09/04/2005: The time for politicizing Hurricane Katrina is now....
Karen drew our attention to parts II and III of James Wolcott's "New Orleans Died For Bush's Sins". However, given some rebukes we've received here for "politicizing" the situation, part I of Wolcott's three posts on this subject is well worth considering. Commenting on a post by Armando over at dKos (where Armando calls on us "to holster the fickle fingers of blame"), Wolcott notes:
Armando again: "Yes Bush and his administration have much to answer for. But what of the government of the State of Louisiana? The government of the City of New Orleans? I for one believe all have to answer for this. But not now. Maybe next week. But not today."They're making the connection between the money, manpower, and resources expended in Iraq and how raggedy-ass the rescue effort has been in the Gulf. In an earlier post I hit on this, saying:
I don't mean to pick on Armando, but has he learned nothing under Bush? There is no "next week" when it comes to getting answers and fixing accountability for failure under this president. Next week never comes.
Look at 9/11. There were tough questions about the breakdown of communications at Ground Zero, the lateness in scrambling fighter jets once the hijacked planes were heading toward NY and DC, Bush's strange behavior on that day, etc., and in the aftermath those questions were considered inappropriate, "divisive." We needed to grieve first, heal; and then the tough questions could be raised.
But they weren't. As months passed, the focus was on overthrowing the Taliban and avenging 9/11, and tough questions were taken off the table as the drumbeat was about the Nation Moving Forward. The media fell into zombie lockstep behind the invigorated Bush agenda. It took the 9/11 widows and esp the "Jersey Girls" to push and shame the Congress, the media, and the administration into launching a proper investigation, otherwise it would have all slid into the memory hole apart from the iconic images of the smoking towers before their collapse.
No, this is the time for politics, none better, because I can tell you just from being out of NY a few days that a lot of people in this country are shocked and sobered by New Orleans, but they're also worried and pissed off. They're making the connection between the money, manpower, and resources expended in Iraq and how raggedy-ass the rescue effort has been in the Gulf. If you don't say it now when people's nerves are raw and they're paying full attention, it'll be too late once the waters receded and the media-emoting "healing process" begins.
... given limited resources (i.e., money), you have to manage them wisely. Bush decided to fritter away large amounts of money in a war in Iraq, which simply resulted in promoting terrorism across the globe, and preparing the way for a theocratic, Islamic republic which will be closely tied to our "friends" in Iran.In response to which a frequent commenter here opined:
By the way, I wouldn't call fighting the war on terrorism "frittering away money."I wouldn't either. However, if you believe that the war in Iraq is really "fighting the war on terrorism", given the revelations of Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and the Downing Street Memo (that Bush was planning the invasion of Iraq much, much earlier than 9/11/2001, and that the 9/11 attack was merely the cynical "Pearl Harbor" moment that the bAdministration used to justify Bush's pathetic "my dick is bigger than Daddy's" attempt to portray himself as a "war president"), all I can say is, "get off the drugs and get real, man...."
Len on 09.04.05 @ 12:16 PM CST