Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 24th, 2006 08:44 pm (UTC)
What's with the media letting them off the hook, every damned time?

I'm of the opinion that this Administration's response to Katrina is an impeachable offense. I seem to be in a very small minority that way, but it's up to Congress to decide what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors," it's clear that it doesn't have to be a violation of statute to qualify, and it's of far greater consequence - in an area where this Administration had supposedly been getting ready for, for the past four years - than lying about a blowjob.

A thousand people lost their lives in New Orleans in Katrina. We'll never know how many of them would have been saved by a quick and effective Federal response, like the way they responded in Florida in 2004, but the answer is surely hundreds.

Part of the reason for the ineffectiveness of that response was Bush's having seeded the FEMA bureaucracy with incompetents like Chertoff and Heckuva Job Brownie, and the other part was Bush's failure to take normal executive initiative a couple of days before Katrina, to call in Chertoff and say, "You're ready, right? What have you done to prepare for Katrina hitting New Orleans?" Both ways, the responsibility is Bush's. He fucked up. People died. Impeach the fucker.
Jan. 24th, 2006 11:29 pm (UTC)
I have a running list of things I want hearings on...
What's with the media letting them off the hook, every damned time?

I really don't know. I have 100 different theories that'd I'd go into , but I really, really hate writing out long treasties...and I hate the thinking part, too... Here's a link to something written by Mark Evanier generalizing on a point made by Josh Marshall over the "Deborah Howell-Abramoff Equal Opportunity debacle" at the Wash Post. I agree with him newsrooms are scared of the bias industry that was developed -- probably even before Nixon, but back when William F. Buckley first launched The National Review as an outlet for aggrieved conservatives -- all of which culminates today in an outfit called Pajamas Media. We are to the point (and this is the goal of the conservative media) where, as TNR doesn't want to quite admit, "news coverage [is] be completely relativistic, so that each claim by one side is every bit as worthy of respect as each claim by the other, regardless of the underlying facts of the situation." Weeks ago, when I found an old idiotic post by Glenn Reynolds, I actually wanted to comment on a good piece written by Jaime Weinman on why the media is held in low esteem -- exactly because they carry water for the elites. (Though Fox News has managed to redefine elites to mean not the administration, but liberalinstia.) But Instapundit's post was just too stupid to escape comment, and I lost track of what I really want to say. (And he's a charter member of Pajamas Media. It makes me wish Mena Trott didn't invent the internet.)

Moving on to Bush, this has been beaten into me for so long it seems self evident, but it isn't. Bush can't govern because he disrespects government on every single level. (Except his own, quite obviously.) This is a belief shared by many Republicans -- with libertarian leanings and otherwise. Something written by Peter Samuel (who also shares the philosophy) at TollRoadsNews brought it back into stark relief. Bush and Republicans hate a strong federal government, yet they know they cannot eliminate it. Lots of people like stuff like strong enviromental laws, Social Security, and think government should provide things like health insurance. But the republicans in power don't think government should be doing these things, yet they can't convince their constituents otherwise, so they'd rather have the government be the play-toy for their friends. Government obviously can't do anything right, so why bother even attempting by makeing putting knowledgeable and qualified people in such positions. Of course, thanks to turning the government into a hackocrity (thanks again, TNR) they couldn't cope with the disaster, and thus the views they held, and the views Peter Samuel held are confirmed.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )