Bush takes blame for flaws in Katrina response

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
kellyahern said:

"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

A true leader takes responsibility for what is under his jurisdiction. While there are 3 parts to our government, I think it is more than expected for the president of our country to step up and take responsibility for what happens in HIS country.

So, good job, Mr. Bush.


But I get a sort of odd feeling that he was more ...... reading it off a cue card than meaning it. It's kind of late, as others have mentioned.

better late then never.


finally he said something

I for one don't want to hold only one person responsible, but the buck stops in Washington DC not in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama.

And I also want President Bush to give serious thought as to why African Americans feel the way they do about him. Introspection is healthy. And to think about what he as President and we as a country can do to make life for the poor and minorities better.

Yes, I aggree, MrsSpringsteen
 
Irvine511 said:




it does seem as if even Mr. Bush disagrees with several FYMers about where blame belongs.

I would observe that most of the "several FYMers" you are likely referring to have applied the blame to multiple levels. That has been my intent all along. I think all Dreadsox ever intended regarding the school buses was that the city/state should have utilized them prior to Katrina's landfall. How's this: pre-landfall/preparation action leading up to landfall: the buck stops with local and state governments; post-landfall and levee breach aftermath, rescue and recovery, the buck stops with the federal government. Fair enough?

~U2Alabama
 
U2Bama said:


I would observe that most of the "several FYMers" you are likely referring to have applied the blame to multiple levels. That has been my intent all along. I think all Dreadsox ever intended regarding the school buses was that the city/state should have utilized them prior to Katrina's landfall. How's this: pre-landfall/preparation action leading up to landfall: the buck stops with local and state governments; post-landfall and levee breach aftermath, rescue and recovery, the buck stops with the federal government. Fair enough?

~U2Alabama


Thanks Bama
 
Iskra said:

Ultimately the buck stops with W.
You want to rul the country you have to take the blame too. [...] I don't stand around saying how nice the Emperor's new robe is just becuase he is my leader. Heads should roll on all sides but the majority of the blame is SQUARELY on George's shoulders.
He put a guy with ZERO experience in charge of FEMA.
If you put a guy with no experience in charge of your business no matter what it is that you do whether it is working at a 7-11 or running a Fortune 500 business and he screwed up.
You'd be fired.

Well said.
 
Iskra said:
As for the female governor remark...you are just making up supposed issues now.
Not every liberal is going to jump up with their hippie flag and stop eating their bran flakes, call the ACLU and freak out in the middle of a storm.
But then you guys are good at stereotyping.
Just ask the Katrina victims.

Horse shit.....

It is not a supposed issue....

And I do not appreciate the you guys and the stereotyping....Nor do I appreciate the Ask the Katrina victims comment. I have busted my ass to raise money for the victims, so take your stereotyping of me and stick it where the sun don't shine.

It is an issue....

There have been times when the National Guard was federalized without the Governors permission in our history.

This President did not do it, when clearly he was asking for permission.
 
Iskra said:
I did see that the nursing home owners were in jail.

I should have said:
They SHOULD be in jail.

Hmmm...

I wonder if the governor and the mayor realized that it was the LAW of their state that they were supposed to evacuate the people in the nursing homes and hospitals.
 
The response to this hurricane was a gigantic cluster**** on the part of every level of government from W on down, so by no means do I place all the blame on his shoulders. BUT - let me say that this 'apology' from him is nauseating. The only reason, the ONLY reason he made this statement is because of his plummeting poll numbers. There is nothing sincere about this apology. W is only doing what his handlers feel he has to do to get the numbers back up and to keep from losing ground in next year's congressional elections.
 
agreed.jpg



100% agreed: you said it, pal.

Sorry, folks, I know it isn't very constructive to post this... but I thought it gives a pretty accurate summary.
 
Last edited:
I want to agree with those who say that there are multiple levels at fault in this disaster. My main disappointment is probably with all the bureaucracy that prevented $14 billion in restoring Louisiana's wetlands. Maybe it would have been too little, too late, but it's kind of disheartening when the Bush Administration, as late as the beginning of August, was quite contented in underfunding the project. In fact, I think he gave the Taliban more money in April 2001 than he slated to gave the state of Louisiana for 2005.

But I guess for all the bitching over spending $14 billion dollars, we can now feel free to spend upwards of $200 to $300 billion to fix all this. And you know what's most disheartening? We never learn, and, frankly, I doubt we ever will.

Melon
 
i dunno leaders on the ground ..next to the levees shoulda had a better read..like when to tell their ppl..

"Yo it's time to get the f--- out and we have to get out now!"

Instead of pointing fingers at Washington while ppl drowned.

GW shoulda came out quicker and symphathised w/the people as well.


db9
 
Iskra[/i] [b]But then you guys are good at stereotyping. Just ask the Katrina victims.[/b][/quote] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dreadsox said:
Horse shit.....

[...]

take your stereotyping of me and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Iskra -- do you not see a contradiction between complaining about being stereotyped and using phrases like "you guys" to generalise and stereotype those you disagree with? People will normally respond far more positively to your comments if you avoid stereotyping other posters.

Dread -- haven't you been posting here long enough to know that calling someone's opinion horse shit and advising them to stick their opinion where the sun don't shine isn't acceptable?

How about everyone making an effort not to make broad sweeping generalisations about others, avoid resorting to stereotypes and try to discuss the subject of this thread without insulting one another. Thank-you.
 
LOL! Poor Fizzywizz. It must be tough dealing with us lot in the playground! I certainly don't envy your mod status in this forum!
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:

Dread -- haven't you been posting here long enough to know that calling someone's opinion horse shit and advising them to stick their opinion where the sun don't shine isn't acceptable?

How about everyone making an effort not to make broad sweeping generalisations about others, avoid resorting to stereotypes and try to discuss the subject of this thread without insulting one another. Thank-you.

The fact that it was implied that I am somehow not giving a shit about the victims was out of line. After a week of wondering if our family memebers would be alright, and a few weeks of attempting to organize church, lions, and school children to help...

I lost it....

But I am also very tired of people walking as close to the line with their veiled comments about members of this forum....

So I will try and rein it in....But I am not going to be silent if I see a post directed at myself or another member... that I think is out of line.
 
U2Bama said:


I would observe that most of the "several FYMers" you are likely referring to have applied the blame to multiple levels. That has been my intent all along. I think all Dreadsox ever intended regarding the school buses was that the city/state should have utilized them prior to Katrina's landfall. How's this: pre-landfall/preparation action leading up to landfall: the buck stops with local and state governments; post-landfall and levee breach aftermath, rescue and recovery, the buck stops with the federal government. Fair enough?

~U2Alabama



mostly fair enough, but Melon's post makes sense as well -- why save the wetlands when people making low 6 figure incomes want a tax break so they can buy another SUV?

but i don't understand: i've been saying that of course there were failures at the local level, but the human catastrophe post-hurricane falls on the shoulders of the federal government. what i'm seeing from "said FYMers" is a near-pathological rush to the defense of Bush in particular when he himself has said that he essentially failed to perform the most basic function of government: protect the citizens.
 
U2Bama said:


I would observe that most of the "several FYMers" you are likely referring to have applied the blame to multiple levels. That has been my intent all along. I think all Dreadsox ever intended regarding the school buses was that the city/state should have utilized them prior to Katrina's landfall. How's this: pre-landfall/preparation action leading up to landfall: the buck stops with local and state governments; post-landfall and levee breach aftermath, rescue and recovery, the buck stops with the federal government. Fair enough?

~U2Alabama

Yes.
 
According to this article not only was Bush responsible he was living in that parallel universe of non-reality.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/site/newsweek/

How Bush Blew It
Bureaucratic timidity. Bad phone lines. And a failure of imagination. Why the government was so slow to respond to catastrophe.

By Evan Thomas
Newsweek
Sept. 19, 2005 issue - It's a standing joke among the president's top aides: who gets to deliver the bad news? Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the president of the United States, or, as he is known in West Wing jargon, POTUS. The bad news on this early morning, Tuesday, Aug. 30, some 24 hours after Hurricane Katrina had ripped through New Orleans, was that the president would have to cut short his five-week vacation by a couple of days and return to Washington. The president's chief of staff, Andrew Card; his deputy chief of staff, Joe Hagin; his counselor, Dan Bartlett, and his spokesman, Scott McClellan, held a conference call to discuss the question of the president's early return and the delicate task of telling him. Hagin, it was decided, as senior aide on the ground, would do the deed.
The president did not growl this time. He had already decided to return to Washington and hold a meeting of his top advisers on the following day, Wednesday. This would give them a day to get back from their vacations and their staffs to work up some ideas about what to do in the aftermath of the storm. President Bush knew the storm and its consequences had been bad; but he didn't quite realize how bad.

The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.

How this could be—how the president of the United States could have even less "situational awareness," as they say in the military, than the average American about the worst natural disaster in a century—is one of the more perplexing and troubling chapters in a story that, despite moments of heroism and acts of great generosity, ranks as a national disgrace.

...

Of course there is plenty of blame for the local and state officials also. But Bush is supposed to be the take charge guy.
 
I guess he doesn't work out 2 1/2 hours a day in front of a TV, or maybe he watched the wrong DVD instead, maybe it was Barney Goes To School or some such thing :wink:

I think it's bizarre that they made a DVD for him :| his lack of awareness, which I am inclined to believe, is perplexing and troubling indeed
 
Irvine511 said:
but i don't understand: i've been saying that of course there were failures at the local level, but the human catastrophe post-hurricane falls on the shoulders of the federal government. what i'm seeing from "said FYMers" is a near-pathological rush to the defense of Bush in particular when he himself has said that he essentially failed to perform the most basic function of government: protect the citizens.

You confuse a questioning of rampant criticism with "near-pathological rush to defense of Bush". But I'm afraid that is what happens here in FYM. I guess this is just a different take on "if you are not with us, you are against us".
 
nbcrusader said:


You confuse a questioning of rampant criticism with "near-pathological rush to defense of Bush". But I'm afraid that is what happens here in FYM. I guess this is just a different take on "if you are not with us, you are against us".



i do think the nature of the forum facilitates this -- a series of monologues are less productive than one-on-one discussions held in person.

i don't think, though, that i'm confusing the two, but i think it's more that the questioning (though i'd say attacking) of the criticism (which has come from everywhere) is an implicit defense of Bush in the same way that criticism of, say, WorldCom is an implicit critique of Bernie Ebbers.

we have leaders so that we can determine accountability. with great power comes great responsibility, and it is disappointing to me when we find excuses for those in power to avoid responsibility and accountability.
 
Irvine511 said:

i do think the nature of the forum facilitates this -- a series of monologues are less productive than one-on-one discussions held in person.

i don't think, though, that i'm confusing the two, but i think it's more that the questioning (though i'd say attacking) of the criticism (which has come from everywhere) is an implicit defense of Bush in the same way that criticism of, say, WorldCom is an implicit critique of Bernie Ebbers.

we have leaders so that we can determine accountability. with great power comes great responsibility, and it is disappointing to me when we find excuses for those in power to avoid responsibility and accountability.

Absolutely I agree.

And in my opinion it is absolutely pathological. Whatever Bush will do, they will always defend him. Next time he´ll push the red button and they will say he ´s colourblind so it ain´t him who fucked up but the person who designed the button.

I´m waiting for Americans to put this joke of a President, this total failure, out of office, but also this time, its not gonna happen. American opposition (and I don´t mean the dems) is too weak as of yet. The pathological defense can succeed, if it is present and emotional enough.

Not here on FYM but surely in the average American middle-class family.
 
one of the worst things about Katrina -- it makes certain members of the Axis of Evil very, very happy. for this, Bush must be faulted:



Iran's Revolutionary Guards have been following closely the way the United States government has been handling Hurricane Katrina, and drawing strategic conclusions from it.

In remarks that appeared on Ansar-e Hezbollah website on Sunday, a top official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) said the devastating hurricane had exposed America's vulnerabilities.

"The mismanagement and the mishandling of the acute psychological problems brought about by Hurricane Katrina clearly showed that others can, at any given time, create a devastated war-zone in any part of the U.S.", Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, the official spokesman of the IRGC, said.

"If the U.S. attacks Iran, each of America’s states will face a crisis the size of Katrina", he said, referring to the massive hurricane which hit the southern coast of the United States. "The smallest mistake by America in this regard will result in every single state in that country turning into a disaster zone".

"How could the White House, which is impotent in the face of a storm and a natural disaster, enter a military conflict with the powerful Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly with the precious experience that we gained in the eight-year war with Iraq?" he said.

Jazayeri said the hurricane havoc showed that "contrary to public perception, the strength of America's leadership is like a balloon, which can easily burst".

The Revolutionary Guards spokesman said the U.S. administration's inability to end the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan showed the "weakness of America’s defence and state departments, as well as its intelligence and security apparatus".

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3667
 
Irvine511 said:
i do think the nature of the forum facilitates this -- a series of monologues are less productive than one-on-one discussions held in person.

i don't think, though, that i'm confusing the two, but i think it's more that the questioning (though i'd say attacking) of the criticism (which has come from everywhere) is an implicit defense of Bush in the same way that criticism of, say, WorldCom is an implicit critique of Bernie Ebbers.

I think you've underscored that it is a matter of perspective. Whether a critique is questioned or attacked. Whether or not failure to attack Bush is a defense of Bush.

But, we've touched on this before. We'd enjoy each other much more in person than in a forum environment. :up:
 
Scarletwine said:
How this could be—how the president of the United States could have even less "situational awareness," as they say in the military, than the average American about the worst natural disaster in a century—is one of the more perplexing and troubling chapters in a story that, despite moments of heroism and acts of great generosity, ranks as a national disgrace.

How could this be?

Good question.

The only logical answer that comes to mind is: someone else is leading the country. If the staff has fear to disturb the President, it can only mean that he is not in charge - officially maybe, practically not.

It´s the same in every company. Look at leadership management. When CEO´s are too out of touch, are always in holidays, and it is difficult to get them back in the course of a few days, then in reality someone else is running the company.

Now I really wonder, who´s in charge?
 
nbcrusader said:
Whether or not failure to attack Bush is a defense of Bush.



i hear the sound of a nail being hit on the head.

one of the things that appears to have happened is that the polarization of the political climate -- and fault for this lies everywhere, from pundits to politicians to the populace -- has made it possible to understand any sort of critique as nothing more than either Bush bashing or Bush loving.
 
sallycinnamon78 said:
LOL! Poor Fizzywizz. It must be tough dealing with us lot in the playground! I certainly don't envy your mod status in this forum!

lol, well it can get a bit frustrating at times but then again I volunteered for this job and 99% of the time I enjoy it so I've nothing to complain about. :D I just hope you guys think I'm doing an okay job as a mod. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom