Buck stops at Bush
12 September 2005
HERE'S an interesting question. Who said the following: "For the last week, the federal Government and its state and local counterparts have consistently been behind the curve. The American people overwhelmingly know the current situation is totally unacceptable." And: "It is a mistake to get trapped into defending the systems and processes which clearly failed."
Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Howard Dean? No: Newt Gingrich, in private memos to fellow Republicans leaked to The Washington Post.
For those in Washington, this is not surprising. In private, Gingrich has been scathing about the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq and the Republican Congress's fiscal profligacy and sleaze.
But he does put his finger on what you might call the three Cs dogging this administration in the wake of Hurricane Katrina - competence, cronyism and conservatism.
What happened after Katrina hit - the complete failure of local, state and federal authorities to seize control of the situation - was not about Right or Left, Democrat or Republican. It was about simple competence.
Take the latest spin from the White House public relations operation, now in overdrive. The White House blames Kathleen Blanco, the Governor of Louisiana, for not specifically requesting federal troops to impose law and order (as opposed to search and rescue), and so clearing away legal hurdles for the federal Government to help.
An anonymous source - Andy Card? Karl Rove? - told The New York Times: "Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?"
Well, actually, at that point it was completely clear the state authorities were overwhelmed and "lawlessness was the inevitable result".
Emergencies such as Katrina are precisely why the federal executive exists. It exists to take control and do things swiftly. Instead, the White House worried about gender politics and public relations while people drowned and corpses littered the devastated streets.
And Blanco's defence? "I need everything you have got," she said she told the President last Tuesday. Alas, she didn't specify which type of soldier and for which purpose: "Nobody told me that I had to request that," she said. "I thought I had requested everything they had."
If this weren't a human catastrophe, it might be a comedy. Suddenly, I understand the situation in Iraq a little better. I understand why, when looting broke out immediately after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the US military simply watched.
I understand why barely a fraction of the reconstruction funds have been spent. And judging from the clueless things the President and Vice-President said last week, I understand why I have become unable to trust anything they say about the reality on the ground in Iraq.
Dick Cheney called the response to Katrina "very impressive". Yes, and the insurgency is in its "last throes".
Then there's cronyism. We now all know that Michael Brown, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had little or no experience of managing major emergencies. Nor had his deputy. Nor his predecessor. But they were all Bush campaign operatives and cronies. And the Senate approved the appointment after a 42-minute hearing.
What does it tell you that the last two FEMA heads were college room-mates? And that the previous head was already down on the Gulf Coast last week, advising "private clients" on helping with the recovery? You don't think any of the $US100 billion ($130 billion) in aid might end up in the hands of a few well-connected businessmen, do you?
Meanwhile, even conservative commentators had to concede Brown was in way over his head. He'd even padded his CV.
In normal times, this kind of cronyism is not exactly shocking. It happens all the time - in administrations Democrat and Republican. Bill Clinton was a master at it. But after 9/11, to place a complete hack in charge of response to a national emergency is criminal negligence.
Last: conservatism. Some have argued this past week that the underlying problem is that America doesn't have enough government spending or a big enough government. Given the explosion of spending under Bush - the biggest increase since Lyndon Johnson - this makes no sense. The US has spent billions on homeland security - and what we now know is that if al-Qa'ida had blown up a couple of levees in New Orleans, they could have killed far more people than they did on 9/11.
The issue is not how big government is, but how effective it is. Conservatism has never meant abandoning the basic task of government: the common defence and law and order. Even classical liberals, like yours truly, who like their government extremely lean, have no problem with spending what it takes to secure basic infrastructure and a police and military to protect private property. That basic infrastructure didn't exist last week.
The blame goes back for years, several administrations, and multiple mayors of New Orleans and governors of Louisiana. The state has actually been the biggest recipient of federal funds for this kind of infrastructure under Bush, with California a distant second. But corruption, elaborate layers of authority and simple failure to prepare for the worst scenario made Katrina's devastation possible.
What Bush has done to conservatism is to align it with big government moralising, big government spending and big government inefficiency. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill.
Republicans and Democrats in gerrymandered districts have siphoned public money for pet projects to reward donors and constituents, rather than prioritising for the public good. There's plenty of blame to go around. Government in the US is bloated and broken at the same time. A true conservative would be cutting and prioritising it.
George W. Bush isn't that person. If that isn't clear by now, you have blinkers on. And ultimately, he's the one responsible. He campaigned fundamentally on his ability to run the country in wartime, on emergency management, on protecting Americans from physical harm.
That was his promise. It was swept away as the waters flooded New Orleans. And al-Qa'ida was watching every minute of it.
The Sunday Times
Link Here
HERE'S an interesting question. Who said the following: "For the last week, the federal Government and its state and local counterparts have consistently been behind the curve. The American people overwhelmingly know the current situation is totally unacceptable." And: "It is a mistake to get trapped into defending the systems and processes which clearly failed."
Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Howard Dean? No: Newt Gingrich, in private memos to fellow Republicans leaked to The Washington Post.
For those in Washington, this is not surprising. In private, Gingrich has been scathing about the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq and the Republican Congress's fiscal profligacy and sleaze.
But he does put his finger on what you might call the three Cs dogging this administration in the wake of Hurricane Katrina - competence, cronyism and conservatism.
What happened after Katrina hit - the complete failure of local, state and federal authorities to seize control of the situation - was not about Right or Left, Democrat or Republican. It was about simple competence.
Take the latest spin from the White House public relations operation, now in overdrive. The White House blames Kathleen Blanco, the Governor of Louisiana, for not specifically requesting federal troops to impose law and order (as opposed to search and rescue), and so clearing away legal hurdles for the federal Government to help.
An anonymous source - Andy Card? Karl Rove? - told The New York Times: "Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?"
Well, actually, at that point it was completely clear the state authorities were overwhelmed and "lawlessness was the inevitable result".
Emergencies such as Katrina are precisely why the federal executive exists. It exists to take control and do things swiftly. Instead, the White House worried about gender politics and public relations while people drowned and corpses littered the devastated streets.
And Blanco's defence? "I need everything you have got," she said she told the President last Tuesday. Alas, she didn't specify which type of soldier and for which purpose: "Nobody told me that I had to request that," she said. "I thought I had requested everything they had."
If this weren't a human catastrophe, it might be a comedy. Suddenly, I understand the situation in Iraq a little better. I understand why, when looting broke out immediately after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the US military simply watched.
I understand why barely a fraction of the reconstruction funds have been spent. And judging from the clueless things the President and Vice-President said last week, I understand why I have become unable to trust anything they say about the reality on the ground in Iraq.
Dick Cheney called the response to Katrina "very impressive". Yes, and the insurgency is in its "last throes".
Then there's cronyism. We now all know that Michael Brown, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had little or no experience of managing major emergencies. Nor had his deputy. Nor his predecessor. But they were all Bush campaign operatives and cronies. And the Senate approved the appointment after a 42-minute hearing.
What does it tell you that the last two FEMA heads were college room-mates? And that the previous head was already down on the Gulf Coast last week, advising "private clients" on helping with the recovery? You don't think any of the $US100 billion ($130 billion) in aid might end up in the hands of a few well-connected businessmen, do you?
Meanwhile, even conservative commentators had to concede Brown was in way over his head. He'd even padded his CV.
In normal times, this kind of cronyism is not exactly shocking. It happens all the time - in administrations Democrat and Republican. Bill Clinton was a master at it. But after 9/11, to place a complete hack in charge of response to a national emergency is criminal negligence.
Last: conservatism. Some have argued this past week that the underlying problem is that America doesn't have enough government spending or a big enough government. Given the explosion of spending under Bush - the biggest increase since Lyndon Johnson - this makes no sense. The US has spent billions on homeland security - and what we now know is that if al-Qa'ida had blown up a couple of levees in New Orleans, they could have killed far more people than they did on 9/11.
The issue is not how big government is, but how effective it is. Conservatism has never meant abandoning the basic task of government: the common defence and law and order. Even classical liberals, like yours truly, who like their government extremely lean, have no problem with spending what it takes to secure basic infrastructure and a police and military to protect private property. That basic infrastructure didn't exist last week.
The blame goes back for years, several administrations, and multiple mayors of New Orleans and governors of Louisiana. The state has actually been the biggest recipient of federal funds for this kind of infrastructure under Bush, with California a distant second. But corruption, elaborate layers of authority and simple failure to prepare for the worst scenario made Katrina's devastation possible.
What Bush has done to conservatism is to align it with big government moralising, big government spending and big government inefficiency. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill.
Republicans and Democrats in gerrymandered districts have siphoned public money for pet projects to reward donors and constituents, rather than prioritising for the public good. There's plenty of blame to go around. Government in the US is bloated and broken at the same time. A true conservative would be cutting and prioritising it.
George W. Bush isn't that person. If that isn't clear by now, you have blinkers on. And ultimately, he's the one responsible. He campaigned fundamentally on his ability to run the country in wartime, on emergency management, on protecting Americans from physical harm.
That was his promise. It was swept away as the waters flooded New Orleans. And al-Qa'ida was watching every minute of it.
The Sunday Times
Link Here
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 3:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home