Our new Department of Homeland Security has performed abysmally. I’ve never been a Bush fan, but it doesn’t matter what your politics are; if this doesn’t outrage you, you aren’t paying attention. Michelle Malkin for god’s sake is asking Bush to fire Michael Brown, the head of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) for his incompetence.
Clearly the Federal Government has dropped the ball big time. What’s most sobering is that this could easily have been another terrorist attack and after four years of promises from the Bush administration of “never again,” we still looked as dumb struck as we did four years ago. We even knew this “attack” was coming.
Drawing parallels between an actual terrorist attack and a natural catastrophe can lead to some interesting ideas and conclusions. For instance, this is exactly what the Department of Homeland Security was created to handle. How can they possibly be handling the relief effort so poorly? The Bush administration has repeated its mantra from 9-11 that no one could have seen this coming. Of course, just as members of the CIA saw 9-11 coming, so too did people see the levees breaking and horrific flooding occurring. Check brendanloy.com if you are skeptical of the latter claim; try the 9-11 Commission report for the former.
After 9-11, certain people and newspapers criticized the administration for a lack of preparation and of ignoring warning signs. After Katrina, many more people and newspapers again criticized the administration for a lack of planning, for ignoring warning signs and this time of gross incompetence in handling the aftermath. The big difference has been the counter response of the Bush administration and its right wing allies. Back in 2001, they were loudly able to squash any opposition by calling dissenters “traitors, enemy sympathizers and anti-American. They were largely successfully in painting those who disagreed with them as enabling the terrorists: “You are either with us or against us.” This time though, the Bush administration and its allies couldn’t label dissenters as being in league with terrorists or the enemy without leaving the confines of logic. Even for a group that claims to create their own reality, they would sound rather silly railing against “the liberals who are in league with the hurricane.” Like before, the administration has been forced to defend itself against charged of gross incompetence. But without the standard strategy of calling your political enemies un-American, they have been forced to find a new strategy to avoid taking responsibility. This time they have chosen to blame local authorities instead. To be fair, it appears there was gross mismanagement at a local and state level, but it appears the American people are getting the message that their federal government hasn’t been doing all it can to look after them.
For more passionate Bush slamming, check out Maureen Dowd’s column a few days ago in the New York Times. Although I rarely read her anymore, as a friend put it, “Normally she pisses me off, because she’s clearly a good writer, but goes for the cute or facile most of the time.” I agree, but this time however she “hit the hurricane out of the park.”
The other aspect to this story is the standard, laudable American quality of being extremely generous to those in need. Americans pride themselves on being willing to donate money to those who have recently experienced great hardship. Take the Tsunami relief efforts for recent evidence. Yet, why is it that on the whole, Americans are not willing to give money for those less fortunate throughout the entire year? I’m talking about taxes of course. There seems to be an odd disconnect, as Americans are vocally generous after specific horrific events, but seem to shudder at the thought of their money going to people who were born in a horrific living situation on a regular basis.
Clearly there’s nothing un-American about being generous. So why can’t Americans see that paying higher taxes is the same as giving money to those in need. All we need is a transparent government that directs the money to effective relief programs to alleviate the sick, helpless and weak year round and an administration that chooses competent directors for its program. Alas, neither of those things is likely to happen with this administration, but we can always hope.
