« Ranking Colleges As Good Citizens | Main | Hands »
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Bring 'Em On
Our preznit yesterday: I want to know...Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm.
You mean, you don't know the answer to this?! Holy Mother of God, we are SO fucked...
ntodd
September 14, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d834570c4f53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bring 'Em On:
Comments
Yes, it's horrible that he's addressing questions regarding the federal response to Katrina. Would you have preferred that he say everything's perfect, no worries?
Posted by: Hubris | Sep 14, 2005 10:03:11 AM
Why not? It's been his response to every other crisis in this (mis)administration. And I think NTodd is quite right to consider that if the guy who just admitted, five years in, that he is in fact personally responsible for the actions taken by his government isn't fucking aware of what those actions are, we are seriously fucked.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 14, 2005 12:41:41 PM
"Are we capable...?"
Yes - WE are. Bush & his crony-laden, Chinese fire drill-style Department of Homeland Security - not so much.
Posted by: andante | Sep 14, 2005 1:09:29 PM
...isn't fucking aware of what those actions are...
Well, that isn't what he said, if that makes any difference.
Posted by: Hubris | Sep 14, 2005 1:23:49 PM
Er, Hubris, you did read NTodd's post before you commented on it, right? Because here's what the preznit said:
I want to know...Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm.
If he doesn't know the answer to that question, two weeks after Katrina, even if he's only been getting his information from CNN, well, then the man's an even bigger idiot than we'd already figured.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 14, 2005 1:36:46 PM
Er, Hubris, you did read NTodd's post before you commented on it, right?
Yeah, actually I did. I even clicked on the linky thing and read the whole transcript. You?
Compare and contrast:
I want to know...Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm.
...versus:
And I think NTodd is quite right to consider that if the guy who just admitted, five years in, that he is in fact personally responsible for the actions taken by his government isn't fucking aware of what those actions are...
See the difference?
The statement doesn't indicate he doesn't know what the actions of the government are. Not at all.
Perhaps this will help: Picture a hypothetical totally awesome president making this statement. Wouldn't have a problem with it, would you? Any decent government leader would reassess the level of readiness after going through an unprecedented catastrophe like this. Look back, see what went wrong, learn from it and address it.
IMO, the proper snark from someone of NTodd's perspective would have been something like "it's about time." But that's just me.
Posted by: Hubris | Sep 14, 2005 1:44:17 PM
My point was 2-fold:
1) 4 years after 9/11, and we're still asking the same fucking questions?
2) The man who aggressively campaigned on the idea that his government could respond effectively and Kerry's couldn't is now thoughtfully musing about this?
3) In the wake of Katrina, he couldn't think of one thing that went wrong at the Federal level? (That was the context of the question, and eerily reminiscent of that famous PC when he couldn't think of one mistake he's made. Arrogance and/or willful ignorance.)
Oh, that's 3-fold. Whatever.
Posted by: NTodd | Sep 14, 2005 6:49:30 PM
Hubris, what NTodd just said above IS the whole point. The fact that the man based his entire campaign on an 'I and only I can make you safe' image is the point. The fact that billions have been poured into apparently phantom programs to shore up security is the point. (And yes, natural disasters come under the security umbrella, especially since so many agencies were subsumed into DHS.) The fact that all the talk has been irreparably, unmistakably, horribly shown to be just talk is the point. And those who believed any of the talk over the past five years are, we hope waking up to the reality of what they have wrought.
Posted by: Green | Sep 14, 2005 7:58:53 PM
Sorry, Hubris, but you're wrong. If Bush has had a television set turned on for more than half an hour on any one day over the last two weeks; if he has read a single newspaper in that time span, or surfed the web, or, heaven forbid, if he's taken a look at his daily briefing book, he should damn well know that there's no fucking way this government is "capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm." The evidence is all around him.
The only way he can possibly ask that question (except in a condescending, meaningless rhetorical way, which is how I think he probably meant it anyway) is if he's not been paying attention to any of the information that's available on just how fucked-up the federal government's response is.
So, to draw the lines so it's obvious even to you, we're fucked if another hurricane slams the Gulf Coast, or if some terrorist group decides now would be a good time to martyr themselves. And if the preznit is either too dense, too lazy, or just too fucking stupid to pay attention to what's going on around him--especially four years on from his last colossal fuck-up in that regard--we're also fucked. In other words, we're fucked if we do and we're fucked if we don't.
Or, as NTodd originally stated it, "Holy Mother of God, we are SO fucked..."
QED.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 14, 2005 10:31:28 PM
...to draw the lines so it's obvious even to you...
I'm sorry Michael, your line of argument is so complex and packed with evidence, it's impossible for me to follow it. Let me know when you ratchet it down a couple of notches so I can wrap my head around it.
Posted by: Hubris | Sep 15, 2005 10:11:06 AM
Green:
The fact that the man based his entire campaign on an 'I and only I can make you safe' image is the point.
First of all, I don't recall GWB basing his entire campaign on that image. Second, even if he did - it was never about hurricanes specifically. Given that you conflate the two, that leads me to the following hypothetical question: let's assume aliens landed like in "War of the Worlds" - would you and NTodd be the only guys on the planet criticizing GWB because he had not single-handedly defeated them all within 36 hours?
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 18, 2005 9:52:30 AM
Hubris - Michael's argument is rather simple, and the evidence is all around. Surely you know that Bush's people had to compile a DVD of Katrina-related news reports to convince Bush to even consider cutting his vacation short and getting the Federal government in motion?
Charlie - the GOP held their convention in NYC and Bush invoked 9/11 at the outset of his acceptance speech. You also know very well that he touted safety consistently throughout his campaign, playing the 9/11 card at every opportunity.
As for not being about hurricanes specifically, wow: that's pretty fucking pathetic, even from you. Gosh, the president never said he'd help us in a hurricane, so why should we expect it?! You're so right.
Oh, 'cept that you miss the larger point: the cause of the devastation is irrelevant. Katrina, dirty bomb, whatever, it all amounts to the same in the aftermath, and Bush's response lacked the necessary urgency. Going further back, Bush demoted FEMA from a Cabinet-level position, and apparently ignored their prescient 2001 report that identified a terrorist attack on NYC, an earthquake in SFO, and a hurricane in NOLA as the three most likely, catastrophic events we faced as a nation. Ah, but there was no "actionable intelligence", so I guess his hands were tied.
As for your stupid fucking hypothetical, this is all I have to say about it: it's a stupid fucking hypothetical.
Posted by: NTodd | Sep 18, 2005 11:32:58 AM
That's O.K., NTodd - you don't have to answer the . . . hypothetical since obviously you don't want to admit that you and Green would, in fact, be the only guys on the planet criticizing GWB because he had not single-handedly defeated every space alien within 36 hours - however, I am beginning to suspect that you are now conflating terrorism and hurricanes on purpose. Oh well, so much for the high hopes I had of rational discourse. Good luck, Hubris.
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 19, 2005 12:52:35 PM
It's a stupid fucking hypothetical question, asshole.
And of course I'm conflating hurricanes and terrorism on purpose: the results are the same. Good lord, you are obtuse.
Posted by: NTodd | Sep 19, 2005 12:58:01 PM
I will gladly answer any . . . hypothetical you pose (and do so without the personal attacks). For instance, the results of an alien attack might be the same as Hurricane Katrina. That being said, how can the blame for me being obtuse be my fault if I will give you any specific information required?
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 19, 2005 4:18:01 PM
Yes, you're so high and mighty, Charlie. I will call you an asshole because that's the way I see you. At least I showed some restraint in my invective.
You deliberately ignore the fact that hurricanes and terrorist attacks are similar in many ways, and ignore the fact that hurricanes have the greater destructive and deadly potential. Oh, but Bush didn't say anything about hurricanes specifically during the campaign, so how can we possibly expect him to have responded well to Katrina? Good lord.
Before 9/11, Bush was on vacation and ignored intelligence, not to mention warnings from the Clinton administration and Richard Clarke about the threat of al Qaeda. His biggest concern was tax cuts and his missile defense boondoggle.
Before Katrina, Bush was on vacation and ignored intelligence, not to mention warnings from the Army Corps of Engineers and the local/state officials about the threat of flooding. His biggest concern was immigration and the Medicare drug benefit.
36 hours to respond to Katrina was not unreasonable because he knew she was coming. Yet he waited until 3 days later to even have a fucking meeting about it! That's unconscionable.
And I still refuse to answer your hypothetical because you have taken the most insanely impossible situation, misapplied the conditions that we see in reality, and no answer I give will be satisfactory in light of the pre-conceived notions you clearly have about what I would say or do.
Stopped beating your wife yet? Would you defend Clinton in this situation?
See, worthless questions. Just like yours.
Posted by: NTodd | Sep 19, 2005 5:25:58 PM
On the other hand, I keep ALL invective out of my side of the debate - sorry you think that civility is "high and mighty". BTW: there were plenty of situations I did, in fact, defend Clinton - so I'm sure I could hypothetically do so as well - I also never STARTED beating my wife. There - you see how easy that was?
For the record, deciding not to provide federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research was more of a priority for GWB (rightly so) before 9/11. That being said, while there was some delay on the federal response to Katrina, it was about as good as could be expected under the circumstances. Hopefully lessons learned will reduce the complications next time. For instance, Nagin has finally learned HIS lesson and has suspended people coming back into NOLA.
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 19, 2005 5:45:50 PM
P.S. At least I have never broken my wife's nose.
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 19, 2005 5:57:07 PM
No, Charlie, I don't think civility is "high and mighty". You really do have a reading comp problem, don't you? I called you high and mighty. As in you're taking on airs. "Oh, oh, no more buttered scones for me, mater. I'm off to play the grand piano."
So had Clinton waited 3 days until after Katrina hit to finally convene a meeting on what to do about it, you'd be praising him?
You bitter enders are a piece of work. Bush had 4 years since 9/11 and still couldn't respond to a disaster he saw coming days in advance. Sorry, Charlie, but he fucked up, no matter what Nagin, Blanco, and Barbour did.
Posted by: NTodd | Sep 19, 2005 6:03:04 PM
PS - Given that you posted an off-topic comment yesterday (Donna Brazille's entire hackery on the thread about the GOP's cynical use of Katrina to kill the Estate Tax), and now you've violated the "no more than one comment per thread in a row" rule, I should by all rights ban you. But I'm feeling charitable, so let's call it 2 strikes.
Posted by: NTodd | Sep 19, 2005 6:05:49 PM
On the other hand, I keep ALL invective out of my side of the debate - sorry you think that civility is "high and mighty".
Yeah, because yuk-yucking about John Edwards' dead son on Drum's site was so fucking civil, Charlie-mangy.
As a good Jebus-boy, whatcha doin' invoking aliens, anyway?
Posted by: ahem | Sep 19, 2005 8:40:38 PM
I will gladly answer any . . . hypothetical you pose (and do so without the personal attacks).
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 19, 2005 4:18:01 PM
I got your hypothetical right here: since the majority of citizens in this country think that another terrorist attack is inevitable, please review the immediate aftermath of the Katrina disaster, and ask yourself this: if this had been a dirty bomb set off in Los Angeles, if this had been anthrax set loose in Chicago, or sarin gas in the DC Metro, if this had been a cessna full of explosives crashed into the Indian Point nuclear power plant, would you still be satisfied with a five day turn time for a federal response? Do you still imagine that a natural disaster couldn't be 'conflated' with a terrorist attack? It's about what this administration said they could do, versus what they actually did.
From at least one perspective, this hurricane was worse than any of the above: the event had been foretold, the aftermath predicted, we knew it was coming and when, and yet this administration still wants to convince us that there was nothing they could do to prepare for it, nor was their response in any way lacking. The fact remains that they continue to play with public fears, and stage manage the crisis for political effect; getting the 17th street levee fixed wasn't so important as appearing to get it fixed in order to look good for the fly-over; getting power back on in the warehouse district wasn't as important as making sure the president could be seen, if only for the hour that he would be on TV. President Bush, and his staff, do nothing to make any of us safer.
Posted by: Boojum | Sep 20, 2005 10:33:24 AM
ahem - see, Charlie never said 'fuck', so it was civil.
Boojum - nicely done.
Posted by: NTodd | Sep 21, 2005 11:25:12 AM
What on earth is the reference to NTodd's wife's nose doing in this discussion anyway? Is that an example of a cheap shot or just a stupid aside?
Posted by: ellroon | Sep 21, 2005 1:56:41 PM
ellroon - oh, you know, he's just batting back my "have you stopped beating your wife" complex question. I guess it's my fault for ever telling him about last year's nose-breaking incident in the first place.
Posted by: NTodd | Sep 21, 2005 3:11:46 PM
Buy me stuff off my 
