The idea that Hurricane Katrina would change the only thing that matters -- thinking -- perished even more
quickly, at about the time Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a suitable symbol of congressional narcissism, dramatized the severity
of the tragedy by taking a television interviewer on a helicopter flight over her destroyed beach house. "Washington rolled
the dice and Louisiana lost," she said in a speech on the Senate floor that moved some senators to tears. You can no more
embarrass a senator than you can a sofa, so the tears were not accompanied by blushing about having just passed a
transportation bill whose 6,371 pork projects cost $24 billion, about 10 times more than the price of the levee New Orleans
needed. Louisiana's congressional delegation larded the bill with $540,580,200 worth of earmarks, one-fifth the price of a
Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois's freshman Democrat, applied to the expression of old banalities a fluency that
would be beguiling were it without content. Unfortunately, it included the requisite lament about the president's inadequate
"empathy" and an amazing criticism of the government's "historic indifference" and its "passive indifference" that "is as
bad as active malice." The senator, 44, is just 30 months older than the "war on poverty" that President Johnson declared
in January 1964. Since then the indifference that is as bad as active malice has been expressed in more than $6.6
trillion of anti-poverty spending, strictly defined.
Lee P. Butler
In a recent editorial, liberal essayist for the Miami Herald Leonard Pitts Jr. asked three questions concerning his 'worries'
about the Katrina disaster as it related to New Orleans. Among his misdirected castigation of the President he completely
ignored the immense devastation of Alabama and Mississippi and the successful coordination of the local, state, and federal
relief efforts in those states.
He wondered; (1) What, if any, was the role of the local, state, and federal intransigence,
incompetence, or inertia in the failure to strengthen the levees on which the city counted for protection against disaster?
(2) Where was FEMA? (3) Why were the indigent, the infirm and the old left in the path of the storm?
He also attacked
the President, claiming he, 'failed to react to the storm until two days after it hit'. This is one of the most often repeated
fallacies of the liberal establishment that dominates the media. Two days after the storm hit would be Wednesday, it wasn't
until that day that the Democrat Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco officially asked for specific assistance
from the federal government when she requested 40,000 troops, which were immediately sent to the region.
The New York
Times produced a story showing the maladroit breakdown in command by the governor, 'Aides to Ms. Blanco said she was prepared
to accept the deployment of active-duty military officials in her state. But she and other state officials balked at giving
up control of the Guard as Justice Department officials said would have been required by the Insurrection Act if those combat
troops were to be sent in before order was restored.'
What's worse is she also turned down a separate offer from the
federal level as they tried to get an effective plan in place that would consist of a 'hybrid command structure in which both
the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general' to deal with the crisis.
Again, the governors of Alabama and Mississippi had no problem relinquishing control of their recovery efforts to
the federal government and they seem to be working well together.
But liberals don't want to hear that, so they just
stick their fingers in their ears and yell, 'its Bush's fault, where's Dan Rather when you need him'!
factoid that would cause bed-wetting liberals to kick and scream as they produce more innocuous diatribes throughout the mainstream
media if they didn't have their fingers in their ears, is the man they love to hate... no, not Karl Rove, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld used an executive order to put Adm. Timothy J. Keating in charge of operations concerning Katrina, before
she ever became a hurricane.
Keating then went on to approve the use of the bases in Meridien, Miss., and Barksdale,
La., to position emergency meals and medical equipment a week before Katrina ever hit the Gulf coast. They also placed ships
in the Gulf. It was that action that allowed the military personnel to eventually heroically rescue so many people on national
Assistant Secretary McHale said, "The U.S. military has never deployed a larger, better-resourced civil
support capability so rapidly in the history of our country." But the liberal mainstream media surely hasn't reported that
juicy tidbit of information, has it?
So why didn't that massive military presence move in the minute Katrina had wrecked
havoc on the 'Big Easy'? Look, the focus here isn't on Alabama and Mississippi because the media doesn't seem to think they
count, because you see, Bush did a good job there and they don't have the under-funded levee problem, okay?
liberals who march to the beat of Michael Moore have charged, the Department of Homeland Security says in their own rules
of organization that they are to take the lead in disasters that befall the United States.
This is so ponderous it's
ridiculous. The DHS is in charge and takes the lead over all FEDERAL agencies in cases of national emergencies. It would be
nice for once if these liberals would stop their exhaustive research projects on Moveon.org and read the CONSTITUTION!
they did, they'd find a wonderful idea from our Forefathers called states rights. You see, they wanted to limit the powers
of the federal government, so they gave the states more individual power. This prevented the federal government from dictating
to the populace, like, well communism. In fact, there are several laws that protect state sovereignty.
In only a few
instances can the federal government enter a state against the wishes of the governor. Two of those are the Insurrection Act
and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Are liberals really that desirous to see the federal government invoke those laws to
handle 'looters' in lieu of the local authorities in the wake of a disaster?
It has appeared that the governor of
Louisiana wanted the President to do just that. If he makes the decision to go in without local acceptance, he's guilty of
violating states rights. If he decides to not to go in... which, he did... he is guilty of hating blacks. In either case,
the governor gets a pass by the media, but the President gets slammed.
As one 'unnamed' official asked, "Can you imagine
how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had preemptively taken from the female governor
of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was
unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?"
sums up why the President didn't go in any faster than he did. He was 'damned if he did' and 'damned if he didn't'.
according to an article in a paper in Pitts’ own state of Florida, the Gulf states were as unprepared for the catastrophe
in Katrina’s wake as Florida was in 1992 when Andrew hit them. So not only didn’t New Orleans follow the evacuation
plan they had, but the paper points out that the plan Louisiana had was inadequate and in Mississippi they, ‘were in
the process of rewriting their state emergency plan when Katrina hit’.
"If we weren't prepared, and we didn't
do our part, no amount of work by FEMA could overcome the lack of preparation," Florida Governor Jeb Bush said in defense
Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana said, "Mayor Nagin and most mayors in this country have a hard time getting
their people to work on a sunny day, let alone getting them out of the city in front of a hurricane."
Yet Bush is the
Liberals can keep their fingers in their ears so they don't have to hear the facts while they get passes from
media elitists, but it’s not even close to being Bush’s fault.