Katrina Part II: Bush Bashing

It's been a week since Katrina first made landfall. I've pretty much been keeping track of the news of this disaster since it first happened. Before I get into writing this entry, I should probably start with some warnings to those that might read this entry. First, to any Bush lover who might read this, you'll probably become pretty upset with what I have to say. If you really feel like flaming me, go ahead, but if you do submit nasty comments, I'm probably going to ignore them, unless they are well thought out. And I'll be the first to admit that I was never a Bush supporter and never will be. Most of my rants on how he handled this would be the same if it were a Democrat in office, or an independent, or any other third party that has some slim shot at getting elected. Second, this entry may contain some expletives. I'm not sure how nice and civil I'm willing to be with all that's gone on. I think that's about it for now. On to the entry....

Obviously I'm incredibly enraged by the response of most people in charge in this disaster. Now, this isn't only about Bush, although he does carry most of the blame in my opinion. I'll start with the people in charge in Louisiana. (Yes, this entry is going to be mainly about New Orleans because that's what's been focused on in the news lately.) They do carry some of the blame. They should have done anything within their power to do what needed to be done before the storm hit. Use school buses and any other means of mass transportation to get people evacuated who have NO other means to get out of the city. If nothing else, you can at least make sure the shelter you're sending these people to has an adequate amount of food and water available for people to use for a decent amount of time. They didn't even do that much. However, after the hurricane struck and devastated a large chunk of the Gulf coast, I think the local people in charge were doing everything in their power to help people out.

Now on to the Bush rant. While the people on the local and state level were trying to cope with the tremendous disaster they had on their hands, where was Bush? Our "fearless leader" was on a five-week (!) vacation at his ranch. Five weeks?? I realize that running the country must be a very difficult job, and I certainly would not want to do it myself. But it does seem like Bush is on vacation more often than he is working. I mean, really, how many average people in America actually have at least five weeks of vacation a year? I'm guessing very few. And of these people, can they take all their weeks of vacation at once? Probably not. But that's beside the point. It seems that every time there is some sort of crisis in the world or right here at home, Bush seems to be at his damn ranch in Texas. And this was no exception.

And where the hell is Cheney through all of this? I haven't heard his name in a while. My guess is that he's at some undisclosed location so no one can find him.

So, anyway, Bushie's on vacation for fours weeks prior to Katrina's landfall. Then he waits an extra two days after the landfall to say, "Oh, I guess I should cut my vacation short and help the country I was elected to run." Yes, he cut his vacation short by two days. Two?! That's it? If I were him, and I'm glad I'm not because I don't need that kind of stress, I would have been on a plane back to the White House a couple days before the hurricane hit. Especially since it was pretty obvious to just about anyone that the hurricane was actually going to make landfall somewhere along the Gulf. I mean, it barely passed over Florida and was continually gaining strength. And I know that hurricane predictions aren't always the most accurate, but most of the time the hurricane does move within its "cone of error." So, it shouldn't have been surprising that the hurricane was heading towards the Gulf coast. And it was a category five hurricane up until nearly landfall. I know that what the different categories mean is not exactly clear to everyone (hell, I'm not really sure what the difference is between a cat 4 and a cat 5, except the winds are stronger in a cat 5) but considering it was at the highest level it could go on the Saffir-Simpson scale, most people had to know it was going to be a devastating hurricane.

Our fearless leader then flies over the scarred area just to see what kind of devastation really occurred. Well, that's nice, especially days after the hurricane hit. Then he has the audacity to say that the results going on are "not acceptable." Really. Like we couldn't see that from the beginning. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. He spends an extra two days on vacation while there are people (most of them probably his supporters, perhaps until now) starving, drowning, and all other sorts of nasty ways to die. And he basically says things aren't getting done. What I would have done is the following. I know the storm is going to hit somewhere along the Gulf. I'd have units sent out to strategic locations with food, water, medicine, and the means to get any people that didn't evacuate out of town. These locations would be far enough away so they wouldn't be affected by the full force of Katrina, but close enough that they could get to the devastated areas within a day. And I wouldn't mind if I were stepping on the toes of the people in charge at the local and state level. Things needed to be done and done quickly. At the least, I'd work with them right away and tell them my plans. It just seems like such an obvious thing to do.

So, the results are "not acceptable." What does Bush do from here? He says he's going down to the coast to have a walking tour and see the devastation for himself. While that sounds all nice and everything, really, I think it's detracting from what could be going on. First of all, he'd need some security while he's down there, since, by that time, things have already started to descend into anarchy. So, that's taking away from what security is already there trying to keep the peace. Second, does he really need a first hand look at how bad everything is there before he starts sending in troops and supplies for the survivors? I don't think so. Third, I really think the only reason he went down to MS, AL, and LA is to show people that he's a "caring" person, and to get a few photo ops in. I saw some of his press conference in Biloxi on Friday because that pre-empted my soap for a bit. I don't know if it's just because I've never liked Bush, but I could have sworn that while he was talking about all the work that needs to be done, he had some sort of weird smirk or something on his face. He just didn't look sincere. At least not to me. I'm sure Bush supporters will disagree to no end on this point.

Also, courtesy of "Wait, wait, don't tell me" on NPR, I heard quite the doozy of a quote from our fearless leader. He said, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Really? How can he possibly say that? I've heard studies say that the levees would only withstand a category three storm. Obviously Katrina was a little bit stronger than that. I've also heard that some of the money going into studying the levee system was diverted away from that for some reason or another. (I'm sure the Iraq war had something to do with it.) So, really, it shouldn't have been a surprise to him, or anyone really. Everyone should have expected something like this would happen at some point. I realize that it is usually people's inclination to procrastinate to no end (I'm no exception), but New Orlean is below sea level. Surely a city as big and prominent and full of history as this one should have some sort better protection from flooding. I mean, the levees are made of dirt! I would think a stronger material is in order. Plus, the fact that they are only built to withstand a moderate strength storm is just laughable. Granted, category 4's and 5's don't happen that often, but often enough to warrant some extra protection, I'd think. But, no, the government doesn't want to spend money on things like protecting cities from natural disasters. Terrorism is the big concern lately.

While terrorism is something important to be concerned about, I think our country's welfare is also equally important. We have so many troops in Iraq and all around the world taking care of other country's problems that it doesn't seem like we have enough here in our own country to take care of ourselves. Now, this isn't just a Bush thing either, but he seems to be a big culprit recently, with this seemingly unending (with no plan for an exit) war in Iraq. I'm not even qualifying it as a war on terror, because I can't justify it as being a war on terror from the beginning. Now it may be with all the anti-American sentiment in Iraq. But I'm getting off topic here. The point is that there aren't enough troops, seemingly, in America to have responded in a quick fashion to the devastation from Katrina, no matter what Bush seems to think. Part of his news conference on ABC last week was directed at how many troops are in Iraq, and Bush basically said that we can handle it here even with the smaller number of troops here. Whatever.

I've heard from one of my friends that Bush has a 46% approval rating on how he's handling things with regards to Katrina. And he has a 47% disapproval rating. (Apparently 7% of people either don't care, can't decide, or live under rocks somewhere and have no idea what's going on.) Frankly, I'm surprised that it's that high.

It seems to me that we could relate this disaster to a terrorist attack. I mean, isn't this the type of this the Department of Homeland Security was preparing for. Well, I guess not exactly the type of thing, since it didn't come from Osama. However, this does show how woefully underprepared we are for this kind of disaster. Honestly, I'm quite afraid of what would happen if there was another terrorist attack, God forbid. Since we can't seem to respond to a hurricane in a reasonable amount of time, I'm really worried.

I truly think that as soon as this disaster is cleaned up that there should be some sort of ramifications on Bush and his administration. I'm thinking on the order of impeachment. It seems necessary to get him the hell out of office. (And this isn't just coming from me because I've never liked him. I'd feel the same way if it were a Democrat.) People get fired all the time for gross incompetence. Why not the President too? Clinton almost got impeached because he had an affair. Bush has had hundreds more people die on his watch that could have been avoided. I don't think anything is going to happen to him though. He'll remain in office for another three years. He is the morals president after all. That's why he remained in office, even though I value honestly pretty highly as a moral, and he doesn't seem to care if he's lying to people.

OK, I guess I should get off my soapbox for now. I just had to rant about what's happening. Things could have been handled so much better, but they weren't and people who could have survived this tragedy have died because of the lack of quick response on the federal level. I know as soon as the devastation has cleared up sufficiently, the blame game will start (it already has) and Bush will probably worm his way out of this scrape too. I find unnecessary death unacceptable, and at the moment, I find Bush and his administration unacceptable as well.