Friday, September 09, 2005
11:12 PM — Who's fault now?
Interesting post arguing against the points Democrats bring up accusing Bush of failing in his duties re: Katrina/New Orleans. I must say that it's an admirable post and draws from many resources online, a number of which I am familiar with and find reputable. One of the sources he quotes a lot, NewsMax.com, I've never heard of and am skeptical of, but Washinton Post, Red Cross, Hearald Tribune? Those I do believe, and he makes a good case on some points.
¶ permalink
| 2 musings 
Comments:
Main Blog
You're right to be skeptical of NewsMax.com. They're full of crap most of the time. Quite frequently, they'll edit reports to remove things they don't agree with or emphasize things that support their pre-conceived notions. They'll also outright make stuff up.
Some of the other sources are rather reputable, but so are many of the sources of criticism against Bush. The author of the post conveniently leaves any of those reports out. Anyone who looks at the situation objectively will realize that there were screw ups at ALL levels...city, parish, state and federal. Hard core lefties and Bush haters focus on the federal failures. Hard core neo-cons and Bush apologists focus on the state and local. Both try desperately to absolve their "side" of any wrong doing. But the fact remains they all screwed the pooch, and no one's taking resonsibility.
Some of the other sources are rather reputable, but so are many of the sources of criticism against Bush. The author of the post conveniently leaves any of those reports out. Anyone who looks at the situation objectively will realize that there were screw ups at ALL levels...city, parish, state and federal. Hard core lefties and Bush haters focus on the federal failures. Hard core neo-cons and Bush apologists focus on the state and local. Both try desperately to absolve their "side" of any wrong doing. But the fact remains they all screwed the pooch, and no one's taking resonsibility.
this musing
| 
| 12:20 AM
| 12:20 AM
He hasn't linked to the Washington Post in this article. He linked to the Washington Times, a Fox-news-type conservative paper that I don't trust too far. I'd believe the basic facts of those reports, but at one point in an article he linked to (the one about Blanco holding up Bush), in trying to show that Blanco had been criticized in the past, they referenced the campaign of her Republican opponent. Really? Her political opponents have criticized her? Well THAT'S damning. ;p
There are a few other problems to point out: the Republicans try to show that Blanco was slow in asking for help, but her first request for help was dated Sunday the 28th - that's not too slow. The difference is that she was requesting *aid*, not *for the Federal Government to take over*- she didn't do that until days later. It's understandable to still want local control, at least until it becomes apparent that you can't deal: local officials understand the city better, have a better sense of civilian needs, etc. Also, as quick as conservatives are to say that Bush declared a state of emergency early on, but in fact, even according to one of this guy's sources, Blanco declared a state of emergency the day before he did. They're asserting "delayed" responses by comparing Bush's Step 1 to Blanco's Step 3. Not fair.
Post a Comment
There are a few other problems to point out: the Republicans try to show that Blanco was slow in asking for help, but her first request for help was dated Sunday the 28th - that's not too slow. The difference is that she was requesting *aid*, not *for the Federal Government to take over*- she didn't do that until days later. It's understandable to still want local control, at least until it becomes apparent that you can't deal: local officials understand the city better, have a better sense of civilian needs, etc. Also, as quick as conservatives are to say that Bush declared a state of emergency early on, but in fact, even according to one of this guy's sources, Blanco declared a state of emergency the day before he did. They're asserting "delayed" responses by comparing Bush's Step 1 to Blanco's Step 3. Not fair.
this musing
|
| 3:24 AM
| 3:24 AMMain Blog
