Why not blame Bush?

[Chilly]

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_...rina_washington

 

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at a joint White House news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

 

"And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong," said Bush.

 

And you'd think, if you only read this board, this was the best emergency management in history and it was done very well.

[KRC]

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_...rina_washington

And you'd think, if you only read this board, this was the best emergency management in history and it was done very well.

440411[/snapback]

 

Even if it was the best in history, that does not automatically mean that it was flawless.

 

Of course, if you only read this board, it was nothing more than a total disaster of epic proportions because the federal government was sitting on its azz and doing nothing. If they had only had a direct television feed from Geraldo, this never would have happened.

[Ghost of BiB]

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_...rina_washington

And you'd think, if you only read this board, this was the best emergency management in history and it was done very well.

440411[/snapback]

 

OK, go join in and make it right. In terms of scale it IS the best response in history. There is no precedent. And, what do you expect from an administration taking constant heat? Sure, literally hundreds of things went wrong, at many levels. This means nothing went right?

 

My normal area is defense. As far as homeland defense goes, we have to be 100% right 100% of the time, or we're considered a failure. Can you name me any other institution held to that standard? That's what y'all expect, but I doubt very many people hold themselves personally to that type of standard. "The Government" must, though. Hey - news flash...the "government" consists of people like you.

[VABills]

OK, go join in and make it right. In terms of scale it IS the best response in history. There is no precedent. And, what do you expect from an administration taking constant heat? Sure, literally hundreds of things went wrong, at many levels. This means nothing went right?

 

My normal area is defense. As far as homeland defense goes, we have to be 100% right 100% of the time, or we're considered a failure. Can you name me any other institution held to that standard? That's what y'all expect, but I doubt very many people hold themselves personally to that type of standard. "The Government" must, though. Hey - news flash...the "government" consists of people like you.

440446[/snapback]

 

You mean they whine a lot and take no personal responsibility?

[Ghost of BiB]

You mean they whine a lot and take no personal responsibility?

440454[/snapback]

 

Pretty much.

 

But there are a heck of a lot of people here and there that do some pretty good work, for not much pay, horrendous hours and I'm sure they would all get spit on because they are "Bush supporters" if they ever tried to explain anything, even though they may have been doing the same job under Clinton.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

And you'd think, if you only read this board, this was the best emergency management in history and it was done very well.

440411[/snapback]

 

It was...and sh-- went wrong. sh-- ALWAYS goes wrong. That's why you always do an after-action report - to identify the sh-- that went wrong, so it doesn't go wrong again.

 

The real complaint that everyone's making is that things didn't go perfectly. And aside from being the perfect example of the horribly immature American belief that anything not perfect is automatically bad, and aside from the fact that perfection is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world...not only can no one complaining even begin to define the "perfect" response anyway, they probably couldn't make the case that the "perfect" response would have materially changed events anyway, if only because by the time you get to "response", you're by definition behind the curve. The "perfect" response, as EII's pointed out, was pretty much thrown by the wayside decades ago.

[VABills]

I think we should have dropped paratroopers in with no supplies and no infrastructure in place.

 

We should have put Navy ships in port before the storm because we knew it was happening 3 days before hand and that is enough time to get them there from Norfolk.

 

We shold have dropped pallets of water and food on peoples heads at the superdome from C130's.

 

We should have had water and food prepositioned in warehouses at airports with a 100 mile drop zone with 4 hours of the hurricane hitting.

[SilverNRed]

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_...rina_washington

And you'd think, if you only read this board, this was the best emergency management in history and it was done very well.

440411[/snapback]

...and you'd be right.

[Taro T]

 

QUOTE

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at a joint White House news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

 

"And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong," said Bush.

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_...rina_washington

And you'd think, if you only read this board, this was the best emergency management in history and it was done very well.

440411[/snapback]

 

Yes, Bush admitted that the federal government did not do everything perfectly. He did NOT say, nor should he have, that the feds were the only ones that made mistakes.

 

The article continued:

Bush's acceptance of responsibility came in response to a reporter's question on whether the United States was capable of handling another terrorist attack, given its halting and widely criticized response to Katrina.

 

"That's a very important question," Bush said. "And it's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on — so that we can better respond."

 

"I'm not going to defend the process going in, but I am going to defend the people who are on the front line of saving lives," he added. "I also want people in America to understand how hard people are working to save lives down there in not only New Orleans, but surrounding parishes and along the Gulf Coast."

 

So the reporter or the person putting this article together didn't listen to what Bush said. (Big surprise there.) What I got out of this is that Bush said there were problems at all levels, any problems at the Federal level stop with him, that a post operation review is required, and that the people (at all levels) working on this are still trying to save lives. All of which sounds reasonable to me.

 

What I seem to be reading of the article writer's interpretation is: ALL PROBLEMS ARE THE FEDS FAULT. BUSH BAD. BUSH ADMITS BUSH BAD. What the h*ll did I miss? Because I did not get the same take from Bush's statements that the article writer got.

 

Dave.

[/dev/null]

"I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong," said Bush.

 

I think the last US President to take responsibility for anything was JFK after Bay of Pigs

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I think the last US President to take responsibility for anything was JFK after Bay of Pigs

440654[/snapback]

 

Nope. Carter and the mess at Desert One. I can't think of anything Reagan ever took responsibility for (too young at the time), likewise Bush I (too preoccupied with college), and Clinton's entire term was about avoiding responsibility as much as possible. "Don't ask, don't tell", his ridiculous see-sawing on Afghanistan...hell, he couldn't even take responsibility for playing "hide the salami" with a fat broad.

[Ghost of BiB]

Nope.  Carter and the mess at Desert One.  I can't think of anything Reagan ever took responsibility for (too young at the time), likewise Bush I (too preoccupied with college), and Clinton's entire term was about avoiding responsibility as much as possible.  "Don't ask, don't tell", his ridiculous see-sawing on Afghanistan...hell, he couldn't even take responsibility for playing "hide the salami" with a fat broad.

440714[/snapback]

 

Yes, the man, the myth, the legend.

 

The one who destroyed any respect most of this country and the rest of the world ever had for the American Presidency.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yes, the man, the myth, the legend.

 

The one who destroyed any respect most of this country and the rest of the world ever had for the American Presidency.

440728[/snapback]

 

I know you're not talking about Reagan or Bush...so Carter or Clinton?

[Ghost of BiB]

Just my opinion, but it actually started with Kennedy. Clinton was the coffin nail. JFK has been given a tremendous pass, in history.

[Chef Jim]

Just my opinion, but it actually started with Kennedy. Clinton was the coffin nail. JFK has been given a tremendous pass, in history.

440776[/snapback]

 

But by looking at today's Democratic party's standards, JFK would be considered a Repulican.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Just my opinion, but it actually started with Kennedy. Clinton was the coffin nail. JFK has been given a tremendous pass, in history.

440776[/snapback]

 

I would tend to agree...but if you're going to say it started with JFK, then you also have to recognize the contribution that Johnson and Nixon made as well. A decent leader after JFK could have reversed quite a bit of the damage done to the office's image at that point...instead, we get LBJ and Tricky Dick.

[Chef Jim]

I would tend to agree...but if you're going to say it started with JFK, then you also have to recognize the contribution that Johnson and Nixon made as well.  A decent leader after JFK could have reversed quite a bit of the damage done to the office's image at that point...instead, we get LBJ and Tricky Dick.

440790[/snapback]

 

So what you're saying is they pretty much have all sucked. But in their own individual way. Is this a great country or what?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

So what you're saying is they pretty much have all sucked.  But in their own individual way.  Is this a great country or what?

440792[/snapback]

 

Someone MIGHT be able to convince me that Reagan didn't suck. Or even Bush I. But really...Ike's the last guy I'd consider to be an unambiguously decent president.

 

And the truly sad thing is...I see no reason to expect that to change in 2008.

[Chef Jim]

Someone MIGHT be able to convince me that Reagan didn't suck.  Or even Bush I.  But really...Ike's the last guy I'd consider to be an unambiguously decent president. 

 

And the truly sad thing is...I see no reason to expect that to change in 2008.

440798[/snapback]

 

Remember we're talking about politicians. Look up oxymoron in the dictionary and you find "unsucky" politician.

[SilverNRed]

And the truly sad thing is...I see no reason to expect that to change in 2008.

440798[/snapback]

On the contrary, I see every indication that things will deteriorate further in 2008.

 

POTUS is exactly the type of job where the people who are qualified are smart enough to know they don't want that crappy job.