Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Incurious George

MANIFESTO

From Newsweek:
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...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 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...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.
Thursday night! Four days after everyone in the country, hell, the world could see how bad it was! I know he doesn't like to get his news through "the filter," but how is hurricane coverage slated by the liberal media? How is New Orleans and hundreds of thousands of miles of coastline flooding biased? And if he won't listen to the news, why didn't someone bust down his door and make him listen? Where was Karl or Dick? They are obviously keen politicians who know an opportunity (or a missed one) when they see one.

I'll put it bluntly, the President's indifference to his duties as president directly led to people's deaths. He has blood on his hands. (This time on U.S. soil.) Once it was clear FEMA wasn't up to the task, it was up to him to authorize the military to move in to help. (It is illegal for them to act on their own.) If the President had a clue, he would have done this days earlier than he did. But he was clearly out to lunch. Anyone who says Bush isn't to blame is an apologist, pure and simple. They deserve him as their leader.

No one may have noticed, but my contempt for this guy is so complete I haven't used his name in my posts (excluding quotations) in a while. He was the Boy King. After Katrina, I was trying to be respectful by referring to him as The President. But now BK is back.

How many more years are we stuck with this guy? Clinton had an affair with an intern, lied about it before a grand jury, and was almost impeached. BK's crimes (lying about WMD, for one) are immeasurably more destructive, not only now but for years to come. How much more damage can his incompetence create?

1 Comments:

Blogger Chill said...

I, for one, will continue to use his name as often as possible. By the end of 2008 I want the name "Bush" to be synonymous with corruption, dishonesty, incompetence, etc. Eliminate any budding "Bush" dynasty and tie the rock of his failures around the "Bush" name and let them all sink to the bottom of the ocean. He's led this country to the brink of ruin. The best we can do is to clearly identify the prick behind the problems.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 5:22:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home