Oliver Willis

30 Responses to “Katrina: Good Thoughts for New Orleans”

1. 1 Jadegold
   Aug 28th, 2005 at 3:08 pm

   Man oh man, this doesn’t look good. Prayers for SE LA.

   This has got to be clobbering all those rigs in the Gulf; looks like gas prices will be up again.

2. 2 realvalues
   Aug 28th, 2005 at 4:08 pm

   During Katrina coverage, the F Bomb gets dropped on Fox News… I will wait patiently for the outrage from the Concerned Women for America and the rest of the American Taliban…

   http://realvalues.blogspot.com/2005/08/f-bomb-dropped-on-fox-news.html

3. 3 JD
   Aug 29th, 2005 at 8:08 pm

   Un-freaking-believable! Actually, I am not really ever surprised by any of the leftist BS whining like Mr. Hughes spewed out any longer. Must politics be inserted into everything ? If President Bush had devoted 80% of the speech to the impending hurricane, would it have changed one damn thing? Barely lifted a finger for the tsunami … nice one. Care to demonstrate another country that gave more than our government, or better yet, our citizens? See any of those countries lining up to help us now?

4. 4 Joseph Hughes
   Aug 29th, 2005 at 8:08 pm

   And when the president has the chance to help those in need, he spends his speech defending his failed Iraq policy. “On another matter …” indeed:
   

   Yesterday, as Hurricane Katrina barreled her way toward New Orleans, President Bush took a few moments from his month-long vacation to discuss one of the worst storms in American history, a storm that cable networks fell over themselves to label everything short of the worst catastrophe in recorded memory.

   In a little over 1,000 words, Bush reached out to the potential victims in Katrina’s wake, offering thoughts, prayers, disaster declarations, promises of aid and … congratulations to Iraqis on their dead-on-arrival constitution? That’s right. When terrible loss of life and property loomed, Bush took the time to save political face, patting himself and his administration on the back for a failed process in a lost cause.

   After opening his speech with the typical disaster speech trappings, Bush said “On another matter …” and moved on, spending four-fifths of his time at the podium discussing a constitutional process too damaged for resuscitation. When Americans in peril needed him the most, our president bailed, choosing political posturing over personal tragedy.

   Does this surprise any of you?

   Bush, after all, is the same president who barely lifted a finger last December when the tsunami struck across the globe. He is, however, the same president who moved heaven and earth to interfere with Terri Schiavo’s final wishes. This time, he took an opportunity to lead in a time of crisis and used it to congratulate himself for a job not done.

5. 5 scratch
   Aug 29th, 2005 at 9:08 pm

   Allow me to side with Oliver and Jadegold, wishing my best to those affected. Everything else is off topic.

6. 6 Rory_Is_Freedom
   Aug 29th, 2005 at 9:08 pm

   Yeah, politics is inserted into everything….and that’s why the left keeps on losing!

7. 7 Joseph Hughes
   Aug 29th, 2005 at 10:08 pm

   “Yeah, politics is inserted into everything& .and that s why the left keeps on losing!”

   Do you fail to see the irony in your criticism. I was referencing a speech Bush was giving to hurricane victims where he did just what you criticize. But it’s OK if you’re a Republican, isn’t it?

8. 8 JD
   Aug 30th, 2005 at 1:08 am

   I agree with Oliver’s original post. Apparently, and fortunately, it does not appear to have been as devastating as was originally predicted. Thank God for that.

   On a side note, I would point out to Mr. Hughes that in the speech you are referencing, since it occurred before the actual hurricane hit, he could not have been speaking to actual victims of the hurricane. He may have been speaking to potential victims, probable victims, etc … but it is simply not possible to be a victim before the fact. Enough injecting partisan sniping into a natural disaster though. Unless you care to expound on how somehow the evil coservatives policies caused the hurricane.

9. 9 Rory_Is_Freedom
   Aug 30th, 2005 at 9:08 am

   It appears to be every bit as devastating as predicted and is likely to be the costliest hurricane in American history. On top of that, there is no way to measure the human cost of personal loss and displacement. So just go ahead and try to paint Bush as the culprit, on this and everthing else in our lives. Keep it going, as a matter of fact.

10. 10 frameone
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 10:08 am

    Keep your shirts on, kids. No one said Bush caused the hurricane. No one is blaming Bush for the devasatation caused by the hurricane either. Bush has no control over the weather but he can control the national response to the weather. His response to this disaster is as open to judgement, criticism or praise as anything he does as president. It is not partisan sniping to expect strong leadership during a time of crisis. So far you count me in the not impressed camp but I’ll hold off judgement for now. Let’s all recall just how quickly Bush placed himself center stage in the media and in Florida itself in the days before and after Charlie hit that important swing state a few months before the November 2004 election. You’re yanking my chain if you tell me that Bush himself didn’t see the political ups and downs of his repsonse at the time. The news then was full of stories about how his father’s tepid response to a similar hurricane had hurt his re-election in ‘92. Bush’s performance in Florida 2004 should be the measure of his performance now. That’s hardly political sniping. That’s holding Bush to his word that he’s the man to lead us in times of danger and doubt.

11. 11 Joe Schmoe
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 11:08 am

    I am shocked. If the Twin Towers were a sign God hates America and, especially New York, what does Katrina say about America? Please, Pat Robertson…tell me that God doesnt hate Southerners. Does he hate Southern Baptists or just the Catholics in Louisiana?

    Acttually, what I am most pissed about is the President, in his speech commemorting VJ day, comparing the Iraq situation to the Holy War of WWll. To compare Hussein to Hitler, like his father did, or ignore the fact we had no choices about whether to fight in WWll, shows either contempt for the American people or incredible ignorance.

    Also, I understand that there is an upside to this Katrina thing in Chicago. Commodities traders are having a boom day speculating on everything from cotton to oil and gasoline, thanks to the fear of shortages of essential products from the American South. See…one man’s loss is another man’s gain. And isnt that what capitalism is all about?

12. 12 Frank_D
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    Keep it simple: for Conservatives, Katrina is a personal, and economic disaster. For Liberals, Katrina is an opportunity to fire on Bush.

    You can’t help salivating when the bell rings, can you, Lefties…

13. 13 Joseph Hughes
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 1:08 pm

    Frank, tell that to Rush Limbaugh and Jonah Goldberg, who have named the storm Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel, after the editor of The Nation. If a Democratic president were taking the time to eat cake when the stranded remained without assistance, how would the right react? Personally? Or politically?

14. 14 mr.curmudgeon
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 2:08 pm

    Keep it simple: for Conservatives, Katrina is a personal, and economic disaster. For Liberals, Katrina is an opportunity to fire on Bush.

    Where do you think most of the relief money will come from? Blue states, I bet.

    You, sir, are an idiot.

15. 15 frameone
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 2:08 pm

    Frank –

    To think that there is no political dimension to a hurricane — or just about anything else these days — is to live in a fantasy land. To think that the president and his team haven’t already carefully measured all the political angles of Katrina is equally naive. To argue that that liberals are only thinking of the political angle of this disaster — personal tragedy and devastation be damned — is in itself to exploit the situation for partisan gain. Let’s take an extreme example: Before and during the disaster Bush travels the Western states defending his war in Iraq while making no mention whatsoever of the hurricane and those effected. Now, this would never happen. Why? Number one because we can all safely assume that Bush and his team are still human beings who wish to express their empathy and support for Katrina’s victims but also because, we can equally assume, that to say nothing whatsoever would be politically disasterous. The political consideration doesn’t negate the personal response or vice versa. On the flip side, Bush and his team could over respond to the situation, getting the president too involved in coordinating the response or being too effusive emotionally which can seem disingenuous.

    At present I simply find it odd that the president has continued on with a multi-state sales pitch for the war in Iraq while such a large portion of the country is undergoing such a severe crisis. We’ll see how he proceeds. Then again, it’s important to remember that IRaq and the hurricane are linked through the National Guard. If the rescue and reconstruction efforts turn up short handed Bush will have to explain why building schools in Falluja is more important than repairing levies in New Orleans.

16. 16 mr.curmudgeon
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 2:08 pm

    Furthermore, that being said, this is a human tragedy…not just a “Conservative” or “Liberal” disaster.

    If you can’t get that through your thick, partisan skull, then that’s just a shame.

17. 17 TomY
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 4:08 pm

    I think that if the President’s budget really did cut funds meant for levee repair in New Orleans, then he should pay a political price, regardless of what party he’s in. I wonder why none of the Republicans agree?

18. 18 JD
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 4:08 pm

    Joseph : Are you suggesting that the President should not eat in times of crisis, or just that certain types of food are inappropriate during a time of crisis ? What type of relevance does his choice of dessert have on … anything ?!

19. 19 frameone
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 4:08 pm

    Oh boy is this going to get political:
    http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html

20. 20 JD
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 7:08 pm

    Let us, for the moment, accept TomY’s premise as being true. Let us assume that in the 2004 budget, or even the 2002 budget, there had been a larger amount of funds available for levee repairs and building. At the rate that government gets around to doing things, by the time those dollars were bid out, plans were argued over, the appropriate local unions sated, they would have probably begun construction sometime in 2046.

    What Tom’s premise overlooks, intentionally I suppose, is the fact that this is a freaking natural disaster. I know it will come as a shock to those of you who so despise him, but President Bush did not call up Halliburton and order a Cat 4 hurricane to pulverize the Mississippi Delta. Even if it were in his power to do so, I cannot imagine him doing so.

21. 21 TomY
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 8:08 pm

    Maybe that’s true about the delays and maybe it’s not. But we *know* that cutting levee funding would never had made the the levees stronger, and now it’s been hideously proved that they needed strengthening. Do you believe that Bush’s budget decisions to cut levee funding have somehow been vindicated by the catastrophic levee break? Do you believe that they’re irrelevant?

22. 22 frameone
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 9:08 pm

    “I know it will come as a shock to those of you who so despise him, but President Bush did not call up Halliburton and order a Cat 4 hurricane to pulverize the Mississippi Delta.”

    JD can we stop with the stupid suggestions that anyone is blaming Bush for the hurricane? TomY raises a serious point about the Bush administration’s spending priorities and you try to pretend that he’s blaming Bush for the weather. That’s some serious disconnect in the noggin, my friend. You may want to have that looked at by a professional.

    In the meantime, WTF, why are we even bothering to reconstruct Iraq, the long delays, the kickbacks, the gouging, all that red tape. Just look at how long it’s taken them to get six hours of electricity a day and we’re using totally non-union labor over there. Why even start trying to rebuild anything? What a totally irrelevant and stupid dodge.

23. 23 Joseph Hughes
    Aug 30th, 2005 at 9:08 pm

    Let’s call it what it is: Another failure to lead provided by President Bush. When he was smiling and laughing out west, Americans were dying along the Gulf Coast. If President Clinton had laughed, smiled and played guitar while millions lost their homes, what would have happened? Keep the donations flowing.

24. 24 Frank_D
    Aug 31st, 2005 at 12:08 am

    Thank you all for belaboring the obvious. Now if you had read what I wrote, you might have noticed that I said that you Lefties took the hurricane as an opportunity to bash Bush, not simply look at it from a political perspective.
    Politics and Bush bashing are two different things, after all… Aren’t they?

25. 25 TomY
    Aug 31st, 2005 at 12:08 am

    Wrong. What I said was “if the President s budget really did cut funds meant for levee repair in New Orleans, then he should pay a political price”. I have only bashed Bush by saying that his budget as it applied to the New Orleans levy system, SUCKED, and he should be called on it. No doubt the list of people to blame for this will grow, but it’s useful to see conservatives’ first reaction to something as damning as this is to find a way to give Bush a free pass.

26. 26 JD
    Aug 31st, 2005 at 12:08 am

    frameone : in this instance, you are absolutely wrong. TomY is absolutely blaming Bush for the destruction from the hurricane. According to him, although they have been working on this problem for over 60+ years, that if only there had been more money available, the levees would have surely been strong enough and tall enough to have staved off this disaster.

27. 27 frameone
    Aug 31st, 2005 at 12:08 am

    You guys are great. TomY said that if Bush cut funds for shoring up levees he should pay a political price. He didn’t say Bush called up a CAT 4 hurricane or anything like it. Your stab at absurdity aside, JD, TomY’s point is the same as those who keep trying to blame 9-11 on the Clinton administration (see the recent bullshit furor over the non-existent Able Danger scandal) only in this case, low and behold, Bush did cut funding for levee repairs and his Iraq policies have limited the ability of the National Guard to respond to domestic national emergencies. Bush did not cause the hurricane but his policies may have lead or may still lead to more severe damage and a diminished rescue and recovery effort. If a contractor cut back on the quality of building materials and an earthquake hit, any insurance company worth its claims department would be all over the contractors ass to see if the damage done could have been mitigated. Without discussing this kind of issue now how can we ever begin to put pressure on any future politician who might cut funding for domestic infrastructure to sustain some foreign policy adventure?

    It’s possible to have these kinds of discussions now and still devote necessary care and attention to the needs of Katrina’s victims. Of course, that depends on whether or not the participants can stick to the topic at hand. TomY never said that the levees surely would have held if Bush hadn’t cut funding. He did say that there no’s way in hell cutting funding could have helped the situation. So either spending the money would have made no difference or it would have made some difference perhaps giving authorities the time to save a few more lives. In hindsight, which option would have been at the forefront of your mind when someone asked you in 2003, should we cut this funding or not? Would you have placed your faith and resources in the Army Corps of Engineers in the hope of, one day, possibly saving American lives and livelihoods? Bush faced that question and we know his choice. It’ll be a little while before we know the real consequences of that decision but there’s no reason why we can’t start asking questions now.

28. 28 frameone
    Aug 31st, 2005 at 1:08 am

    And Frank — that isn’t all you said. You compared two massive over generalizations to imply that conservatives have the correct response to the disaster and liberals are opportunists. On looking at your first comment again, I’d like to revise my intitial response to this: Fuck you.

29. 29 neoconsrloopy
    Aug 31st, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    There will be plenty of time to assign blame or credit- later. Whatever Bush performance is these next few months concerning Katrina, we all know the buck won’t stop at the desk of the “accountability president”.
    I hope he can show leadership and bring comfort to them at this time.

    I wonder what country we’re going to invade to retaliate- Look for “Operation Katrina Justice” soon, if history is a guide.

30. 30 gwangung
    Aug 31st, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    Lessons for the future then:

    FEMA funding should not de-emphasize natural disaster planning (hurricane damage in the GUlf states, earthquake preparedness for the West Coast, tornado damage mitigation in the Midwest).

    Or is that too partisan for some folks?

Leave a Reply