It shouldn't,, but the hypocricy about Bush here bugs me re: Katrina

[Armstead]

I'm not defending Bush,but the politicization of a natural disaster here bothers me.

Half of the posts on DU slam the idea that Bush might go to New Orleans for a photo op.

The other half criticize him for NOT going to NO.

Sometimes, we ought to look beyond politics and focus on the human and social side of disasters like this.

Going by past experience, Bush may find a way to screw it up. But I find the knee-jerk politicizing of this unseemly as a first reaction.

Flame away if you must. But there are things in life larger than politics, and we ought to hope Bush does a decent job here for the sake of all of the people affected.

[katinmn]

1. I hope he doesn't go. Everything he touches he destroys.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Whatever He Does He Will Be Bringing Money...

Without money those affected can never rebuild...


I hate what Bush* has done to this country from the essence of my being but I hope he does well in this situation...

[liberaliraqvet26]

2. He should go...

no matter what. I think any president would. But im sure they will make it look like a photo op.

[journalist3072]

12. I don't think he should right now...see my post below

I think if he were to physically go to any of the places affected by the hurricane, it would get in the way of rescue and relief efforts.

Now if he wants to take an ariel tour from Air Force One, and survey the damage that way, that's fine.

[speedoo]

3. I think DU'ers who say the Coward should go to NO may really be saying...

he should do SOMETHING other than vacation and play politics while a disaster is occurring.

[Qibing Zero]

22. Exactly.

The worrying about the politization of it all already has merit. With reports of bush 'cancelling' his vacation to go to DC (instead of what he's been doing in the meantime), a lot of people fear that what the majority of the people will see is just pictures of him 'helping out'. The president should be worrying over these poor people like the rest of us, but he hasn't shown an ounce of compassion nor leadership. He is in a position to do a lot about this, unlike most of us. That's why I think people have a right to be upset about this.

[Retired AF Dem]

4. No flame

from me.

[LisaM]

5. They're not necessarily opposites

He SHOULD be going to view the damage. He should NOT be going for a photo-op.

As far as "politicizing" things like global warming causing more frequent and more intense hurricanes, the diversion of the National Guard troops (and their rescue equipment and things such as water purifiers) to Iraq, and the diverting funds that were supposed to go for relief in New Orleans and other places to Iraq, well, I think it's fair to bring all that up and if people want to call that being partisan, so be it.

[Armstead]

13. Time and place for everything

Totally valid points you make.

But IMO there is a time and a place for everything, and the immediate aftermath of a disaster should be more a time to pull together than to sew division.

[Horse with no Name]

27. Well we kind of got burned after all the pulling together after 911

Seems we learned our lesson that the only thing Bush will do is to use this to further one of his nefarious agendas.

[journalist3072]

6. Here's my problem

I have a problem with the fact that the Bushies are now saying he will cut his vacation short to return to DC to focus on disaster relief.

A few days ago, they told us he wasn't on vacation. They said the only reason he was in Craword, is b/c the West Wing was being renovated.

They need to make up their minds!

http://progressiveminds.bloghi.com/2005/08/26/don-t-call-it-a-vacation.html

From my perspective, I do not believe he needs to go to New Orleans, Mississippi, or any of the places affected by the hurricane right now. I think it would just get in the way of rescue and relief efforts.

[cloud_chaser1]

7. There is a difference between

going to NO for a photo op
and
going to NO to get a graphic idea of what needs to be done and then doing it.

Keep in mind, Bush just recently cut funds from the US Army Corps of Engineers, money that could have done much to help in the wake of Katrina.
Ya see, Bush talks a great game but all it is is talk.

[Judi Lynn]

26. Maybe he could go, and have a photo op while explaining why he cut

disaster relief funding. Could do it all at once!

Welcome to D.U., cloud_chaser1. :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Aviation Pro]

9. I think the ill will....

....is a reflection of the "promises" he made to another deep blue town, New York City, but failed miserably to keep. He may not be able to say it but I sure can, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

[Inland]

10. You got it wrong.

Everyone complains about him doing nothing. Everyone complains that his involvment is going to be limited to a symbolic photo-op, exploiting both the tragedy and the hard work of other people.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

As part of that, the stories of the cuts to ACE plans for levees and hurricane remediation are all the same theme about Bush and his neocon friends: privatize risk, be penny wise and dollar foolish, and hope nothing bad happens until the tax breaks for the rich are in stone.

[Armstead]

16. I don;t disagree, but we ought to at least let the waters recede

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. He's not being slammed for not going to NO

He's being slammed for not canceling his vacation and going back to DC to even pretend he's doing his job.

This is a NATIONAL EMERGENCY and he is the PRESIDENT. He is the only one that can give orders for certain things to happen. Hard to give an order though when you can't even bother your beautiful mind to figure out what orders you should give.

[matt819]

14. It's nothing less than the RW would do were the situation reversed

The criticisms are almost all valid. It's the republicans who cut FEMA funding. It's *, knowing there was a cat 5 hurricane heading to NOLA, went off on a political jaunt to the west coast. And you know full well that * will turn any appearance in the region into a political event; hell, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he organizes a fund-raiser (for himself, not the victims) while in the region.

So, yeah. He's slammed from all sides, and for all the right reasons.

[DELUSIONAL]

15. No he shouldn't GO to New Orleans

but he should have appointed someone to coordinate all the military to help the Gulf States.

We know what Clinton and the other good presidents would have done -- and if they didn't have the knowledge or skill then they would have appointed someone who could see the BIG PICTURE -- and take action.

[ClintonTyree]

36. There IS NO New Orleans......

it's gone, it's done, it's over. There's no saving it and there will be no rebuilding it. And bush plays golf and goes to a birthday party.

[DELUSIONAL]

45. You are correct -- New Orleans is gone

I'm glad I got the chance to see it.

And at the time (1974) the driver of the shuttle was talking about the levees and how if they failed New Orleans would be gone. He was concerned way back then.

[Big Kahuna]

17. I think he should say on vacation.

for the rest of his term. He is an absolutely worthless piece of shit.

[katinmn]

25. Yup. He is untrustworthy. Has never acted in the best interest

of this country.

[nyhuskyfan]

18. It's too late already

The point is that this has been imminent since Sunday, it hit Monday morning, and it's going to be Thursday before dipshit does anything substantial about it -- other than talk about it for 80 seconds in San Diego.

On Sunday evening, when I went to bed, I thought New Orleans was about to be hit with a Category 5 right down the kisser. It didn't quite turn out that way, but the aftermath is just as bad as feared.

I'm not politicizing it if I criticize him right now for his piss-poor lack of leadership. If he goes to New Orleans on Thursday, it's too blessed late for anything other than a photo op.

He didn't even have to be there today (last thing the area needs at this point is the extra security issues of protecting a president). But he should have been ready to get back to his office on Monday -- strumming a guitar in San Diego? Uh-uh.

[LSparkle]

19. Why doesn't he just fly by on his way back to DC?

It's on his way, and that way he WON'T be in the way of any relief operations, but he'll get an overall view of the extent of the devastation. Then he can give a little speech on the White House lawn as he returns ... Saves us from having to watch what would otherwise be a photo op. Imagine trying to secure him on the ground (water?) in NO and keeping him from the potentially angry, frustrated people he may find there ... I think him going there would be a HUGE mistake and counter-productive.

[BrklynLiberal]

20. How about his sending the NG to Iraq so they couldn't be there to help?

and the budget cuts to the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA so that this disaster could not have been prevented?
Katrina is not his fault, but the resulting disaster is.

Disaster in the making
As FEMA weathers a storm of Bush administration policy and budget changes, protection from natural hazards may be trumped by "homeland security."
<snip>
In 1993, Clinton's new FEMA director, James Lee Witt, set the agency on a corrective course. Witt, who had served under then-governor Clinton as director of Arkansas emergency management, embarked on an ambitious campaign to bulk up the agency's natural disaster programs while staying prepared for "all hazards." Witt's changes eventually reversed FEMA's reputation for being unfocused and ineffective. The agency garnered praise from both Democrats and Republicans for improving coordination with state and local emergency offices and turning attention and resources to the benefits of disaster mitigation.

"Mitigation is the cornerstone of emergency management," a FEMA Web site explains today. "It's the ongoing effort to lessen the impact disasters have on people's lives and property." Under mitigation plans, houses in floodplains are moved or raised above the flood line, buildings are designed to withstand hurricane winds and earthquakes, and communities are relocated away from likely wildfire zones. According to FEMA estimates, every dollar spent on mitigation saves roughly $2 in disaster recovery costs.

The need for more systematic mitigation efforts was driven home by 1996's Hurricane Fran, which killed 37 people and caused tens of billions of dollars in damages. In 1997, Witt established Project Impact, which would become the agency's most high-profile mitigation program.

Under the project, FEMA fostered partnerships between federal, state, and local emergency workers, along with local businesses, to prepare individual communities for natural disasters. Impact partnerships sprang up in all 50 states. In Seattle, for example, the grants were used to retrofit schools, bridges, and houses at risk from earthquakes. In Pascagoula, Miss., the project funded the creation of a database of structures in the local floodplain – crucial information for preparing mitigation plans. In several eastern North Carolina communities, it helped fund and coordinate buyouts of houses in flood-prone areas.

By the time the Bush administration entered office in January 2001, some 250 communities had signed up for Project Impact. FEMA seemed sturdy, having found its role and proved itself capable of fulfilling it. But in the field of emergency management, some things can change as quickly as the weather.

Bush's FEMA
From its first months in office, the Bush administration made it clear that emergency programs, like much of the federal government, were in for a major reorientation.

At FEMA, Bush appointed a close aide, Joe Allbaugh, to be the agency's new director. Allbaugh had served as then-governor Bush's chief of staff in Texas and as manager of his 2000 presidential campaign. Along with Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, Allbaugh was known as one part of Bush's "iron triangle" of professional handlers.

Some FEMA veterans complained that Allbaugh had little experience in managing disasters, and the new administration's early initiatives did little to settle their concerns. The White House quickly launched a government-wide effort to privatize public services, including key elements of disaster management. Bush's first budget director, Mitch Daniels, spelled out the philosophy in remarks at an April 2001 conference: "The general idea – that the business of government is not to provide services, but to make sure that they are provided – seems self-evident to me," he said.

In a May 15, 2001, appearance before a Senate appropriations subcommittee, Allbaugh signaled that the new, stripped-down approach would be applied at FEMA as well. "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program and a disincentive to effective state and local risk management," he said. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level."

As a result, says a disaster program administrator who insists on anonymity, "We have to compete for our jobs – we have to prove that we can do it cheaper than a contractor." And when it comes to handling disasters, the FEMA employee stresses, cheaper is not necessarily better, and the new outsourcing requirements sometimes slow the agency's operations.

William Waugh, a disaster expert at Georgia State University who has written training programs for FEMA, warns that the rise of a "consultant culture" has not served emergency programs well. "It's part of a widespread problem of government contracting out capabilities," he says. "Pretty soon governments can't do things because they've given up those capabilities to the private sector. And private corporations don't necessarily maintain those capabilities."

The push for privatization wasn't the only change that raised red flags at FEMA. As a 2004 article in the Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management would later note, "Allbaugh brought about several internal, though questionably effective, reorganizations of FEMA. The Bush-Allbaugh FEMA diminished the Clinton administration's organizational emphasis on disaster mitigation."

In February 2001, for example, the Bush administration proposed eliminating Project Impact, a move approved by Congress later in the year. (On the very day the White House proposal was submitted, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake rocked Washington state, which was home to several communities where Project Impact had sponsored quake mitigation efforts.) Ending the project and trimming other FEMA programs, the White House argued, would save roughly $200 million. In its place, FEMA instituted a new program of mitigation grants that are awarded on a competitive basis.


<snip>

more....


http://www.sfbg.com/38/52/news_fema.html

[DURHAM D]

21. Armstead - I agree. If the folks in those states that have been

hit hard by this disaster have things to say in a few weeks or a few days I will listen to them. Otherwise, I ain't got nothin' to say.

But I do think this is interesting - this morning I was meeting with a group of redneck good ole boys about a construction project. I don't usually have political discussions with these guys because they are Fox watchers, etc. But boy were they wound up. All of them mad at Bush for being on vacation, mad at Bush for invading Iraq, mad at Bush about the price of gas, mad at Bush about sending the Guard to Iraq thus unable to help their neighbors and on and on and on. I guess the question is "Does anger at Bush translate into not voting repug ?"

[Cleita]

23. Well, he won't. So I guess I find

in times like this only gallow's humor works for me.

[Armstead]

30. Well I'll buy that

Sometimes black humor is the only way to cope

[IdaBriggs]

24. Too late -- he has already failed us. National Guard in Iraq,

cutting the disaster mitigation program, and cutting the "what do we do if..." program.

Natural disasters happen, and we judge our leaders on how well they plan for the "worst case scenario." Bush has failed miserably on ALL counts -- and that makes it political.

[crispini]

28. I resent the fact that he was eating cake and "playing" the guitar.

While I sit here and worry about New Orleans.

[Igel]

29. You're right.

I'm firmly in the 'don't go' camp.

It takes valuable time away from relief efforts: the local government has to take time and effort to accommodate him. It costs money. Even Clinton's going to Florida was pointless.

The prez goes, sees a couple of destroyed places, and that's supposed to help him plan? I'd hope the plans are made already. He's clueless about what's going to happen tomorrow--unless he requires the locals to brief him, taking more valuable time. He's no better informed about the rest of the disaster area, and might possibly tell them to direct special effort to what he's personally seen, not to where it's most needed.

Foolishness, in my view. It's all photo op, to be seen to be doing something.

[CatWoman]

31. Look at it this way

Bush opened the door for much criticism as he politicizes EVERYTHING.

He stayed away from NYC in the early days after 9/11 only to show up with a bullhorn, standing on the dead and the rubble, declaring "We Hear You"

The asshole then invaded Iraq and reneged on the money he promised the city.

While New Orleans was being ravaged by Katrina, he went golfing.

While the levees and the kaos is breaking out, he flies over the city on the way back to the safety and comfort of his ranch.

I don't understand what your problem is.

Maybe if the man showed some of the "compassion" he loudly touts, people wouldn't be so critical.

[tjdee]

32. During times of national crisis, the nation looks to the President.

I am confident that DUers would have given him some credit if he he had acted in the manner one would expect the leader of this country to act at such a time.

He didn't, AGAIN, and it makes people angry.

If it is politicizing to say that he isn't doing his job, fine.

[despairing optimist]

33. Remember Bush at the old Ground Zero on 9/11/01?

Now there's a new Ground Zero. I think that was the headline on the Times-Picayune yesterday, wasn't it? Anyway, Bush mounted a pile of rubble that used to be part of the WTC and grabbed a bullhorn, surrounded himself with firefighters and NYPD, and had NYers cheering him. Brace yourselves for similar scenes in New Orleans, Biloxi, Gulfport, and beyond.

But like that time, what will keep crowds cheering will depend on what he does after he leaves, and if past is prologue, it won't be enough for very long.

I'm more concerned with the administration using this disaster to whip up the fear factor in an adjacent area, the GSAVE (Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism) war on terror, and the MSM's never-ending propensity for getting suckered into enabling the politicos to bend events into whatever form they choose. It's appropriate for a president to preside--yes, even for this one.

Look, I just donated to the Red Cross--yes, even for the Freepers. Yes, they're people too, and they lost everything. They helped us here in NYC four years ago, and I haven't forgotten it. So flame me.

[Armstead]

38. If Bush uses it that way I'll bash him too

If he uses it to push that "adjacent" agenda, he'll deserve every bit of bashing he gets.

However, for now, if he can do any good for those people -- even if it means giving them moral support by showing up -- we ought to focus on that.

[CatWoman]

39. show up and do what?

start blabbering about "terra" again?

[BeFree]

34. What good can he do?

So far, your buck-buddy-b**h hasn't done a thing. Nothing. ZIP.

If he goes to NO, he will just be in the way. He can do everything he needs to do by staying in DC and get $$ freed up.

Like a poster said: They said he wasn't on vacation, but now he's going back to work? Say what? They are politicizing the situation already, and if they can, they will use it as much as they used 9/11 to fool more idiots into thinking he has been working and not on vacation all the time.

No, armystead, you are looking like you are bucking-up b**sh's butt.

You, and others, need to stop telling us DU'ers how we should think, talk and act, and instead focus on those who need your help.

[Armstead]

40. I hope you realize the irony in your remark

>>>>You, and others, need to stop telling us DU'ers how we should think, talk and act, and instead focus on those who need your help.<<<

So in other words you want to tell people with an opinion different than yours that they have no right to express that opinion here (i.e. it's me who's "telling us DU'ers how we should think,talk and act..."?)

[BeFree]

43. Hey, you got that?

Your opinion is that I should do what you say, and leave the most evil man alone as he walks all over my country? Do you see the stupidity in your efforts?

You have a right to an opinion, but there is a time and place to keep such opinions to yourself, but if you open up here, and it goes against the reasons we supposedly are here, then yeah, take that piece of irony and shove it where the sun don't shine!

[BeFree]

44. First you labeled us as hypocrites

People express their opinions here and you start calling them hypocrites?

<"I'm not defending Bush,but the politicization of a natural disaster here bothers me.">
This is a political board and the politics of the NO situation
demand we get a leg up on the coming politicization the b**sh's will shove down our throats.

<"Half of the posts on DU slam the idea that Bush might go to New Orleans for a photo op.
The other half criticize him for NOT going to NO.">
And that gives you reason to call us hypocrites? Geeez. Any wonder I responded?

<"Sometimes, we ought to look beyond politics and focus on the human and social side of disasters like this.">
Good idea, just what I suggest you do, and leave us to hash it out as we see fit.

<"Going by past experience, Bush may find a way to screw it up. But I find the knee-jerk politicizing of this unseemly as a first reaction.">
Then you label us as 'knee-jerk'(ing). That's pretty damn bold of you, and quite opposite of being tolerant of expressing opinions on an opinionated political board. Are you sure you are in the right place?

[bpilgrim]

35. the pResident should fly over the city for 2 very important reasons

1. to show he CARES (
2. to asses the gravity of the situation HIMSELF

even the local NO teeVee anchors were expecting him to come TODAY, considering how bad things are, but BUSH is not a normal man, let alone pResident.


http://media.globalfreepress.com

peace

[MissWaverly]

37. what I want is a leader

I want national support to help with this problem, what mayor can
cope with his city underwater, this is beyond local government,
and was caused by Bush looting the levee money for Iraq and Homeland
security. Since he created the problem, with his creative accounting
including taking the national guard and putting them in Iraq. Let's see
him do something to help. I want to see troop transport to help with evacuation, I want to see real help for these people.

[LanternWaste]

41. I assume *everything* Pretzleboy does is a photo op

From the moment Bush was ferried in a combat aircraft onto to the deck of an aircraft carrier while wearing a flight suit, I have assumed that everything he does outside of the WH is a photo-op of one sort or another.

It has nothing to do with assuaging the pain anyone feels, if that were the case, he would have met with Cindy Sheehan in Crawford and answered her.

He's an opportunist. He's cold. He's embarrassing.

Edit: spelling

[madeline_con]

42. He's not running anything but his mouth....

no matter the occassion.

If he goes, or stays in D.C. it makes no difference whatsoever to the outcome of the situation.

Anytime he's on the tube it's just blah blah blah.....

[blonndee]

46. Um...isn't he partly responsible? Didn't he veto a whole bunch of

federal spending for flood/hurricane protection of NO and the rest of the Gulf region?

So any "concern" for the disaster on his part WOULD be hypocritical, right?