Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn
So let's put Katrina in perspective, shall we? It was an act of God-not George Bush. FEMA has its detractors, but all in all what if there wasn't any organization in place to deal with relief at all? It would take years and maybe even then New Orleans would be not even be a speck of a memory except for its written history.
I think someone already posed the question. What was GW supposed to have done; swim around in the muck?
|
George Bush should not have utilized cronyism to employ a clearly unqualified man who lied on his resume to be in charge of FEMA during a natural disaster that obviously ranks among the top 5, with a lot of people calling it the worst in U.S. history.
In addition, he should have kept an eye on the ball DURING this natural disaster instead of letting incompetent Brownie do his "heck of a job".
THAT is what I criticize Bush for.
But to put things in perspective, Bush isn't in my top 3 as far as people/groups who need to be raked over the coals for this.
Bush is towards the bottom of the list.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by saltwn
He was criticized for being at a school during 9-11; he was criticized for flying over New Orleans! I did not vote for him either time, so don't paint me as anything but an Independent.
|
I have no problem acknowledging that George Bush is criticized for many things which are often thoroughly irrelevant.
How DARE he wear boxers and not briefs!!!
< end mock outrage >
But let's not mix up the inane criticism to void the legitimate criticism.
His criticism for 9-11 isn't just being AT the school.
An aide whispers in his ear that America was under attack, and he SAT THERE for seven minutes.
That deserves criticism. There is NO excuse for that. Anybody can realize that you simply say "excuse me, I have to take care of something", and go.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by saltwn
Also the local authorities and volunteers from surrounding parishes triaged the injured, passed out food and water and took people into their homes and to unaffected shelters. They worked day and night, but you didn't get a lot from the national news on this. There were radio stations long after the immediate devastation, that gave out information and had call in availability so people could find out where to get new prescriptions and how to apply for aid. I bet you never heard that on the sound bites either!  |
I think there was a long list of things that went right.
There is also a long list of things that went wrong.
I think part of the problem is that the news typically covers the "bad" more than the "good".
Bad news sells.
Also, if you're up to your ears in the disaster and you need help, do you focus on the help you need and what isn't being done? Or on what is being done right?
Given today's "pundit" environment, I wouldn't be surprised if the news crews spent 10% of their time covering the "good" if you would have some people running around trying to insist that nothing was wrong.