1

JCarter

"Most others place the blame on the Federal government which is believed to have almost unlimited resources at its disposal."

Well, no, they place the blame on the Federal government which is KNOWN to have LIMITED resources but which has invested most of those resources in a nutty scheme to turn Iraq into a friendly Islamic theocracy at the point of a gun.

2

The human mind is an amazing thing. I skimmed over this post, and the word "refiy" popped into my head, although I had lost the precise dictionary definition...

How much effort you put into this post! And for what real purpose? It doesn't elucidate much at all; its claims are tenuous, its apparent point is to discourage inquiry rather than shine a light that might actually save lives.

Trying to save lives, and using government acting on our behalf is not idolatry- it's a basic function of goverment **@%&*! (Censored for those who might take offense at coarser language.)

While it's true that "heaven and earth change places" as the Chinese say, and nothing is permanent, it does not mitigate one iota of our responsibility to be responsible for our fellow human beings, and to attempt to be skillful in using whatever means we can to help them.

George Bush, whatever his concern about "black people," clearly doesn't understand his duty as a public servant nor as a professed Christian. Had he, this would have been either a seamless "government doing the best it can" (accounts of the SFO earthquake of 1906 are handled more efficiently by the Feds than this disaster), or an abject, sincere admission failure and a follow through with the horse guy at FEMA getting the axe.

Bush axes very few though, and like Stalin, usually to date has only does done it when loyalty to himself is threatened.

3

Would this same wailing and gnashing of teeth over the inadequacies of government to protect be present if a Democrat were in office? "Bill Clinton doesn't care about black people."? Methinks the grumblings against the government deity is somewhat selective. The media and others are perpetuating hatred of one form of government, hoping for another imaginary, Utopian form. I think it is this imagined ideal that is actually being worshiped.

4

Many problems in human experience are the result of
false and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised
in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.

Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe.
The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human
reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the
intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it
perceives and measures values.

Humanism makes man his own standard of measure.
However, as with all measuring systems, a standard
must be greater than the value measured. Based on
preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal
nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-
tites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.

Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament,
cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist
lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or trans-
cendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with
foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lack-
ing foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and
is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, collectivism,
averages, and regression - and worse. Humanism is an
unworthy worship.

The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-
ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-
ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-
sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and
thereby lack what only the Bible has:

1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.

The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival
equipment for today and the future.

Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by
nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of
Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive
characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural
foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-
spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-
ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the
universe. selah

"Got Criteria?" See Psalm 119:1-176

P.S. Readers should do their own Homework. jfb

5

There is a post at Mere Comments that speaks to this same issue. I dont think anyone will deny the need to see where government could have done better in this tragedy. However, the tendency to blame government (George Bush, to be precise) seems nothing more than partisan politics, or deliberate naivate.

6

Well, well said. Keep saying things like this. This is so important.

7

"Even followers of Jehovah, Allah, and Jesus will how our national deity – our government – has let us down."

Only those who declare that they know the mind of God - as Bush himself has on several occasions- think the US government is some kind of a deity. The rest of us know it is a government of men and women who can, and should, and must be held responsible for their incompetence and neglect.

And no amount of fallacious exaggeration (pretending Bush's critics believe "the government could have saved everyone") will hide the truth:

Once again, Bush failed. Miserably.

This is not a time for politics. Bush's neglect should make all Americans, regardless of party, feel ashamed. And very, very angry.

8

LL--If by "most" you mean a small percentage (less than 5%), by "nutty" you mean like a Snickers (full of nutty goodness), and by "point of a gun" you mean through fair and open elections, then I agree completely.

mumon--Assuming that any government, no matter how well prepared could have prevented any loss of life (or property) from Katrina is what Joe is talking about and is a form of idolatry and seems to be the underlying premise of much of the criticism of Bush, et al.

9

Tristero,

You comments are self-contradictory. If you know the government is no deity, and you know that "it is a government of men and women" - then you should know that it is not infallible or omnipotent. Yet this seems to be what many expect. (I really think it is a pretended expectation, used as a tool to further an evil Marxist agenda.)

As for the incompetence and neglect - I suspect that the incompetent state and local governments in LA will have plenty of splainin' to do.

10

IT’S OFFICIAL: THE AMERICAN LEFT NOW BELIEVES GEORGE W. BUSH IS GOD

Article via FrontPageMag

11

There were complaints about federal government response during the Clinton administration too.
It happens every time actually. It seems that everybody has long term memory problems.

12

Reading Joe's comments, I am reminded of a 1998 bird-hunting trip I took to southwestern North Dakota. I knocked on a farmer's door to ask permission to hunt the property. Mrs. Farmer answered the door and, hearing my request, asked pointedly: "Why is it that you hunters are always asking permission to hunt private land when there are tens of thounsands of acres of government property freely available?" Fortunately, her property abutted Federal property within sight. I merely pointed at the ravaged desert that the Feds managed, then at her property, and said, "That's why." She said, "I see what you mean." I collected two nice sharptails that day.

Larry Lord has noted, as he struggles to compose a lucid sentence, that government is having a very difficult time managing the Iraq war. This is true. I merely note that difficulty and exorbitant expense are the order of the day in government efforts. The selfsame bureaucracy and congress that manages the Iraq war is the bureaucracy that spent $230 million on a bridge in Alaska that goes, basically, nowhere instead of spending a few million on New Orleans levees. Politics. And the State of Louisiana, whose citizens have been doing the suffering, just got a billion dollar windfall from the oil industry, but, somehow they couldn't afford it either. Politics.

Government as savior is misguided not only because the agents of government are as error-prone as anyone else, but perhaps even more because every decision is a political one. Power rules. In our nation's history, every single case of racial discrimination has been sanctioned and enshrined by government, ranging from Selma to the University of Michigan Law School. Even Canada's Supreme Court has found it necessary to state the obvious; i.e., that access to a waiting list is not access to health care. To today's citizen, Valley Forge is absurd... As Bill Whittle has noted, it's [...] all about feeling good: feeling good about yourself! Sexually, emotionally, artistically – nothing is off limits, nothing is forbidden, convention is fossilized insanity and everybody gets to do their own thing without regard to consequences, reality, or natural law. We all have our own reality – one small personal reality is called “science,” say – and we Make Our Own Luck and we Visualize Good Things and There Are No Coincidences and Everything Happens for a Reason and You Can Be Whatever You Want to Be and we all have Special Psychic Powers and if something Bad should happen it’s because Someone Bad Made It Happen.

The founders of this country knew that government was not the solution. We were warned: here's a workable model - if you can keep it. Well, we couldn't. And the humanist abyss of meaningless, pointless life without redemption requires - a savior. The humanist savior can either be an individual like Hitler and/or Castro, or it can be a faceless bureaucratic mass. The singular advantage of the bureaucratic mass is its extreme ineptitude. New Orleans is ineptitude in action. Salvation cannot come from a bureaucracy. About the best it can do is shoot anarchists and deliver bottled water and MREs - after the disaster.

When in the history of FEMA has it ever responded in less tha 2 days? FEMA is not your savior, folks.

13

Can anyone direct me to a mainstream liberal critic who said, as Joe put it, "the government could have saved everyone." I think that Joe misrepresents the vast majority of liberal criticisms of the federal disaster relief efforts. I haven't heard anyone saying that it is Bush's fault that anyone died in the hurricane. I have heard a lot of people ask "Why the hell did it take three days to get drinking water to the people at the convention center?" Joe seems to conflate those who think that the government could have (and should have) done more and those who think that the government can do anything and everything. I'd be a little happier if he included a brief sentence like "There are, of course, critics of the government's response who, nonetheless, don't believe that Washington (or state and local governments) can save everybody from everything."

Again, I definately don't think that the government could have saved everybody (I repeat myself so that Joe doesn't detect an unsaid theme that I believe otherwise) but I do think that "Would things have been different if the deputy director of FEMA had had a considerable amount of prior experience in disaster management when he was appointed, rather than 10 years experience in the horse lobby and a personal history with the outgoing director?" is a valid question and doesn't necessarily imply a gnostic view of government that assumes Washington is all-powerful.

For instance, if the good people at FEMA had talked with Jim Judkins, the evacuation official in Newport News, Virginia profiled in John Tierney's latest column, they might have told the Mayor of NOLA that it'd be a good idea to go around to the people and tell them to evacuate. If they refuse, one idea is to give them a magic marker and write their social security numbers on their body parts, so their remains can be easily identified after the storm. More of them might have decided to evacuate after those meetings, I'd think. The government (a cooperative effort between the Federal, State, and Local ones, of course) would then have saved more people. Not everyone of course -- that would be idiotic (and, yes, possibly idolatrous) to expect.

Is it any less idolatrous to believe that the US government and military can spread democracy and freedom to the rest of the world?

14

Yeah, the Left believes George W. Bush is God. (LOL).
He's not even a Christian!!

Steals from the poor to give to the rich. So Christ-like.
If Jesus Christ came down to earh today, Christian Conservatives would pillory him and call him a "left-wing nutjob" who wants to re-distribute wealth.
Tell me again why Christ would support the Estate Tax Repeal!!

Fools.

15

" If you know the government is no deity, and you know that "it is a government of men and women" - then you should know that it is not infallible or omnipotent. Yet this seems to be what many expect. (I really think it is a pretended expectation, used as a tool to further an evil Marxist agenda.)"

First of all, I'm a liberal. Don't even think of imputing communist sympathies to me. I have long been a vocal anti-communist and in the 80's actively helped people behind the Iron Curtain resist it. Your implication would be deeply insulting if it weren't so utterly ignorant. I know better than to expect an apology from anyone on the right for any reason, including justifiable ones, so I won't bother asking. If you can't tell the difference between a Marxist and a liberal, then it's no wonder that you confuse Bush's utter incompetence at whatever he touches with bold, forceful leadership.

I never said, and you know I never said, that I thought that the government was omnipotent or infallible. It's not. That is absolutely no excuse for the gross incompetence of the sort the entire world witnessed last week. You are exaggerating what I said and then refuting your own exaggeration.

I am utterly disgusted that Christians -Christians!- would defend those who failed to speedily come to the aid of others in dire need while enthusiastically defending those who failed.

16

Tyler:

I agree, Tyler, why DID it take three days to get bottled water to the Superdome? Why wasn't bottled water delivery done when THE MAYOR decided to make the Superdome a haven? Why did it take days to get busses and helicopters to evacuate the Superdome? After all, everyone has seen the school buses sitting in a flooded parking lot.

Do you recall, Tyler, who got the kudos in 9/11 response? NYPD and FDNY. That's because it is the responsibility of local government, Tyler, and state government, to care for the victims. FEMA has never, ever, ever been the first responder. Ever. I worked for High Country Volunteer Fire Department in Colorado. We were first responders when there was a chemical spill on the railroad line - not the EPA. If you have a burglar in the back yard,, Tyler, call the cops, not the FBI.

But the Mayor has his mind right now. He's giving away free trips to Vegas. Those poor burdened NOPD cops with wet shoes can (ahem) dry out there, fer sure. Besides, they have those free DVDs to watch on the flight out.

17

Tell me again why Christ would support the Estate Tax Repeal!!

Perhaps you could identify the chapters and verses of the New Testament where Jesus discussed tax policy at all. The only thing I recall that might vaguely apply is where He talked about "giving unto Caesar...", but that was in the context of a military dictatorship. How does that apply to our Constitutional Republic, where the people, throught elected representatives, set tax policy?

18

Tyler,

Can anyone direct me to a mainstream liberal critic who said, as Joe put it, "the government could have saved everyone." I think that Joe misrepresents the vast majority of liberal criticisms of the federal disaster relief efforts.

Well, then, what is the complaint? The government obviously saved many thousands of people. So why was that not enough? At what point can we say, “Okay, the government saved a reasonable number of people.”

I haven't heard anyone saying that it is Bush's fault that anyone died in the hurricane.

You haven’t been listening too closely then. Take, for example, Molly Ivins:

Does this mean we should blame Bush for the fact that New Orleans is underwater? No, but it means we can blame Bush when a Class 3 or Class 2 hurricane puts New Orleans under.

I have heard a lot of people ask "Why the hell did it take three days to get drinking water to the people at the convention center?"

Well, for starters, it doesn’t appear that anyone told FEMA that anyone was in the convention center. In fact, why are you not blaming the local authorities who told people to go there when they knew there was no food or water?

I'd be a little happier if he included a brief sentence like "There are, of course, critics of the government's response who, nonetheless, don't believe that Washington (or state and local governments) can save everybody from everything."

Okay: There are, of course, critics of the government’s response – people like me – who don’t believe that the state or local governments can save everyone from everything.

For instance, if the good people at FEMA had talked with Jim Judkins, the evacuation official in Newport News, Virginia profiled in John Tierney's latest column, they might have told the Mayor of NOLA that it'd be a good idea to go around to the people and tell them to evacuate.

You are missing the point, Tyler. It’s not FEMA’s role to tell the Mayor of NOLA how to do his job. That is why he is elected. I realize that we are supposed to save people from their own stupid choices (i.e., electing an incompetent mayor) but that does not mean that we are to blame for those choices.

Is it any less idolatrous to believe that the US government and military can spread democracy and freedom to the rest of the world?

It is if you make an idol of it.

But since you brought it up, why does the left prefer to save people in NO and yet thinks that the rest of the world can go to hell? Are the people in Iraq not worthy of our help?

19

Would this same wailing and gnashing of teeth over the inadequacies of government to protect be present if a Democrat were in office? "Bill Clinton doesn't care about black people."? Methinks the grumblings against the government deity is somewhat selective.

Indeed, like for example when Waco happened no one objected at all!!!! There was not a single iota of blame or accusation against Clinton by a single person on the right wing. Nor did the right ever accuse Clinton of doing anything that made 9/11 happen...despite the fact that 9/11 happened nearly a year into Bush's term. It was amazing how nice and bipartisan everything was yet today the only reason the infallible, God-man Bush is ever criticized is because pagan Democrats want to worship other Gods before Bush.

Of course some pagans might note that we have offered the idol sometimes called the 'Department of Homeland Security' hundreds of billions of dollars in offering to put plans into place so that diasters (man made or otherwise) would not be so costly to either the people directly effected or the economy as a whole. For example, a majority of our oil refineries are offline at the moment and a large part of the spike in gas prices was due to the gas pipelines either going down or operating at below capacity creating shortages around the country. Yet do not mention that Bush came to office touting a 'national engery policy'....it isn't the God who failed us it is we who failed the God by not enacting all his policies quickly enough or with less questioning!!!! Damm us unworthy humans and thank you Joe for reminding us that we need to be humble before Bush-God rather than making an idol out of the Federal Gov't!!!!!

20

But since you brought it up, why does the left prefer to save people in NO and yet thinks that the rest of the world can go to hell? Are the people in Iraq not worthy of our help?

Is this written by the same Joe who lectured us not 24 hours ago on the principle of subsidiarity?

21

"But since you brought it up, why does the left prefer to save people in NO and yet thinks that the rest of the world can go to hell? Are the people in Iraq not worthy of our help?"

If Bush had truly wanted to help the Iraqis, instead of just having a Jones for bang-bang, he would have endorsed the smart sanctions that were put in place in October '02 and advocated a policy of coerced inspections. Both would have placed Saddam under extreme pressure without creating the chaos that was the inevitable, predicted consequence of an invasion and occupation.

The Bush/Iraq war had many purposes, all of them bad. Spreading freedom and democracy was not one of them and was never emphasized the way mushroom clouds were. Until they ran out of other excuses to justify their insane behavior.

22

Well, then, what is the complaint? The government obviously saved many thousands of people. So why was that not enough? At what point can we say, “Okay, the government saved a reasonable number of people.”

There's two reasonable arguments:

1. For the resources deployed, more people could have been saved at the same price that we paid.

2. For a reasonably higher investment we could have saved more people in a cost effective manner.

Both arguments are probably valid and true in this case. What appears to be happening is many on the right, including Joe, are idolizing everyone but Bush in a desperate effort to excuse him from any blame at all. So, for example, the mayor of NO should have acted as a god and made 400 bus drivers materialize out of thin air to empty NO 48 hours before the storm hit.

Well, for starters, it doesn’t appear that anyone told FEMA that anyone was in the convention center. In fact, why are you not blaming the local authorities who told people to go there when they knew there was no food or water?

That's a perfectly valid point. However we have spent billions on this Dept. of Homeland Security that was supposed to anticipate things like miscommunication happening during an emergancy and plan for it accordingly.

For example, one of the many sub-depts in the DOHS is the National Incident MAnagement System (NIMS) whose mission statement reads:

NIMS establishes standardized incident management processes, protocols, and procedures that all responders -- Federal, state, tribal, and local -- will use to coordinate and conduct response actions. With responders using the same standardized procedures, they will all share a common focus, and will be able to place full emphasis on incident management when a homeland security incident occurs -- whether terrorism or natural disaster. In addition, national preparedness and readiness in responding to and recovering from an incident is enhanced since all of the Nation's emergency teams and authorities are using a common language and set of procedures.

Is it idoltry to ask if we got what we were promised with all the tax dollars spent or are those questions only orthodox when we are talking about public schools?

23

Boonton:

Indeed, like for example when Waco happened no one objected at all!!

Actually, "That was Reno's deal." Don't you remember? I remember well, and your example does not hold up. It was the BATF that took the heat for that, and Reno - who should have been fired - not the president personally. The chief criticism I remember of Clinton was that he tolerated Reno in every respect. He was never, to my knowledge, accused of killing the people at Waco. Juxtapose that with Bush. He is called a murderer by moonbats every day.

Tristero:

You're a little touchy. I did not call you a Marxist specifically. I referred to attitudes of the Left in general. They are Marxist attitudes. I do not have time to argue the merits of seeing with a blind man, but here are a few points:

*Against virtually anything that has to do with American supremecy, opting instead to undermine it.

*Virulently pro-atheist and anti-Christian.

*Class warfare.

*Race warfare.

*Government is solution to all problems

*Educational systems co-opted into anti-American endoctrination farms, teaching such things as the evil of white europeans like Columbus.

*Revisionist history

*Anti-capitalist

The list goes on and on.

24

Boonton:

There is no correspondence whatsoever between Waco and Hurricane Katrina except dead bodies. Waco was a federal assault. Katrina was a weather event. Very different. To make such a claim should be embarassing to you, as it reveals a knee-jerk spin reflex that has little, if anything, to do with cognition. Of course, you were the guy spinning Sen. Byrd's KKK slip of the tongue as "positive". I suppose you didn't want to violate expectations.

And the opinion columns I read place blame for 9/11 as far back as Reagan's non-response to the Marine barracks bombings. And I think that's right. THere's lots of culpability to go around. Bin Laden himself has said (in contrast with far-left academic pinheads and the Democratic Party spin machine) he specifically wanted a war with the US (assuming National Geographic can be believed). He attacked our Marines, our embassies, slaughtered our peacekeepers, damn near sank a ship, etc. etc. Finally, he got what he wanted - a daisy-cutter. And I hope the Army, Air Force, and Marines continue to kill every murderous Islamic jihad-o-matic that sticks his head above ground.

FEMA and the National Guard have done exactly what they were supposed to do. Nagin and the loony governor of LA failed New Orleans. Both Democrats, I might add. I think our money gets it right: In God I trust. You can have the politicians of any stripe or persuasion (maybe they did arrive on meteors from outer space). But have the decency not to whine, OK?

25

Actually, "That was Reno's deal." Don't you remember? I remember well, and your example does not hold up. It was the BATF that took the heat for that, and Reno - who should have been fired - not the president personally. The chief criticism I remember of Clinton was that he tolerated Reno in every respect. He was never, to my knowledge, accused of killing the people at Waco. Juxtapose that with Bush. He is called a murderer by moonbats every day.

You mean he was never accused of killing Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and just about every unsolved murder in Ak?

FEMA and the National Guard have done exactly what they were supposed to do. Nagin and the loony governor of LA failed New Orleans. Both Democrats, I might add. I think our money gets it right: In God I trust. You can have the politicians of any stripe or persuasion (maybe they did arrive on meteors from outer space). But have the decency not to whine, OK?

Indeed, it is us who failed Bush-God, not the Bush-God who failed us. Sorry that I mentioned that it was the Bush administration who promised us comprehensive planning and preparation that would have established 'common procedures' and a 'common lanaguage' for local, state and federal responders to diasters. I didn't realize that the Dept. of Homeland Security was created and funded by only NO taxpayers.

26

George: I never said that the local government of NOLA was without blame. Are you saying that Bush didn't get any kudos for his 9/11 response? I'd disagree with you there. That's actually one of the times I actually appreciated his leadership (outside, of course, of the weird Air Force One tour of the American South)

Are you saying that the Mayor is doing something wrong by trying to relieve some of the stress the scandalously short-handed [due to the cowardly desertion of about a third of the force] NOLA police department is facing? Are you accusing the 2/3 of the NOLA police force who stayed to rescue the city's citizens of participating in the shameful looting of DVDs and other non-necessities from storm-shuttered businesses? I just want to be sure that I read your comment right before I get royally pissed-off.

I'm not saying that the local authorities aren't the first-responders in an emergency. I am saying that Katrina was a considerably bigger deal than a chemical spill on the tracks or a burglar in my backyard, and they needed some amount of federal help from the beginning. In case you missed it, they were promised this federal help from before the beginning -- Bush declared a state of emergency in Louisiana almost two days before the hurricane hit; three days before the levees broke. One might think that this is enough time for the second responders to show up.

Joe:

Well, then, what is the complaint? The government obviously saved many thousands of people. So why was that not enough? At what point can we say, “Okay, the government saved a reasonable number of people.”

Well, one complaint is that it seems reasonable to me to think that the government would have saved more people by hiring an experienced disaster-relief official to head the federal disaster-relief agency. I'm not expecting the government to mount a miraculous relief effort, but hiring an experienced professional to run FEMA, rather than a politically-connected crony should have been a no-brainer. I'd be just as pissed if Clinton had done this, and I bet you'd have made a big deal out of it then.

Well, for starters, it doesn’t appear that anyone told FEMA that anyone was in the convention center. In fact, why are you not blaming the local authorities who told people to go there when they knew there was no food or water

Here's another simple thing FEMA could have done -- had 10 of its employees going around on the ground as soon as the weather cleared and finding out for themselves where the people were at and seeing whether or not the 1st responders were getting the job done. Again, the local authorities screwed up by not telling FEMA where the people were going. FEMA screwed up by not asking where the people had gone. I'm an equal opportunity critic. On this point, admittedly, hindsight is 20-20. Now, the important task isn't so much to assign blame (although that is a slightly-less-but-still-important-task) but to figure out what both local governments and FEMA can do differently in future disasters.

It’s not FEMA’s role to tell the Mayor of NOLA how to do his job. That is why he is elected. I realize that we are supposed to save people from their own stupid choices (i.e., electing an incompetent mayor) but that does not mean that we are to blame for those choices.

I'd say that it should be FEMA's job to get big-city mayors together to share ideas about how to respond to disasters rather than projecting the image that the department of homeland security is the place where American disaster relief is planned and executed. I don't think that this is missing the point of Tierney's column, at least. I'm not saying that FEMA should dictate to the Mayor how he must respond. Sorry if I sounded that way. I should have written "[FEMA] might have told the Mayor of NOLA that it might be a good idea to go around to the people and tell them to evacuate." Is it unreasonable to think that FEMA should be in the business of evaluating local disaster planning and making suggestions as to how they might be better? (Again, is it unreasonable to assume that a Arabian horse lobbyist might not be the best person to do this?)

>> Is it any less idolatrous to believe that the US government and military can spread democracy and freedom to the rest of the world?

It is if you make an idol of it.

Would you say that fewer people on the right make idols out of American idealist foreign policy than lefties do with American disaster relief omnipotence? I wouldn't think so, but would like to hear your impression. I think some of your regular readers might benefit from such discussions.

But since you brought it up, why does the left prefer to save people in NO and yet thinks that the rest of the world can go to hell? Are the people in Iraq not worthy of our help?

Great question. As a supporter of the Iraqi effort (albeit a harsh critic of the Bush/Rumsfeld handling thereof) I don't feel like I'm qualified to answer. My guess is that one might say "Obviously the federal government can't get its act together enough to save the people of NOLA. Why is it reasonable to assume that it can do so in a (very) foreign culture, thousands of miles away. Physician heal thyself." That kind of thing.

On a similar note, I'm not surprised that Molly Ivins blames Bush for Katrina. I bet Maureen Dowd would, too. I feel the same way about these pundits that you (hopefully) do about Pat Robertson. Don't you hate it when liberals assume that Robertson and the Repent America website speak for all of Evangelical Christianity? Same thing. I think it's a problem that the lunatic fringes of both sides are approaching mainstream status.

While we're speaking of Repent America, one of my co-bloggers (who is, incidentially, more even handed and theologically thicker than I) has a great post about the blasphemous nature of their claims that a vengeful God is punishing a sinful New Orleans with Katrina. Check it out here.

27

You mean he was never accused of killing Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and just about every unsolved murder in Ak?

Now you are off on a completely new tangent. I cannot debate someone who will not argue his own points. Incidentally, you will not find a single MSM incident of coverage of those stories, other than in a critical light.

Perhaps if the First Lady was not busily obstructing justice in the dead of night, such conspiracies would have been given shorter shrift.

28

You mean he was never accused of killing Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and just about every unsolved murder in Ak?

And what you're doing now, in this very thread, is somehow different from what the loony right did?

[...] Bush administration who promised us comprehensive planning and preparation that would have established 'common procedures' and a 'common lanaguage' for local, state and federal responders to diasters. I didn't realize that the Dept. of Homeland Security [...]

Read the LA procedures for disaster recovery. Figure out how many were followed. From CNN: The North Carolina mobile hospital stranded in Mississippi was developed through the Office of Homeland Security after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. With capacity for 113 beds, it is designed to handle disasters and mass casualties. Equipment includes ultrasound, digital radiology, satellite Internet, and a full pharmacy, enabling doctors to do most types of surgery in the field, including open-chest and abdominal operations. It travels in a convoy that includes two 53-foot trailers, which as of Sunday afternoon was parked on a gravel lot 70 miles north of New Orleans because Louisiana officials for several days would not let them deploy to the flooded city [...]

Louisiana officials, Boon. Repeat. Louisana officials.

29

I think I understand.

So, to expect Bush's administration and his Federal government appointees to *do their ^%$@ing JOBS*, and

a) prepare effectively
b) receive and coordinate information and relief efforts
c) respond with resources, foresight and leadership

is idolatry.

Listen: We responded to the Indonesian tsunami quicker. This is inexcusable, and it is unacceptable.

No one expected Bush to stop Hurricane Katrina. We expected him and his federal governments to DO THEIR JOBS once the damn thing hits.

That's not a lot to ask. And Bush, his administration, and his inexperienced political crony appointee of FEMA have failed UTTERLY.

Thousands of people are now dead, who could still be alive, if Bush had just cut his vacation short and taken charge like the kind of bold decisive leader his PR claims he is.

His father would be better. Reagan would be better. I tell you as a liberal that Nixon would be better.

And you do all Americans, including yourself, a grave disservice by continuing to find excuses for him.

Wake up.

30

Tyler Are you accusing the 2/3 of the NOLA police force who stayed to rescue the city's citizens of participating in the shameful looting of DVDs and other non-necessities from storm-shuttered businesses? I just want to be sure that I read your comment right before I get royally pissed-off.

Are you saying that the only NOLA police that were involved in the looting are the ones that quit the force? That could be the case but I personally don’t think so.

I am saying that Katrina was a considerably bigger deal than a chemical spill on the tracks or a burglar in my backyard, and they needed some amount of federal help from the beginning. In case you missed it, they were promised this federal help from before the beginning -- Bush declared a state of emergency in Louisiana almost two days before the hurricane hit; three days before the levees broke.

Federal help was there. I’ve noticed that most of the critics of the federal response don’t seem to be truly aware of what was going on. The criticism is not that FEMA wasn’t providing relief – it was doing that from the start. The criticism is that FEMA didn’t move fast enough to do the evacuation that the locals failed to do.

Here's another simple thing FEMA could have done -- had 10 of its employees going around on the ground as soon as the weather cleared and finding out for themselves where the people were at and seeing whether or not the 1st responders were getting the job done.

10 employees? Have you ever been to New Orleans? FEMA is there to aid the locals. Not to do their jobs for them. You can’t really expect a someone to come to an unfamiliar city in the midst of a disaster and to know enough to get around town.

Again, the local authorities screwed up by not telling FEMA where the people were going. FEMA screwed up by not asking where the people had gone.

You didn’t really just say that, did you? You really think FEMA should have said, “No seriously, guys, where are you keeping the people?” FEMA doesn’t have psychics on the staff that know when they need to ask just the right question in order to get the local authorities to tell them where the people are! Sheesh.

On this point, admittedly, hindsight is 20-20. Now, the important task isn't so much to assign blame (although that is a slightly-less-but-still-important-task) but to figure out what both local governments and FEMA can do differently in future disasters.

I think this will soon be a major talking point. The more the blame shifts to the local authorities the more we will hear about “not assigning blame.”

I should have written "[FEMA] might have told the Mayor of NOLA that it might be a good idea to go around to the people and tell them to evacuate." Is it unreasonable to think that FEMA should be in the business of evaluating local disaster planning and making suggestions as to how they might be better?

Actually, the feds did better than that. Instead of having FEMA make such a suggestion they had the President do it himself:

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.

Would you say that fewer people on the right make idols out of American idealist foreign policy than lefties do with American disaster relief omnipotence? I wouldn't think so, but would like to hear your impression. I think some of your regular readers might benefit from such discussions.

Fair enough. Admittedly, it is often easier to see the idolatry of those you disagree with. Does the right make an idol of foreign policy? Good question and one that I’ll have to do some thinking about.

I think it's a problem that the lunatic fringes of both sides are approaching mainstream status.

I almost agree but I think it may be that the lunatic fringe has become the mainstream and those of us (noble gents like you and me ; ) ) who consider ourselves moderate are really on the fringes.

Jim We expected him and his federal governments to DO THEIR JOBS once the damn thing hits.

Please answer the following questions:

1) What is the federal governments "job" after a disaster?
2) How did the feds fail to do that task?

Obviously, you already know the answers to the se questions so I'm sure we can expect a quick response.

31

Now you are off on a completely new tangent. I cannot debate someone who will not argue his own points. Incidentally, you will not find a single MSM incident of coverage of those stories, other than in a critical light.

Wait it was said Bush that "...is called a murderer by moonbats every day." I point out the Clinton was called a murderer by moonbats as well. Now we've upped it to the main stream media? OK what main stream media outlet is calling Bush a murderer every day? Or even every month for that matter?

Read the LA procedures for disaster recovery....

Err I don't follow this at all. Do a mobile hospital was developed with the help of DOHS that has a capacity of 113 beds. That's nice but hardly adaquate for what was needed here. Are you trying to say the DOHS created procedures and policies but for some inexplicable reason LA insisted on going its own way? Then how come the DOHS wasn't screaming about how LA was putting itself and the American economy at risk by refusing to properly prepare itself?

32

Wait it was said Bush that "...is called a murderer by moonbats every day." I point out the Clinton was called a murderer by moonbats as well. Now we've upped it to the main stream media?

Where is the distinction between Cindy Sheehan and the MSM (or the Democratic leadership for that matter)? They are symbiotic. I stand behind everything I said.

33

Where is the distinction between Cindy Sheehan and the MSM (or the Democratic leadership for that matter)? They are symbiotic. I stand behind everything I said.

For want of a better term Sheehan is a 'moonbat' who is getting coverage by the MSM. Similar 'moonbats' who accused Clinton of murder received coverage by the MSM. Even by your strange definition of MSM both Clinton & Bush have been called a murderer by it!

BTW, Sheehan is kind of recent. Would you have asserted Bush was being called a murder every day by the MSM if we were having this conversation a week or two before Sheehan became a news item?

34

Jeff Blogworthy,

No, I'm not a little touchy. When it comes to imputing Marxist ideology to me, I'm * very * touchy. And that's exactly what you did... oh excuuuuuse me, you meant "the Left" in general. Silly, sensitive me!

Let me blunt: I'm a liberal. Got a problem with my ideas or facts, you address them and I'll respond. Don't flip flop around and (wink wink nudge nudge) call me a communist or so much as hint I have even the slightest bit of respect for Marxism. When it comes to Marxism and American liberalism, you have no - repeat no - idea what you're talking about and I will continue to respond quite strongly to even the slightest attempt to use a broad brush to smear me or my beliefs by ignorant, malicious association. Got it?

I notice you address nothing else in my post. Therefore, I can only assume you agree that you exaggerated my position and didn't refute it. More importantly, I am glad that by not responding, you agree that you are as disgusted as I am that people who call themselves Christians are leaping to defend those who failed the helpless, namely the unspeakably corrupt and incompetent Bush administration.

35

Jeff B

"Where is the distinction between Cindy Sheehan and the MSM"

Um, Cindy Sheehan wants to ask Bush tough questions about the war on Iraq.

The so-called MSM could care less about those questions and would like to avoid the issue because the MSM was an active participant in Bush's pre-war propaganda and fear-mongering.

Based on your odd rhetoric, Jeff B., I can only assume that you were one of those yellow weak-kneed types who got all worked up when Condi spun her sick garbage about aluminum tubes and yellowcake. Saddam is coming to git ya! He's comin' to git ya! Osama's gonna nuke Tulsa with the Saddamic Bomb!

What a pathetic chapter in American history, to discover that our heartland is filled to the brim with what we coastal types affectionately refer to as "pussies."

36

Post 7

Only those who declare that they know the mind of God - as Bush himself has on several occasions- think the US government is some kind of a deity. The rest of us know it is a government of men and women who can, and should, and must be held responsible for their incompetence and neglect.

And no amount of fallacious exaggeration (pretending Bush's critics believe "the government could have saved everyone") will hide the truth:

Once again, Bush failed. Miserably.

This is not a time for politics. Bush's neglect should make all Americans, regardless of party, feel ashamed. And very, very angry.

From this, Jeff concluded that tristero is suffering from Marxist indoctrination. On post 23, though, Jeff refined his criticism.

He didn't specifically feel tristo was a marxist but he was talking about 'the left in general'. Presumably, though, in that little post tristo did enough to link himself to the left which includes...according to jeff:

*Intense opposition to American supremecy
*Anti-Christianity, 'virulently pro-atheist'
*class warfare
*race warfare
*advocating gov't being the solution to all problems
*forcing the schools to teach that Columbus was evil
*revisionist history
*anti-capitalism

All that is derived from simply criticizng Bush. Now who is the one committing idoltry again?

37

Um, Cindy Sheehan wants to ask Bush tough questions about the war on Iraq.

Um, Cindy Sheehan wants to accuse Bush of murdering her son and going to war for Israel and Haliburton. Ms. Sheehan is a pitiful creature who would be better off meeting with a competent mental health professional than the President. The people who are trying to use her to get at the President are doing her no favors by feeding into her delusions and are worthy only of the deepest contempt of reasonable people.

38

That's nice, so how is Sheehan the main stream media again?

39

Are you saying that the only NOLA police that were involved in the looting are the ones that quit the force? That could be the case but I personally don’t think so.

George was, if I'm correct -- and George has yet to respond -- that the NOLA cops in general were looting stores. The plans that I've heard for giving the police (who stayed and helped, from what I understand) paid vacations in order to prevent any more suicides that, again, as I understand it, have stemmed from the incredible stress that no doubt comes from seeing anarchy errupt in the city that one has sworn to protect -- anarchy that the police forces, drastically limited by the storm and the deserters, is unable to control on its own. It seemed that George was assuming that all the NOLA cops were looting. Maybe he was just thinking of the black ones or something. I'm still waiting for him to explain himself. Are there articles that I've missed about the cops who stayed participating in looting beyond foraging for diapers, water, medicine and food?

The criticism is not that FEMA wasn’t providing relief – it was doing that from the start. The criticism is that FEMA didn’t move fast enough to do the evacuation that the locals failed to do.

Again, I agree that the local government dropped the ball on the evacuation. That said, however, FEMA should have had a relationship with the government of LA to go over evacuation plans before Katrina showed up on the radar. FEMA didn't provide relief to the convention center until 6 days after the emergency was declared.

You really think FEMA should have said, “No seriously, guys, where are you keeping the people?” FEMA doesn’t have psychics on the staff that know when they need to ask just the right question in order to get the local authorities to tell them where the people are! Sheesh.

Is there a publically available copy of a document provided by the NOLA authorities listing the evacuation sites, like the convention center and the superdome that informed FEMA of the existence of some, like the superdome, and not of others, like the convention center? You seem to assume that there is one. I don't blame FEMA any more or less than NOLA that water failed to arrive at the convention center until Wednesday night or Thursday. It takes two to miscommunicate.

Actually, the feds did better than that. Instead of having FEMA make such a suggestion they had the President do it himself: "Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding."

That's not what I meant. I was saying that, a la Hampton Roads, the evac. officials should have physically gone around knocking on doors and telling people to evacuate. I know full well that Bush, Blanco and Mayor Nagin all urged the population of NOLA to evacuate.

By the way, Joe, what do you think of the current rush to blame Katrina on New Orleans' accommidation of homosexuality, Southern Decadence, public drinking, Catholicism, etc? This might be an interesting subject to post on, too.

40

Never said she was, but she sure does get a lot of MSM coverage. One wonders how much she would get if she were a fervent Bush and Iraq War supporter. Either way she should be pitied, not lauded for her descent to madness.

41

I agree with you ucfengr, unfortunately she got a lot of coverage because she knew how to pull off a publicity stunt during a slow news period. There was coverage of Gold Star mothers who did pro-Bush demonstrations in response to Sheehan but their 'gee look at that' factors were lower.

42

ucfengr, another one of those able script-reciters for the Bush is Lord contingent:

"One wonders how much [publicity Sheehan] would get if she were a fervent Bush and Iraq War supporter. "

Probably not a whole lot, but if I'm not mistaken there's a fairly substantial network called FoxNews that's overflowing with anchorpersons and pundits who are fervent Bush and Iraq War supporters, so what would be the point?

Moreover, the so-called "liberal" MSM has even tried to present a "balanced view" of Sheehan's criticism by presenting (try to believe this!) ... mothers whose sons were killed who believe that Sheehan is taking something away from their children's "heroic" performance in Iraq! Simply bizarre.

As always, I remind people that if our troops are unable to do their work without 24 hour a day ass-kissing and affirmation of their heroic deeds, then our troops are truly pathetic and needy creatures.

In what other context would such shameful whining be tolerated? None. But when it comes to our troops, such whining is not only tolerated -- it is PROMOTED.

Our troops in Iraq aren't "heroes" just because they are there, nor do they become "heroes" when they are shot in the head by civilians of the country they invaded without a good reason, or when their jeep flips over. They don't become heroes. They become corpses. And their children become orphans and their wives become widows.

Why? So Iraq can set up a theocracy like Iran and so thousands of people can die in a civil war. Thanks guys!

But most of all, thank you George Bush and the rubes who recite the scripts your administration hands out.

Thanks a lot.

43

but if I'm not mistaken there's a fairly substantial network called FoxNews that's overflowing with anchorpersons and pundits who are fervent Bush and Iraq War supporters

Oh, you mean like Juan Williams, CiCi Connelly, Greta Van Susteran, and Alan Colmes?

44

You're right, when will Fox finally liberate Hannity from the tyrannical Colmes & the rest of team token!

45

Tyler,

Are there articles that I've missed about the cops who stayed participating in looting beyond foraging for diapers, water, medicine and food?

There have been a few articles about such activity. MSNBC even caught a few officers on tape looting a Wal-Mart.

Again, I agree that the local government dropped the ball on the evacuation. That said, however, FEMA should have had a relationship with the government of LA to go over evacuation plans before Katrina showed up on the radar.

They did. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167466,00.html)

[FEMA director Michael] Brown, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said the evacuation of the city and the general emergency response were working as planned in an exercise a year ago. "I was impressed with the evacuation, once it was ordered it was very smooth," he said. And with the storm moving north, Brown said he expects to see flooding in Tennessee and the Ohio Valley.

The people of NO weren’t advised to go to the convention center until Wednesday. What day are you saying that the received relief?

That's not what I meant. I was saying that, a la Hampton Roads, the evac. officials should have physically gone around knocking on doors and telling people to evacuate. I know full well that Bush, Blanco and Mayor Nagin all urged the population of NOLA to evacuate.

Yes after the disaster they went door-to-door.

By the way, Joe, what do you think of the current rush to blame Katrina on New Orleans' accommodation of homosexuality, Southern Decadence, public drinking, Catholicism, etc? This might be an interesting subject to post on, too.

I don’t speak for God and I’m leery of those who do provide extra-Biblical declarations of God’s judgment. I think there is enough human stupidity involved (i.e., you don’t build a city in a major flood zone) that the blame can be placed on man alone without having to invoke God’s wrath.

46

"Oh, you mean like Juan Williams, CiCi Connelly, Greta Van Susteran, and Alan Colmes?"

Oh, gosh, ucfengr, I forgot about those universally admired liberal mouthpieces!

What is the trademark phrase again? Oh yeah, "Fair and Balanced."

You're the first person I've met in quite a while who evidently believes that trademark isn't just another aspect of the propaganda.

But it's more likely that you don't believe it. It's more likely that you're just one of the stooges who runs to the defense of FauxNews because that's what a good Republican rube is supposed to do.

I congratulate you on your reliable performance. Hopefully Karl will throw a chotchke in your sock this December. Maybe a Judge Roberts bobble-head doll or a piece from Clarence Thomas' pubic hair collection.

47

LL--You really got my number, I'm Doby the Elf to Karl Rove's Lucius Malfoy. Whenever someone says something bad about Fox News I have to immediately jump to their defense or he compells me to iron my hand, hit myself with a hammer, or otherwise inflict pain on myself.

48

cfenger:
JC never did bring up taxes. He did however make lots of statements about people helping the most in need (the poor, the sick, those imprisoned, etc).

Republican's are against social service programs (American Politics 101) like welfare and healthcare.
My comments about the estate tax were made about how Christian Conservatives push for things that are the exact opposite of Christ's beliefs.

You should checkout the August edition of Harper's for a great piece about how unChristian this nation has become.

Christians in this country really believe "the Lord helps those that help themselves" is in the Bible.

Personally, I think many Christian conservatives are suckers being played by non-Christians into supporting the Republican agenda (which is all about policies that support the haves vs. the have nots).
Republicans use wedge issues (like gay marriage) to get people to vote Republicans into power.
Then the Republicans turn around and pass policies that support the rich over the poor.

JC would NOT be happy.
Yet, most Christians vote for Republicans.
That's not just odd. It's sad.

49

ucfengr:

Nobody sayd "any" loss of life.

The real issue is though, is projection- the real problem is that cheap labor, cheap human life conservatives made a god out of their ideology of "government is the problem."

It's the height of chutzpah for them now to claim the shoe is on the other foot.

Don't believe me? On my blog today there's proof of what a less rigidly ideological government can do.

50

"IT’S OFFICIAL: THE AMERICAN LEFT NOW BELIEVES GEORGE W. BUSH IS GOD

Article via FrontPageMag"

The fact that you read this tripe, let alone cite it, speaks volumes of you.

51

mark:

The tendency of conservatives to criticize any criticism of Dear Leader and is partisan politics.

52

ucfengr

"Whenever someone says something bad about Fox News I have to immediately jump to their defense"

Um, yeah, that was pointed out to you already.

Maybe you should hang back a while and take some tips from Kevin W. He can be amusingly clever from time to time and knows how to avoid lapsing into flyweight Dennis Millerisms.

53

The Chimp, an anti-science anti-expert cowboy slumbered in Crawford while the levees broke. Let's take a look at the disaster-management morons who the Chimp appointed to run FEMA.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/06/fema-deputies/

If Bush were to fire FEMA director Mike Brown the agency would be run by the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff. (See the FEMA organizational chart).

The Chief of Staff is a guy named Patrick Rhode. He planned events for President Bush’s campaign. Rhode has no emergency management experience whatsoever. From Rhode’s official bio:

His first position with the Bush Administration was as special assistant to the President and deputy director of National Advance Operations, a position he assumed in January 2001. Previously, Mr. Rhode served as deputy director of National Advance Operations for the George W. Bush Presidential Campaign, in Austin, Texas.

The Deputy Chief of Staff is Scott Morris. He was a press flak for Bush’s presidential campaign. Previously, he worked for the company that produced Bush’s campaign commercials. He also has no emergency management experience. From Morris’s official bio:

Mr. Morris was also the marketing director for the world’s leading provider of e-business applications software in California, and worked for Maverick Media in Austin, Texas as a media strategist for the George W. Bush for President primary campaign and the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign.

These guys make Brown look qualified. And that’s no small feat.

54

"We expected him and his federal governments to DO THEIR JOBS once the damn thing hits."

Please answer the following questions:

1) What is the federal governments "job" after a disaster?
2) How did the feds fail to do that task?

The Federal government has a job to perform before, during, and after a disaster.

a) It's job before, is to limit possible damage.
b) It's job during, is to protect people from the damage that is occurring.
c) It's job afterwards, is to save all those who can be saved, and recover from the damage.

We have two main components of the Fed here: Bush at the top, and FEMA on the ground.

On a, Bush himelf tried to cut the Levee program, asking for a puny $5 mil or so. Meanwhile Alaska gets a $100 mil for a bridge to an island with 50 people.

Bush ignored the information given him by the Army Corps of engineers, that the levees were disasters waiting to occur. Ignored discussion of New Orleans troubles, brought up in Jan and March of this year.

Then the LA governor signed over power to Bush on the 8/27th. Bush then dithered for days without being effective - as the whole world watched our humiliating helplessness, as one of our proudest, oldest and most historic cities became underwater.

On b & c, FEMA failed utterly, by:.

FEMA refusing Amtrak's help in evacuations, turning away experienced firefighters,
turning back Wal-Mart supply trucks,
preventing the Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel,
refusing to let Red Cross deliver food,
barring morticians from entering New Orleans, blocking a 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid,
failing to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital on board,
and, in the heights of surreality, urging First Responders not to respond!

That last should be from the Onion - but it's not!
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18470

Now, while this tragedy of errors was unfolding, Bush could have overrode Brown and FEMA at any time. He went on with his vacation. Also Condi went ON vacation, and spent a grand on shoes. Cheney bought a house - isn't that nice.

The fact is that Bush responded to the Indonesian tsunami quicker - and that was in a foreign country halfway around the world, speaking a different language, and with no infrastructure! We therefore know for DAMN sure, he could have responded much quicker here.

He could have just gotten off his bike for five minutes, made a call, and sent National Guard troops to secure New Orleans. They could have been in place to evacuate and secure the City, before the hurrican even hit! Imagine that.

Bush could have just ordered food and water airlifted to the Superdome, after the second day. He did not.

He could have even fired Brown, or even suspended him and put someone competent in charge. He did not. He still has not.

Therefore Bush owns FEMA's mistakes, as well as all of his own. He has failed New Orleans, and in doing so has failed all America.

If you as a conservative genuinely believe in accountability, I find it hard to see how this can be anything but completely unexceptable.

55

Larry:

It simply amazes me that people will go to these byzantine intellectual gyrations simply to avoid something painful, but as obvious as the nose on one's face.

I don't think it's intentional, but - as Tim Russert said today, if there's one thing government is supposed to do, it's to provide safety. Now of course government can't keep us 100% safe, but the gutting of FEMA, putting incompetent cronies in charge of it, and taking a strong anti-science policy demands - demands- accountability.

Otherwise, it is example number 24598 that this "culture of life" is really a "culture of death," in true Orwellian terms.

56

Wait, the only reason someone would criticize FEMA under Bush's management is because they must think FEMA is God! FEMA isn't God people!!!!

57

I'd also point out that by Carter's logic, conservatives should be showering Nagin with praise for saving as many people as he did save.

I think it's a silly position, for sure; because they could have planned on better security inside that stadium, as well as provisions for the people there.

Really, when do cheap human life conservatives accept culpability for anything?

58

Mumon -- not so fast! Bush is investigating himself as we speak. Maybe he'll find himself incompetent and demand that he be impeached.

I mean, anything is possible. Right?

You just have to have faith. ;)

59

Larry Lord,

Helping Iraqis establish a liberal democracy is the main reason we're over there.

But helping Iraqis is not the main reason we're helping Iraqis. We're helping Iraqis in order to fight the Islamist terrorists who have been at war with the United States for at least seven years now (since the 1998 embassy bombings and Osama's videotaped declaration of war).

By establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq, we're accomplishing the following:

1) Finishing the job of eliminating our greatest enemy regime in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein's evil dictatorship. We were in a constant state of low-level warfare with him since the end of the first Gulf War, and he was at least a passive supporter of various terrorists as well.

Note that the example of Saddam's demise has inspired Kaddafi of Libya to surrender his weapons of mass destruction programs without a fight. And that, in turn, led to intelligence that stopped the nuclear-weapon trafficking out of Pakistan.

2) Establishing an important ally in the fight against Islamist terror. Iraq will be able to provide us will invaluable assistance and intelligence in the fight against terror, and is strategically located at the crossroads of the Middle East.

3) Repaying a debt to the Iraqi people that we owed due to our bungling of the aftermath of the first Gulf War. We strongly encouraged insurrrection against Saddam, but left the rebels to be slaughtered by Saddam's regime, particularly in the Shia south.

4) Most importantly, an Iraqi liberal democracy serves as a beacon of hope throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. It serves as a spectacular example of how to establish a humane and functional government that others will emulate.

Once democracy spreads, then the Islamists will have a tough time finding anyone to preach their hate to, and their rate of recruiting will become a small fraction of their rate of attrition and desertion. This is the best long-term approach to winning the War on Terror.

The dividends have already started to pay off in places like Lebanon, where a peaceful people-power movement has finally ejected the Hamas-supporting Syrian occupiers.

So Larry, taking the fight to our enemies is not being a "p****". It is just the opposite. We are making the world a better place, at great cost to ourselves. We are determined not to repeat the mistakes of appeasement and benign neglect that led to the rise of Hitler and six years of insanely brutal world war.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. While I disagree with you, I admire your willingness to put forth a minority opinion and to challenge the received wisdom of the war supporters.

P.S. I'm from East Coast central, New York City, my wife is a liberal Democrat, and we're both supporters of President Bush and his War on Terror. This is not a simple heartland vs. the coasts division. I'd say the real division is much more along the lines described by Bill Whittle in his latest essay, "TRIBES". It's a great essay. If you read it, please let me know what you think of it.

60

Matthew:

I don't doubt you actually believe what you wrote; it's just not the way things were and are, though.

We stirred up a hornet's nest, and created a huge Gaza/West bank in Iraq.

It made no sense to go after Saddam Hussein politically or militarily - especially when we were diverting resources from the real enemy, al Qaeda, and were tolerating al Qaeda in Northern Iraq where Saddam's writ didn't run (thanks to our no-fly zone!)

But this is quite off-topic; except insofar is it illustrates the reification of ideology (sorry about those 50 cent words, but it's a pretty compact way of expressing the point). At the heart of this, and Joe's post (remember Joe's post? it's about idolatry) is the delusion that what we think about the world is actually as real as the world itself. Joe's post is about the "idolatry of government," when the post should be about the "idolatry of the idea" or, more particularly, the "idolatry of the idea of 'smaller government'."

In Alex de Jonge (sp?) excellent biography of Stalin, he mentions the famous "Stalin cow," which was actually a rabitt. Stalin or one of his boot lickers had a harebrained scheme to mass produce rabbits (didn't sound so bad on the face of it; it is what rabbits do, after all); but apparently they didn't have anything to actually feed the rabbits, and had other problems.

People were shot, but nobody could tell Stalin he was wrong about the Stalin cow, or anything else, because that was the "general line."

So it is with conservatives today, except they don't shoot people, they learned from Kruschev and McCarthy that a more popular policy is to never admit guilt and to smear critics.

The Bush strategy relies on people - sorry for the strong words here- being duped because they take ideology for reality, and therefore will go to any lengths to justify anything. It especially works well with many - not all, mind you, but many- Christian conservatives, who, like Marxists, start from the premise that "they're right," and attempt to build a logical chain of thought based on the premise. "Bush is a Christian, therefore..." seems to be axiomatic, except when you compare Bush's behavior with the Sermon on the Mount, and the Epistles of John, cognitive dissonance sets in if there isn't some "thought stopping procedure" to create a blind spot.

And that's what I think the issue is here, at least on the part of ideologues.

61

Sorry for another post, folks, but I can summarize the above as simply:

Joe's post is an attempt - I think unconciously - to focus attention on an idea rather than confronting the awful reality that an idea, and a president have both been abject failures, with horrific consequences.

62

"Helping Iraqis establish a liberal democracy is the main reason we're over there."

What's this "we" business? I'm not over there. Shockingly, neither are you. The difference is that you and your wife are morally obligated, as war supporters, to serve. They need soldiers badly and this is *your* war, so *you* must rise to the need you perceive your country needs and enlist. I repeat: Bush badly needs soldiers to fight his war. Enlist now if you think it's a good cause.

If you choose not to serve, then despite what you claim, you stand with me, totally opposed to the Bush/Iraq war, because you think it's not worth your life and time to fight it (and if you're too old, or handicapped, there's still stuff you can do, those are lousy excuses). The only difference is that I don't want anyone else fighting in my stead. I don't want anyone killed because of Bush's stupidity. I know the war is insane and I won't permit myself, my wife, or my daughter to go over there and get killed.

No rational American mother would permit her sons and daughters to die for the reasons you give - to repay a 10 year old debt? The soldiers dying over there were 7 years old back then. What debt do they owe? None. To "establish democracy?" What on earth does *that* mean in the Middle East, and what makes you think Bush -or anyone else -could ever impose such a thing, especially by invasion, occupation, torture, and coercion?

That's why no one talked too much like that before the wmd lie was exposed. And that's why today, during training, the military perpetrates the lie that Iraq was involved in 9/11, when it wasn't. I know, because I asked new recruits.

You fight wars because you must, because your country is being threatened so profoundly that your life and your country is in danger and you have no other choice. That is why Bush's war in Iraq is an immoral war.

63

Mumon,

Thanks for your comments.

There was a great story on National Public Radio this morning that defended the federal relief efforts as being very quick and effective.

Here's a link to the audio:

Defending the Katrina Aid Effort

You know what they say, if it's on NPR, it's gotta be true :-)

64

Wow, Tristero, hold on there buddy!

You do know that the United States was only founded after a bloody seven and a half year rebellion against the British crown? Or do you not think the United States is a democracy?

You know, if a nuclear bomb goes off in New York City, then maybe I will sign up to carry a gun and fight overseas. But right now, the armed forces are doing all right without me.

And by the way, while a large majority of our fighting men and women support the war enthusiastically, not all of them do. That's been true of every major war we fought. There have always been soldiers who have disagreed with the wisdom of the particular cause they are fighting for, but fight anyway out of a sense of patriotism and duty: that is to say, it's his/her war because the nation decided it was, even if he/she disagrees with it.

Our invasion was a liberation. Our occupation is a temporary reconstruction. Our torture was a criminal aberration that was discovered, investigated, and punished by our military justice system. I'm not sure what you mean by coercion, but it certainly doesn't include the beheading of innocents and the targeting of civilians.

And if the war is as bad as you say it is, have you considered enlisting on the other side?

65

Conservatives criticize big W. all the time. That may not seem apparent, but it is true. My point is simply that the criticism of Bush seems motivated by (mostly) politics. I would never say that things couldn't have gone better.
Sean Penn found out that even the simplest attempt at rescuing people can fall apart very quickly.

66

That'd either be the "man bites dog" angle to the story, or more likely the attempt to provide "balance" that actually obscures the truth. That guy on NPR said Americans were grousing about the speed of the response, and said compared to what? Here's compared to what: compared to NOLA, aid to the tsunami was faster, aid to the 1906 earthquake was faster.

Moreover, as I read somewhere else, New Orleans was located where it was for a very very simple reason: it was accessible. Even before the levees were built, that was the case (the whole city was not flooded, you know.)

NPR has taken a bizarre turn to the right lately.

67

Mumon,

Don't panic about NPR just yet. Here's a piece that the crochety old Democrat Daniel Schorr did yesterday:

"The Federal Government's 'Strange Paralysis"

He slams President Bush with just as much vigor as the NPR of old. And makes about as much sense, too :)

68

Good ol' Daniel Schorr. Anybody who made Nixon's enemies list can't be all bad. ;-)

69

Matthew,

I sincerely doubt that even the soldiers in Iraq think the military is doing fine, with or without you. I think they're scared stiff and feel they don't have enough troops or the proper armor. I know for a fact they've been lied to. My friend, they need recruits. Badly. It is your moral obligation to enlist.

I fail to see the relevance that the Revolutionary war has to the Bush/Iraq war. And that is the problem, that some people try to draw such weird parallels, because those very same people haven't bothered even to learn basic Arabic or the difference between Shia and Sunni beliefs. And yet they think they are competent to impose American values and democracy in the Middle East. By force. By torture. By invasion. (And if you think the torture and killings have stopped, and the US neither knows about any from the Iraqi allies or has participated, there's some Enron stock I'd like to sell you. I'll throw a slightly used bridge in, free.)

As for enlisting on the "other side" I am sure I don't know what the blazes you are talking about.

I am on America's side, and therefore not on Bush's. You, too, are on America's side, or you'd be in the military now, doing your job as a soldier, and heroically. Fortunately for your family, you know better than to put your life in danger on the say-so of someone as foolish, deluded, and ignorant as George W. Bush.

By the way, Matthew, four days after 9/11, a columnist in the New York Post called all liberals "traitors." I'm very sure this clown never fought in any war and wouldn't go near Baghdad. Now I'm a liberal. I really don't think being called a traitor by hypocritical cowards like that columnist carries any weight at all.

70

Joe writes: For instance, one of the most consistent, though often unstated, themes in the discussion about the disaster in New Orleans is that the government could have saved everyone.

That's a fantastic strawman! Let's see, with all the Internet and news coverage of Katrina I have not heard that uttered even once. You can't create a strawman better than that, Joe. Cudos. Rather than "often unstated" you should have said "never stated" or "always and completely unstated."

An entire post written about a believe not a single human being holds -- wonderful work.

71

Andy S

"An entire post written about a believe not a single human being holds -- wonderful work."

But Joe didn't say that any single person believed that. He said it was a "theme".

I would characterize Joe's phraseology in this instance as clever -- diabolically clever, even.

Moohoohooahahah!!!!!

72

Tristero,

I sincerely doubt that even the soldiers in Iraq think the military is doing fine, with or without you.

I'm sure many, if not most soldiers would agree with you. I'm sure most soldiers would be very happy to know that someone like myself has enlisted and is coming soon to take their place.

But if I enlist thinking that I am going to augment the number of troops on the ground at any one time, then I am likely to be sorely disappointed. President Bush has made it clear that the strategy for the forseeable future is to keep a lid on things until the Iraqi security forces are strong enough to take over more and more of the responsibilities that the U.S. coalition takes care of. He has no intention of increasing the number of troops on the ground.

But I do concede your point that it would be a great help to the war effort if I did enlist, even if the number of troops in Iraq stayed the same.

It is your moral obligation to enlist.

You may be right about that. But being opposed to the war would not lessen any moral obligation of mine to enlist, and it doesn't lessen yours either. In fact, you would be much more credible war-protester if you did volunteer for a stint in Iraq, on either side.

And yet they think they are competent to impose American values and democracy in the Middle East.

I'm not 100% sure that we are competent to restore order in Iraq, but if we are, then we will get it done. We're not imposing American values and democracy, we're helping Iraqis rediscover universal human values and democracy after twenty-five years of the worst abuse by Saddam and the Baathists. I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself as to what the vast majority of Iraqis want and do not want, sir.

As for enlisting on the "other side" I am sure I don't know what the blazes you are talking about.

I mean, if you think that George Bush is just a bumbling, torture-condoning, hopeless war-monger, than why don't you consider going to the Sunni triangle and offering your services to the right-wing paramilitaries who are fighting to restore a Baathist dictatorship to Iraq. That's what I mean.

You, too, are on America's side, or you'd be in the military now, doing your job as a soldier, and heroically.

Is there a typo here, or did you really write that our soldiers are not on America's side? If it is not a typo, then this has to be the most outrageous comment I have ever heard on the Evangelical Outpost. If you let me know, I will be glad to award you the "Booby prize" for this amazing sentiment.

By the way, Matthew, four days after 9/11, a columnist in the New York Post called all liberals "traitors."

I don't subscribe to the Post, so I can't unequivocally deny that a columnist said what you said. But I certainly don't remember it.

If it is true, though, so what? If you're not a traitor, and you're a liberal, there's at least 100 million other people who fit the same description. Why do you in particular still feel so outraged about some stupidity from a tabloid columnist?

Let's cut to the chase. If you don't like what I have to say because I haven't served in the military, then fine, don't listen to me. But how do you justify ignoring all the pro-war voices of active service members and hero veterans?

If you've never encountered any such voices (besides Joe's, of course), then I recommend visiting the Mudville Gazette. You will find a host of links there to many of the soldier bloggers who are very articulate in their support of the war (the list of links for mil-bloggers is on the right-hand sidebar, just after the lists for Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian bloggers).

If you do visit some mil-bloggers, please let me know what you think of their arguments.

I admire your passion, Tristero, and your desire to protect your family. But you can't protect anyone by asking your country to duck out of a fight. Our enemies are not going to stop fighting us until we make them stop.

73

"Our enemies are not going to stop fighting us until we make them stop."

We can't kill them all. We are causing them to multiply by our current course. The United States can only extinguish the flames of hatred by cutting off the fuel. When the U.S. adopts a more balanced Middle East policy, the violence aimed at Americans will decrease. Sadly, this will probably never happen. We will continue to support Israel, right or wrong, as we always have. Iraq will devolve into a radical theocratic state like Iran, and you guys will be left saying it could have worked if more people in the U.S. had supported the action. Just like Vietnam. How many generations will it take to rehabilitate America in the eyes of the world. I'm afraid most conservatives don't even care.

74

Rob,

Thanks for your comments.

The United States can only extinguish the flames of hatred by cutting off the fuel.

The fuel is Islamist ideology. We can only cut off Islamist ideology by proving that liberal democracy is a better one.

Islamists will hate us no matter what we do. We cannot succeed by appeasing Islamists, but by exposing the ugliness of their ideology, and by offering a viable alternative.

We could invade and dismantle the state of Israel tomorrow, and ethnically cleanse the Middle East of every last Jew, but we would still be the Great Satan to Osama and his followers. Search your feelings -- you know this to be true :)

Look, you don't know that Iraq will devolve into a radical clone of Iran. I'd say the odds of that happening in the south are only about 20%. And even if the south goes that way, Kurdistan in the north will still be a bastion of liberal democracy in the region.

And if there really is a high probability of Shiite theocracy in the south, then we ought to be thinking of ways to avert it. Giving up should be a last resort.

How many generations will it take to rehabilitate America in the eyes of the world. I'm afraid most conservatives don't even care.

I think you might not understand the stakes here. We're not trying to win a popularity contest in France or Russia or the U.N. We're defending ourselves, and the rest of the world, from an aspiring totalitarian/fascist movement that does not hesitate to use the most barbaric tactics imaginable.

If we win, we will be just as popular as we have ever been. If we lose, we will be unpopular, but not for trying to win, but for losing.

I'm proud of what the United States is doing in Iraq. The country still has a long way to go, and success is not guaranteed, but the cause is noble.

There is no need to apologize for violence that is harnessed to a good cause and is proportionate to the threat. Pacifism in the face of evil is no virtue.