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the
> city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an
> additional, crucial fact: early reports from CNN and Fox indicated
> that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the
> city's jails--so they just let many of them loose. There is no doubt a
> significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large
> number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects,
> and vice versa.

Analysis of the content, not you personally!

I have heard this before but it is much too simplistic. During the tsunami, during massive earthquakes in the middle east and europe, there were no gangs roaming the streets firing weapons and committing violent crimes. One obvious difference is the sheer number of available weapons in the US. The other is the growing attitude of "me first" that pervades the culture. Yes, some prisoners may have been a problem, people "from the projects" are no more prone than others to commit violence. They were just the ones left behind and abandoned.

All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent incompetence of
> the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of
> the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary.

Evacuation on this scale is well beyond the means of city or even state government. Fox and others show the rows of school busses unused: not even close to the number that would have been needed for evacuation. The hurricane hit a three-state region at once. You can't expect the city to take care of something that large.

> But in a
> city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to
> ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to
> political supporters--not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in
> case of emergency

Drivel. Any excuse at all to blame the "welfare state." How does that apply to the hurricane? Many of thiose left behind were the working poor, not welfare recipients. This arguement is complete spurious and irrelevent. Do you really think that incraesing the homeless population would have incraesed evacuation? If the feds couldn't get their act together, how does the city get the resources to plan for a hundred year flood?

> But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about
> saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own
> anything.

The majority of those left behind were the working poor who lost their homes and their apartments. It has NOTHING to do with "welfare parasites." There but for the grace of God go you. But that's a Christian thought not suitable for the right wing.

> Do they worry about what is going to happen to their
> businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried
> about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But
> living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them

More nonsense.. How many people in California plan for the mud slides, fires, and earthquakes? Are those multi-million dollar homes owned by welfare recipients?

[paulnj]

I agree with alot you have said. But I , having been one of the "welfare state" for 2 years in my youth, feel I can contest to what welfare does to SOME people ;)

I know of( a friend's neighbors) a "family" of early 20's KIDS with 2 kids who make 2x my 48 hr a week income just MILKING the system. They are raising children who will do the same and are PROUD that they can do it. Somebody explain to me why I work again?


OK...

Don't get me wrong! I am not at all saying that POOR people don't deserve the same attention as financially stable people do. I am not going to play the race issue(but Kanye West is right). I also know what Bush is HEAVILY to lame , as HE can get ALL of the AVAILABLE military and government agencies mobilized with a few calls.

Why was the USS comfort not mobilized IMMEDIATELY, Why did it take so long to get the national guard in? Why did FEMA drop the ball ;)

Guns have nothing to do with why people were RAPING, KILLING, LOOTING( not taking needed goods) and my favorite... shooting at the army corp of engineers trying to fix the levy ;)

SELFISH GREED, LACK OF MORALS and DISREGUARD FOR OTHERS was the cause ;)

BTW.. I personally was saving very slowly for another camera body. I sent that $ to the RED CROSS last week

[darkman]

Where was the president right after the storm? Hiding!, just like after 911. Then, he flew over in his jet.... Oh, and somebody took a picture of the "concerned" president looking out the window....

Of course, the presidents supporters say it's best this way. He needs to stay out of the way. IMO, we need leadership. The president showing up, and god forbid, helping (or at least looking like he is), instills confidence and builds moral. It would be nice if our president led for a change.

About this disaster, why are we so arogant? Is it the "god bless America" attitude? Why didn't they have a plan to get people out of NO? It's a time bomb waiting to go off. And, it will again. You have a city under a lake and a river in an unstable delta that is sinking deeper below the water every year. Other areas of the world with similar issues, like the Netherlands, have evacuation plans. The Dutch even have plans to let the ocean reclaim some of the land.

[paulnj]

HIDING ;) nothing more to say!