View Full Version : Not much traction with the abuse



MadMonk
09-06-2005, 08:00 AM
From http://www.washtimes.com/national/pruden.htm

George W. finally gets it -- in more ways than one. The tardy president was back on the Gulf Coast yesterday, bucking up the spirits of the damned and stiffening the resolve of the slackers.

He's getting it as well from his critics, many of whom can't believe their great good luck, that a hurricane, of all things, finally gives them the opening they've been waiting for to heap calumny and scorn on him for something that might get a little traction. Cindy Sheehan is yesterday's news; she couldn't attract a camera crew this morning if she stripped down to her step-ins for a march on Prairie Chapel Ranch.

The vultures of the venomous left are attacking on two fronts, first that the president didn't do what the incompetent mayor of New Orleans and the pouty governor of Louisiana should have done, and didn't, in the early hours after Katrina loosed the deluge on the city that care and good judgment forgot. Ray Nagin, the mayor, ordered a "mandatory" evacuation a day late, but kept the city's 2,000 school buses parked and locked in neat rows when there was still time to take the refugees to higher ground. The bright-yellow buses sit ruined now in four feet of dirty water. Then the governor, Kathleen Blanco, resisted early pleas to declare martial law, and her dithering opened the way for looters, rapists and killers to make New Orleans an unholy hell. Gov. Haley Barbour did not hesitate in neighboring Mississippi, and looters, rapists and killers have not turned the streets of Gulfport and Biloxi into killing fields.

The drumbeat of partisan ingratitude continues even after the president flooded the city with National Guardsmen from a dozen states, paratroopers from Fort Bragg and Marines from the Atlantic and the Pacific. The flutter and chatter of the helicopters above the ghostly abandoned city, some of them from as far away as Singapore and averaging 240 missions a day, is eerily reminiscent of the last days of Saigon. Nevertheless, Sen. Mary Landrieu, who seems to think she's cute when she's mad, even threatened on national television to punch out the president -- a felony, by the way, even as a threat. Mayor Nagin, who you might think would be looking for a place to hide, and Gov. Blanco, nursing a bigtime snit, can't find the right word of thanks to a nation pouring out its heart and emptying its pockets. Maybe the senator should consider punching out the governor, only a misdemeanor.

The race hustlers waited for three days to inflame a tense situation, but then set to work with their usual dedication. The Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, our self-appointed twin ambassadors of ill will, made the scene as soon as they could, taking up the coded cry that Katrina was the work of white folks, that a shortage of white looters and snipers made looting and sniping look like black crime, that calling the refugees "refugees" was an act of linguistic racism. A "civil rights activist" on Arianna Huffington's celebrity blog even floated the rumor that the starving folks abandoned in New Orleans had been forced to eat their dead -- after only four days. New Orleans has a reputation for its unusual cuisine, but this tale was so tall that nobody paid it much attention. Neither did anyone tell the tale-bearer to put a dirty sock in it.

Condi Rice went to the scene to say what everyone can see for himself, that no one but the race hustlers imagine Americans of any hue attaching strings to the humanitarian aid pouring into the broken and bruised cities of the Gulf. Most of the suffering faces in the flickering television images are black, true enough, and most of the helping hands are white.

Black and white churches of all denominations across a wide swath of the South stretching from Texas across Arkansas and Louisiana into Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama and Georgia turned their Sunday schools into kitchens and dormitories. In Memphis, Junior Leaguers turned out for baby-sitting duty at the city's largest, most fashionable and nearly all white Baptist church, cradling tiny black infants in compassionate arms so their mothers could finally sleep. The owner of a honky-tonk showed up to ask whether the church would "accept money from a bar." A pastor took $1,400, some of it in quarters, dimes and nickels, with grateful thanks and a promise to see that it is spent wisely on the deserving -- most of whom are black.

The first polls, no surprise, show the libels are not working. A Washington Post-ABC survey found that the president is not seen as the villain the nutcake left is trying to make him out to be. Americans, skeptical as ever, are believing their own eyes.

PUGalicious
09-06-2005, 09:35 AM
This coming from the "respected" editor-in-chief who has become infamous in journalism circles for "Prudenizing," which was the term coined to describe Pruden's fiddling with leads and headlines on stories to give them a pro-Republican or anti-Democrat slant.

What's interesting is how much of the "liberal" criticism is coming from people in the president's own camp. But as was expected, the administration would employ it's usual strategy of maligning opponents in an effort to deflect responsibility for its own ineptitude, incompetence and even negligence. It's vintage Karl Rove.

MadMonk
09-06-2005, 09:40 AM
Wasn't it you that once posted once about "killing the messenger"? Can I take your post to mean that you refute everything in the article?

PUGalicious
09-06-2005, 09:50 AM
The messenger has to have some credibility in order to take the message seriously.

MadMonk
09-06-2005, 10:04 AM
So, what about the article do you disagree with (besides his use of the word liberal)?

Didaskalos
09-06-2005, 12:40 PM
After reading the article, I can tell you what I disagree with. First, the tone. This is clearly partisan hackery, not an honest discourse about what could have/should have happened. Most will quickly point out that there are partisan hacks on both sides to which I will absolutely agree. I don’t like it when anyone tries to paint an overly simplistic notion about who is to blame.

Bush in not “the one” to blame for Katrina anyone more than the mayor of New Orleans. There were lots of failures and the Mayor(s) and the Governor(s) should respond to criticisms raised regarding their response. Unfortunately, they will not have swarms of right wing radio show hosts in their defense.

Fundamentally, my problem is the lack of responsibility taken by the President or this administration. Whatever happened to the notion that “The Buck Stops Here”? Whatever my personal feelings about how Truman lived out this principle, it is a noble one and is the attitude that should be held by a great leader.

I am currently a Manager. Most of my day is not a processing function so most mistakes in my department are not technically “my fault”. However, the department is my responsibility so when a mistake is made, I bear responsibility for the mistake. The Buck really does stop at my desk (for better or for worse). I hold my team responsible and will discipline as needed but to all external customers, there is one point man to take responsibility. It is not a fun position to be in but it is part of the reason I am in a roll of responsibility.

This trickle up blame tactic by the right at the moment is pathetic. Let us say that some of the rescuees bear responsibility for not leaving when they had an opportunity, let’s say that the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana bear responsibility? Does any of this absolve the President or this administration of responsibility?

On August 28th, President Bush made the follow statement (from his Crawford ranch) regarding Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama being declared disaster states: “These declarations will allow federal agencies to coordinate all disaster relief efforts with state and local officials,". Presumably this would be at the direction of the Department of Homeland Security since they took over that responsibility. From the Department of Homeland Security’s website “In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort.

What responsibility does the President or this administration hold? Does giving the Department of Homeland security or the President a free pass help address how future situations can be avoided? Does blaming the institutions outside of this administration that also bears responsiblity mean they don't have anything to respond to? Where does the buck stop?

PUGalicious
09-06-2005, 12:54 PM
I think Didaskalos reflected much of what I would have said.

MadMonk
09-06-2005, 02:16 PM
I've looked again and don't see anything in there that states that Bush doesn't share in the blame. No one has stated that Bush is completely blameless. However, what the article does do is point out the hypocrisy of those on the far left that are engaging in "partisan hacking" themselves. There are a lot of pots calling kettles black out there.

PUGalicious
09-06-2005, 02:29 PM
Yes, there are.

It would be nice if someone would actually accept some responsibility (and blame), especially the agency that actually claimed that they were the one agency that assumes responsibility for such national disasters.

Didaskalos
09-06-2005, 04:14 PM
I've looked again and don't see anything in there that states that Bush doesn't share in the blame. No one has stated that Bush is completely blameless. However, what the article does do is point out the hypocrisy of those on the far left that are engaging in "partisan hacking" themselves. There are a lot of pots calling kettles black out there.
But the purpose of the article is to clearly divert attention away from any responsiblity the President might have. Not only that but it was also written to point out any positive thing in this adminstration while pointing out any negative in anyone else's action. Since so many possibilities are given for where blame lies but clearly the President (or anyone in the administration) isn't on this list, omission speaks very loudly in this case.

Responding to partisan hackery with partisan hackery while explaining that the 'critics' are demonstrating 'partisan ingratitude' is ironically hypocritical considering the tone of the article is to blame anyone not lining up with his party's talking point.

In as much as the Department of Homeland Security has already claimed it is their responsiblity, why should not this administration take responsiblity? If this article represented fair journalism, why no mention of the President or this administration (other than to ommit any discussion of responsiblity)?

I would never claim there is not partisan politics being played by both political parties however, there is no doubt this is just another concerted effort to make sure the President bears no burden of responsiblity in the public's eyes. Pruden has done his part.

MadMonk
09-06-2005, 05:33 PM
I doubt that anyone could conclude from this article that Bush should not be held at least partially responsible. You read way more into it than I believe was intended but, as with any opinion, to each his own.

Still, no one has bothered to refute the points made in the article, only those it doesn't make.

Didaskalos
09-07-2005, 09:19 AM
I doubt that anyone could conclude from this article that Bush should not be held at least partially responsible. You read way more into it than I believe was intended but, as with any opinion, to each his own. Perhaps, I will just wait and see after the 'investigations' are completed whether anyone in this administration claims any responsibility. So far, we have heard that "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job". We will see if this is the extent of the 'reprimands'.


Still, no one has bothered to refute the points made in the article, only those it doesn't make.
I, for one, am not trying to excuse the failures made at the state and local level. The Mayor was clearly ill prepared and New Orleans should have had definitive plans for a cat 4 or cat 5 hurricaine years ago since this seemed inevitable.

Still, what it omits is precisely the point. Blame is not rather my point, it is how to learn from this and avoid similar situations in the future. I am sure the Mayor of New Orleans has learned some valuable lessons and the next time a category 4 hurricane is expected to hit New Orleans, he will likely respond more effectively. He bears responsiblity, no doubt! The Governor responded ineffectively. I am sure the next time a category 4 hurricane is expected to hit New Orleans, she will likely respond more effectively. She bears responsiblity, no doubt!

Is there anyone else that bears responsiblity or should be learning from this incident? Whether FEMA stays under the umbrella of the Dept. of Homeland Security or not, there are definitely lessons to be learned from the Federal response.

Post 9/11, as the Republican party so clearly articulated throughout the entire campaign season, response to disaster must be different. To help facilitate this was the Department of Homeland Security. Proponents say this department has helped keep us safe while opponents say it is nothing more than the illusion of safety. Since we haven't really had a major incident to respond to since 09/11, it has been difficult to know how they would respond.

Lest we forget that the Department of Homeland Security was formed to ensure that a Department that answers to the president can better coordinate Federal, State and local response to a disaster. In fact, they even created the National Response Plan which says:


National Response Plan

"One team, one goal...a safer, more secure America"

The National Response Plan establishes a comprehensive all-hazards approach to enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents. The plan incorporates best practices and procedures from incident management disciplines—homeland security, emergency management, law enforcement, firefighting, public works, public health, responder and recovery worker health and safety, emergency medical services, and the private sector—and integrates them into a unified structure. It forms the basis of how the federal government coordinates with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector during incidents. It establishes protocols to help

- Save lives and protect the health and safety of the public, responders, and recovery workers;

- Ensure security of the homeland;

- Prevent an imminent incident, including acts of terrorism, from occurring;

- Protect and restore critical infrastructure and key resources;

- Conduct law enforcement investigations to resolve the incident, apprehend the perpetrators, and collect and preserve evidence for prosecution and/or attribution;

- Protect property and mitigate damages and impacts to individuals, communities, and the environment; and

- Facilitate recovery of individuals, families, businesses, governments, and the environment.

The fact that any discussion of their failures does not exist in this article when we were led to believe they would coordinate and take the lead in a major disaster is entirely my point. Is the article a fair look at what went wrong or an attempt to divert attention away from the illusion of safety from the federal level by only looking at the failures at the state and local level? Are we learning that the Federal government will only "coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector during incidents" if those state and local agencies respond perfectly first or could we hope that they would step up and do what they claimed they could do best?

PUGalicious
09-07-2005, 09:41 AM
Who is better equipped (with resources, expertise and leadership authority) to handle a large-scale disaster or civil emergency? The federal government or a city government?

If the federal government can't respond better to a major disaster (even one within a single city) that we saw coming, how can we trust the federal government to respond in an effective way if we are hit with a major unexpected disaster, especially one that is man-made?

With the exception of New York City, I don't know of any major city that would be equipped to handle, on their own, a disaster of this magnitude. People around the country looked to our national leaders for action. In this instance, many people's confidence has been shaken because that leadership was lacking in the most crucial hours.

Politics aside, any government that fails its people (whether local, state or federal) on the magnitude that all failed in this disaster should be held accountable for their ineptitude. Let's fire them all: the mayor of New Orleans, the governor of Louisiana, the director of FEMA, the secretary of Homeland Security and the president of the United States.