Some things I'm tired of hearing

There are a number of things I'm tired of hearing from the Administration and its apologists.

I'm tired of hearing "We shouldn't be playing the blame game, and by the way it's all the local government's fault".

Pick one. Either play the blame game or try to be morally superior. This isn't second grade, you can't punch someone and then immunize yourself by saying "No punchbacks!"

I'm tired of hearing people say that those critical of President Bush's response to Katrina are complaining about his delay in VISITING the site.

You've either uninformedly or intentionally mis-stated what Bush critics have said. They object to the lateness and inadequacy of the entire federal response, the responsibility for which ultimately lies with Bush. The fact that he was busy strumming a guitar (could that be any closer to the symbology of Nero?) and didn't bother to get there PERSONALLY is seen merely as additional evidence that he just didn't care and couldn't be bothered.

If the Federal response had been up to snuf, if FEMA had been as adept and as useful as they were in Oklahoma City or even on 9/11 (we'll get to that in a minute), no one would have held it against Bush. Hell, if he'd simply said "There's too much going on there, I don't want to take resources away from recovery and rescue efforts setting up security for my visit" people would have applauded.

Instead, the federal response at all levels was lackluster, bordering on criminal neglect, and Bush didn't seem to care. When he DID show up, he took away resources not merely for his own security, but had two rescue helicopters and a whole lot of firefighters diverted to the scene of his press release, so that he could look good against a backdrop of emergency response resources... that were not being allowed to respond to the emergency.

The level of caring (or lack thereof) was demonstrated by his mother as well, when she made that comment about how this flood was "working out well" for the poor people who were now homeless and had lost everything they DID have.

Now, as to the federal response (FEMA) to 9/11, several Republicans have pointed to that as a model of what Bush can accomplish... but that wasn't Bush's FEMA, that was Clinton's. The head of the department was still Clinton's guy, no changes had been made to the department. In fact, the wholesale changes to our main emergency preparedness department were undertaken as a RESPONSE to 9/11, not before it.

So in a very real sense, the FEMA response to 9/11 is a Clinton success, and a Bush one only in as much as until that point, he'd been smart enough to leave alone a functioning model of efficiency in government.

I'm tried of hearing how President Clinton got a pass for Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, etc.

First off, get over it. Your guy has been in office for five years now, it's about time to let go of the "it's all Clinton's fault" mantra. Most of us learned at an early age that two wrongs don't make a right, so even if Clinton was the worst President ever, that doesn't mean it's then OK for Bush to screw up without being called on it. Given what you clearly think of Clinton and Democrats in general, if the best response you can come up with to criticism is "Well, Clinton did the same thing" then perhaps you should set your sites higher. Just because someone else didn't do something right isn't an excuse to not do something right yourself. And is merely being no better than someone you clearly detest really as high as you aspire?

But again, the response is more than merely putting your feet on the ground and walking around making "tsk tsk" noises. Clinton, while he wasn't in Oklahoma City, was getting other things done in response to it. And even if he wasn't, his government was. There was every reason to believe that there was so much important stuff going on that he had more important things to do in response than just show up and be in the way.

By the way, that was also a terrorist attack. The secret service is funny about letting Presidents get too close to the scene of terrorist attacks, until they can be pretty certain that the area is secure. Hell, they had Bush on Air Force One for most of the day after the 9/11 attacks. Nobody complained because he didn't fly immediately to New York City, because they believed he had more important immediate tasks than to be in the way, there was time for that later.

I'm tired of hearing whining about how the 'liberal media' gave Clinton a pass on everything, but won't give Bush a fair shake no matter what.

Are you for real? The current press media are administration lap dogs. In depth reporting has been replaced by reading of official press releases.

Plus, the relaxation on media ownership rules means that most news media outlets are now owned by large corporations, the sort that tend to very much SUPPORT the semi-fascist neoconservative agenda. They LOVE him.

The old canard of a liberal news media may have been true at one time (it almost definitely was), but not any more. That old dog will no longer hunt.

Anyone who was actually PAYING ATTENTION during the last 12 years would remember the glee with which the media evicerated Clinton over everything from Travelgate to Monicagate (you couldn't turn around without "gate" being attached to some new word or phrase) to Whitewater. He hardly got a pass from the media. Meanwhile, since 9/11, the media has seemingly bought wholeheartedly into the Administration rhetoric that to question the President in this day and age is unpatriotic and tantamount to treason.

It's taken another major disaster, and a collosal screwup in the Federal response, to shake them up and make them realize that he's NOT God, he IS human, and it's not only OK to question him, it's their JOB.

I'm tired of hearing that Clinton got off scott free on Waco.

Again, you aren't comparing apples to apples. This was a dark day, and Clinton got into a lot of trouble for it, as did Janet Reno. But note that Janet Reno publicly accepted responsibility and apologized. So far, no one has publicly accepted responsibility or apologized for the monumental failings in the aftermath of Katrina. Yes, Bush did, finally, make a luke-warm half-hearted acceptance of responsibility, but it was presented as one receives an apology from a second grader, whose parents are FORCING him to apologize. It's in the wording, he accepts responsibility for anything which MIGHT have gone wrong, but he doesn't even admit that anything (or at least, anything serious) did.

Also, by the way, the people who died in Waco were a cult. That doesn't mean that deserved to die, but there was significant reason to beleive they were dangerous, to themselves or to others. It's a tragedy that that many of them died. There has also been some evidence that THEY set off the devices which destroyed the house, and that all that was fired into the house was tear gas.

But one only needs to think of Jonestown or the Heaven's Gate people to recall the opinion the public has for weird cults.

So, you have a case where there's at least some evidence that, while not handled CORRECTLY, the BATF were not ENTIRELY to blame for the Branch Davidian compound problem, compared to a natural disaster everyone saw coming, that's supposed to be EXACTLY what FEMA and the National Guard exist for, and President Bush did little to convey the impression that he was doing anything but dragging his feet on it, nor that he even particularly CARED.

Do you even understand the difference?

Liam.