44% Blame Bush, 55% Don't

September 5, 2005

Since Bush's approval rating is now at 45% it is significant that 55% don't blame him for the slow response.

Poll: Bush Not Taking Brunt of Katrina Criticism

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Americans are broadly critical of government preparedness in the Hurricane Katrina disaster — but far fewer take George W. Bush personally to task for the problems, and public anger about the response is less widespread than some critics would suggest.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The most critical views cross jurisdictions: Two-thirds in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the federal government should have been better prepared to deal with a storm this size, and three-quarters say state and local governments in the affected areas likewise were insufficiently prepared.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Most Americans, 55 percent, also say Bush does not deserve a significant level of personal blame for problems in the federal response to the crisis. And while 44 percent do assign him blame, only about half of them, 23 percent overall, blame him "a great deal."

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

People who know someone affected by the hurricane are no more likely to criticize the president's or federal government's performance, and in some specifics (delivering food and water and evacuating displaced people) they rate the federal response more positively than others. Nor are those who have a friend or relative affected more apt to be angry at the federal response.

September 5, 2005

Don't Blame Bush for Katrina

An article from the conservative "News Max".

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Let's remember that FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was created only in 1979. It was formed to coordinate and focus federal response to major disasters – to "assist" local and state governments.

Common sense suggests that local and state governments are best able to prepare and plan for local disasters.

Is a Washington bureaucrat better suited to prepare for an earthquake in San Francisco, a hurricane in Florida, or a terrorist act in New York?

After the Sept. 11 attacks against the World Trade Center, no one suggested that the Bush administration should have been responsible for New York's disaster response or that federal agents should have been involved in the rescue of those trapped in the buildings.

Last year, four major hurricanes slammed into Florida. Governor Jeb Bush led the disaster response and did a remarkable job, with nothing happening like what we have seen in New Orleans.

The primary response in disasters has always come from local communities and state governments.

September 7, 2005

Well the more information that becomes available the more the numbers change.

New Poll: Americans Not Blaming Bush for Katrina Problems

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Only 13 percent of those polled believe President Bush is "most responsible” for the problems in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a new poll discloses.

And 35 percent said Bush has done a "great” or "good” job responding to the hurricane and flooding, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

September 8, 2005

GULF COAST CRISIS: FEDERAL RELIEF EFFORT

Ex-officials say weakened FEMA botched response

Quote:

FEMA's chief has been demoted from a near-Cabinet-level position; political appointees with little, if any, emergency-management experience have been placed in senior FEMA positions; and the small, 2,500-person agency was dropped into the midst of the 180,000-employee Homeland Security Department, which is more oriented to combating terrorism than natural disasters. All that has led to a brain drain as experienced but demoralized employees have left the agency, former and current FEMA staff members say.

The result is that an agency that got high marks during much of the 1990s [

[:"blue"] And may I add that this was during the Clinton Administration-Neil [/]

]for its effectiveness is being harshly criticized for seemingly mismanaging the response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The growing anger and frustration at FEMA's efforts sparked the Republican-controlled Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to announce Friday that it has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to try to uncover what went wrong.

September 8, 2005

87% now see that it was the local and state governments that were primarily responsible for the disaster (not the hurricane, of course).

Those of us that live in hurricane-prone areas knew all along it was the responsibility of local government to evacuate and have shelters.

September 8, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's image suffered in public opinion polls taken after Hurricane Katrina hit the U.S. Gulf Coast, with some finding growing doubts about his leadership and the country's direction.

After a week of criticism for a slow response to the devastation caused by Katrina, polls released on Thursday registered drops in Bush's approval ratings and in confidence in his leadership.

A Pew Research Center poll found 67 percent of Americans believed Bush could have done more to speed up relief efforts, and just 28 percent believed he did all he could. His approval rating slipped to 40 percent, down four points since July to the lowest point Pew has recorded.

The Pew poll also found a shift in public priorities after Katrina caused a jump in gasoline prices last week, with a majority saying for the first time since the September 11, 2001, attacks that it was more important for Bush to focus on domestic policy than the war on terrorism.

"Americans are depressed, angry and very worried about the economic consequences of the disaster," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew poll.

A WEEK OF CRITICISM

The new polls indicated a week of criticism and political finger-pointing over who is to blame for the disastrous response to Katrina could have taken a toll on the White House.

A CBS poll taken September 6-7 found 38 percent approved of Bush's handling of the storm's aftermath, while 58 percent disapproved. That was a dramatic shift from immediately after the storm last week, when 54 percent approved and 12 percent disapproved.

The CBS poll also found confidence in Bush during a crisis had fallen and only 48 percent now view him as a strong leader -- the lowest number ever for Bush in the poll. A year ago 64 percent of voters saw Bush as a strong leader.

Bush's approval rating fell to 41 percent in a new Zogby poll, with only 36 percent giving him a passing grade on his handling of the response to the storm.

The Zogby poll also found broad pessimism among a majority of Americans after the storm, with 53 percent saying the country is headed in the wrong direction and 42 percent saying it is on the right track.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken on September 5-6 found 42 percent believed Bush did a "bad" or "terrible" job handling the storm and subsequent flooding, while 35 percent thought he performed "great" or "good."

A Washington Post/ABC News poll taken September 2 offered more mixed results, with 46 percent approving of Bush's performance and 47 percent disapproving.

There was plenty of blame to go around for the slow response to Katrina, with local and state governments also taking a hit.

The Gallup poll found 13 percent blamed Bush for the problems in New Orleans, while 18 percent blamed federal agencies, 25 percent blamed state and local officials and 38 percent said no one was to blame.

In the Pew poll, 58 percent thought the federal government had done only a fair or poor job after the storm, but 51 percent also thought state and local governments in Louisiana and Mississippi had done just a fair or poor job.

Yahoo.com

September 8, 2005

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell had tough words for federal, state and local authorities on their response to Hurricane Katrina in a television interview to air Friday.

"I think there have been a lot of failures at a lot of levels --- local, state and federal," Powell said in an interview with the ABC News program "20/20," to air late Friday.

"There was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans. Not enough was done. I don't think advantage was taken of the time that was available to us, and I just don't know why," he said.

Powell was asked if the slipshod government response to the disaster was due to racism, since the overwhelming majority of the victims are poor African-Americans.

"I don't think its racism, I think its economic," Powell said.

"When you look at those who werent able to get out, it should have been a blinding flash of the obvious to everybody that when you order a mandatory evacuation, you cant expect everybody to evacuate on their own.

"These are people who dont have credit cards; only one in ten families at that economic level in New Orleans have a car. So it wasn't a racial thing --- but poverty disproportionately affects African-Americans in this country. And it happened because they were poor," he said.

ABC interviewed Powell via telephone Thursday morning for his reaction to the government response to Katrina after the former top US diplomat visited shelters in Dallas, Texas.

The bulk of ABC's sit-down interview with Powell, his first major interview since leaving government in January 2005, was on Iraq and the US-led war on terror.

September 8, 2005

See the spin...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Only 13 percent of those polled believe President Bush is "most responsible” for the problems in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a new poll discloses.

And 35 percent said Bush has done a "great” or "good” job responding to the hurricane and flooding, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken on September 5-6 found 42 percent believed Bush did a "bad" or "terrible" job handling the storm and subsequent flooding, while 35 percent thought he performed "great" or "good."

These two stories are reporting on the SAME POLL!!!

September 9, 2005

Quote:

These two stories are reporting on the SAME POLL!!!

Quote:

[:"green"]The new polls indicated a week of criticism and political finger-pointing over who is to blame for the disastrous response to Katrina could have taken a toll on the White House. [/]

Yes, I see the spin. That is why I posted the article involving a series of polls. It tells a story of its own, as opposed to NewsMax, the republican news outlet for conservatives.

September 9, 2005

Presumably the hurricane itself is 'most responsible', followed by the looters/rapists/shooters...

September 9, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Bravus said:

Presumably the hurricane itself is 'most responsible', followed by the looters/rapists/shooters...

As we all know hurricane is passed. looters/rapists/shooters/robbers are still alive & well. Many have only moved to their new host cities ... less national and international media attention!

Bush is reported at 39% this morning.

September 9, 2005

Some newer polls: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aRkZB.b60HiY&refer=us

September 9, 2005

Quote:

Some newer polls

I was listening to NPR on the way home this morning, and while there is less support for his handling of the hurricane and Iraq war and distrust of his Social Security agenda, things like the supreme court will still get the needed support from republicans. This appears to be his legacy for the next decade or so. Let us hope...

September 10, 2005

It depends on how the question is asked. If we ask, how did Bush handle Katrina? He is likely to get bad marks, especially after all the bad press. But the reality is that he could have done more.

If we ask if Bush is partially to blame, the majority are likely to believe he is.

However when asked is Bush is to blame more than others, only a small minority are inclined to agree that he is.

The more we find out, the more we learn how much more others were to blame. It is with good reason that only a few belive Bush is most to blame.

September 10, 2005

Yep, I think that's a fair assessment of the results. I do think, though, that if people think, for example, that Michael Brown was more to blame than Bush, they need to realise that Bush appointed Michael Brown, someone with basically zero disaster relief experience, as FEMA head. So there's direct and indirect responsibility.

September 10, 2005

About 12 year ago Compact computer was not competing well with others. They hired a new CEO that knew nothing about computers! That's right, nothing. He didn't even know how to use a computer. ... and yet Compact hired him to be their new CEO.

Why?

Becuase managment is all about getting people to do what they need to. Management is the business of people. Regardless if one is in the kitty litter business, hotel industry or emergency managment. Every business is about people. Micheal Brown does seem to have been a poor choice as it seems he lied on his resume. But wasn't he in charge last year when three hurricane ripped through Florida? If so, then I guess he had experience by the time Katrina hit.

September 10, 2005

Yep, just as I thought. Micheal Brown had a lot of experience when Katrina hit.

Statement of Under Secretary Michael D. Brown

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

As you know, I’ve spent a lot of time in Florida since August 13 of this year…thanks to Tropical Storm Bonnie, and Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Jeanne and Ivan. For those who are visitors today, I welcome you to my adopted home state. On paper I currently reside in Alexandria, Virginia and work in Washington, DC, but we all know that I am now a Floridian. I am reminded of my new residency every time I speak with Governor Jeb Bush.

September 10, 2005

[:"green"]I am headed to the IAHA convention in San Antonio after Thanksgiving. It should be a hot time down there this year. A complete counter slate of officers has been offered from the floor of convention. There is a lot of unrest in this industry right now. There are 17 resolutions pertaining to Resolution 5-90 (The office of the Judges and Stewards Commissioner) i.e.; the $3.00 fee. [:"red"]Mike Brown who was commissioner was requested to resign after all of the controversy regarding the number of lawsuits that are pending transpired. [/] [/] Mike Brown controversy prior to FEMA

Apparently, Mike Brown, for 11 years was invovled in the judging of Arabian Horses and president of the Arabian Horse Association prior to heading up FEMA. It was nearly ran into near bankruptcy....Oh well, what's to expect from an ol' boy network....Don't need qualifications for FEMA. Just gotta know someone.

Contrast that to how FEMA was run in the Clinton Administration. One level of goverment didn't need to asked another level, as all levels of goverment were there to serve the people.

September 10, 2005

I am not going to defend Micheal Brown - as it appears he lied on his resume. Contrary to what some believe, I am not an idealouge that will defend Republicans no matter what. I am much closer to the moderate position. To me, lying on one's resume is serious and if the accusation is true, he should be fired for that alone.

However, putting that issue aside, Micheal Brown seems to have performed quite well last year with the numerous disasters in Florida. So while he may not have been experienced when he arrived to Washington, he performed the job well - at least in Florida. Whatever the reason is that he didn't perform well recently, we know it wasn't due to lack of experience because after all the 2004 hurricanes he had experience.

September 10, 2005

Quote:

I am not going to defend Micheal Brown

So, who's asking you to???

Quote:

putting that issue aside, Micheal Brown seems to have performed quite well last year with the numerous disasters in Florida.

You know, I never put much stock in resumes.It's a way of grabing your attention to find out if that someone is someone who is qualified and who you can work with.It is a way to communicate your accomplishments,..And most of all, the interview is about people..Can you work with them? Will they work with you? Can you accept him as part of the business family that you are a part of... Micheal Brown's confirmation was 45 minutes long and 1/2 of that time was making jokes with a congress full of republicans. [Dare I say, there's a factor? mock ]

Given that he's done a "great job" in Florida, why is Bush bringing him back to Washington and taking him out of the work? I suspect that he is a political sacrifice. Something to calm the grieving masses for the inepitude of FEMA. Poor lamb. Do you think that the masses are gonna be passified with this sacrific?

September 10, 2005

[:"blue"] Something else I found..... [/]

Wash. Post echoed Bush administration's false claim that federal agencies

In a September 9 Washington Post article, staff writer Bradley Graham falsely claimed that under the National Response Plan (NRP) developed after 9-11, federal agencies "are supposed to function as backup to state and local ones" in the event of a catastrophe, echoing statements made by Bush administration officials. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security's NRP clearly states that in catastrophic cases, the federal government should adopt a "proactive" response and operate independently of state governments to provide disaster relief.

In his September 9 Post article, Graham wrote:

National plans developed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks rest on the notion that police, fire and other emergency groups are best positioned to serve as first responders. Federal agencies are supposed to function as backup to state and local ones, and military forces are meant to play a largely supporting role to civilian authorities.

But Katrina showed what can happen when the foundation of this organizational structure is quickly overwhelmed and disintegrates, according to government officials and independent analysts.

"The would-be first responders at the state and local level were themselves victims in very large numbers," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at a news conference this week. As a result, "we had a situation that was distinctly different than in past events of this type."

As Media Matters for America noted, the National Response Plan prescribes a "proactive federal response" to "catastrophic events" such as Hurricane Katrina. Under such a response, standard procedures regarding requests for federal aid by state governments are expedited or even suspended so that "federal response resources" may be immediately deployed. The National Response Plan stipulates that the federal government must notify and coordinate with the state, but "the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources."

Additionally, The New York Times reported on September 9 that the Bush administration recognized the federal government's authority to assume full control of the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts as the situation in New Orleans deteriorated after the levees were breached. However, according to the Times: "For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control." Media Matters rebutt to the Washington POst article

September 10, 2005

[:"blue"] And something else..... [/]

In consecutive front-page reports, The Washington Post featured mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods that had the effect of masking the Bush administration's apparent culpability in the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.

On September 8, the Post falsely reported that "the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years," a claim that was subsequently picked up in a September 9 Post column by Charles Krauthammer and by Fox News host Brit Hume on the "Grapevine" segment of the September 8 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume. In fact, the Clinton administration's budgets for 1996-2000 requested many times more money for the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Protection program that the Post referenced than the Bush administration did for fiscal years 2002-2006, and Clinton also proposed significantly more federal money for other key flood-control projects in New Orleans and budgeted more money for the New Orleans district of the Army Corps of Engineers.

Then, in a September 9 article noting that the Bush administration made patronage appointments of officials "lacking disaster experience" to top positions in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), including FEMA director Michael D. Brown, the Post reported that such appointments "are nothing new to Washington administrations." But the Post failed to note that, although they may have gone to individuals with connections to the Clinton administration, the top positions in FEMA during that time were given to officials with experience and expertise in emergency management.

The September 8 Post report

In the September 8 article by staff writer Michael Grunwald, the Post noted that the Bush administration has proposed far less funding for flood-control projects in New Orleans than Louisiana politicians have requested but then erroneously reported that the Bush administration's funding requests were "slightly higher" than the Clinton administration's:

Louisiana's politicians have requested much more money for New Orleans hurricane protection than the Bush administration has proposed or Congress has provided. In the last budget bill, Louisiana's delegation requested $27.1 million for shoring up levees around Lake Pontchartrain, the full amount the Corps had declared as its "project capability." Bush suggested $3.9 million, and Congress agreed to spend $5.7 million.

Administration officials also dramatically scaled back a long-term project to restore Louisiana's disappearing coastal marshes, which once provided a measure of natural hurricane protection for New Orleans. They ordered the Corps to stop work on a $14 billion plan, and devise a $2 billion plan instead.

But overall, the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years.

The next day, Post columnist Krauthammer repeated the erroneous claim: "[bush] administration budget requests for New Orleans flood control during the five Bush years exceed those of the five preceding Clinton years."

The Post's assertion about Bush funding requests relative to Clinton's is false. Although the flood-control project that the Post article referenced, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hurricane Protection Project for Lake Pontchartrain, was designed to protect the city from a Category 3 Hurricane -- Katrina was a more powerful Category 4 storm -- the Annenberg Political Fact Check's FactCheck.org has noted that it was nonetheless the project "most closely associated with preventing flooding in New Orleans." But contrary to the Post's report, a comparison of budget numbers from 1996 to 2006 demonstrates that the Clinton administration requested far more money for that program than the Bush administration did. Further, the Bush administration also proposed dramatic cuts to another critical flood-control program in Louisiana that the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers has acknowledged could have aided the relief effort.

As the budget figures available on the Government Printing Office (GPO) website indicate, Clinton proposed $12.5 million for "Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection)" in fiscal year 1996, $13.3 million in 1997, $17 million in 1998, and $16 million in 2000 (1999's data was not available on the GPO website). By contrast, as FactCheck.org noted on September 2, an Army Corps of Engineers fact sheet on the project noted that Bush proposed $3.9 million for fiscal year 2005 and $3 million for fiscal year 2006, both figures deemed by the Army Corps of Engineers to be "insufficient to fund new construction contracts." The Post itself reported the 2005 figure in a September 2 report. According to a June 8, 2004, report by the New Orleans Tmes-Picayune (partially republished here), Bush proposed $3 million in fiscal year 2004. As The Dallas Morning News reported on September 5, Bush's requested funding for the project in 2002 and 2003 was still a third to half of what Clinton annually proposed:

For hurricane protection on Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity, President Bush's five-year total, $22 million, is about a fifth of the sum sought by corps and Louisiana officials. The Bush administration budgeted $7.5 million for fiscal 2002 and $4.9 million for 2003.

Further, the Clinton administration also requested greater funding for another crucial flood-control project in New Orleans. As Philadelphia Daily News senior writer Will Bunch noted in an August 31 report published in Editor & Publisher, in 2005 the Bush administration proposed dramatically cutting the proposed level of funding for the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project (SELA) to less than a third of what it had received annually on average since it was initiated in 1995:

When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle.

[...]

The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.

As the Associated Press reported on September 1, although Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, said that more funding for SELA would not have completely prevented the disaster in New Orleans, he said it would have helped the disaster relief effort:

A senior Corps commander discounted the notion the disaster could have been averted by full funding of projects such as new and beefed up levees to protect against hurricane surges from Lake Pontchartrain and improving pumping and drainage capacity in New Orleans.

"These (projects) were not funded at the full ability of the Corps of Engineers to execute the project," said Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers. "But the important question is, 'Would that have made a difference?' And my assessment is, no, it would not."

But Strock did acknowledge that more funding for the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project would allow the Corps to more quickly pump out the floodwaters inundating New Orleans.

"Had we had the SELA project finished ... we could more efficiently move the water out of the system because it's a big drainage project," Strock said.

Nonetheless, on the September 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Hume echoed -- and slightly misrepresented -- the Post's faulty analysis, making a different misleading suggestion that Louisiana has benefited because the Bush administration has provided more overall funding for the Army Corps of Engineers than the Clinton administration:

HUME: Democrats and some former government engineers blame President Bush for cutting the budget of the Army Corps of Engineers, claiming the cuts left New Orleans unprepared for a major storm. ButThe Washington Post reports the Bush administration has actually granted the Corps more funding than the previous administration over a similar period and that Louisiana has received far more money for civil works projects than any other state.

In fact, while the overall funding for the Army Corps of Engineers has marginally increased under the Bush administration, Bush has proposed large cuts to the New Orleans district of the Army Corps of Engineers. As FactCheck.org documented, a February 7 article by the New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper reported that the amount of money dedicated to Army Corps of Engineers construction projects in New Orleans declined by more than 44 percent, from $147 million in 2001 to $82 million in 2005. Further, a June 6 report by New Orleans CityBusiness noted that, overall, the New Orleans district of the Army Corps of Engineers was scheduled to face a further $71.2 million reduction in federal funding from fiscal year 2005 to 2006.

The September 9 Post report

In the September 9 Post report, staff writer Spencer S. Hsu noted that "five of eight top Federal Emergency Management Agency officials came to their posts with virtually no experience in handling disasters," and that FEMA's top three leaders "arrived with ties to President Bush's 2000 campaign or to the White House advance operation, according to the agency." Yet unlike other news outlets, in reporting that "[p]atronage appointments to the crisis-response agency are nothing new to Washington administrations," thePost failed to mention the contrast between Bush's patronage appointments to FEMA and the appointment of experienced disaster relief professionals that occurred under Clinton.

Unlike current FEMA director Brown, former director James Lee Witt had significant experience in dealing with emergencies when he was appointed by Clinton in 1993. As his FEMA biography notes, Witt "was the first agency head who came to the position with experience in emergency management, having previously served as the Director of the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services for four years."

Other news reports noted the experience of FEMA's top officials during the Clinton administration. For example, a September 9 Los Angeles Times report cited an expert who noted that the Clinton administration made appointments to the agency based on "expertise" rather than patronage:

Paul Light, a professor of organizational studies at New York University who has testified before Congress on FEMA's role in the Department of Homeland Security, said that for years, FEMA was a dumping ground for the politically connected.

But during the Clinton years, Light said, FEMA Director James Lee Witt "built a serious hierarchy around expertise. Somewhere along the line, FEMA has returned to being a destination of last resort for political appointees."

In addition to reporting Witt's background, a September 7 Chicago Tribune report also noted that Witt's top assistants also were highly experienced: "Witt's top aides in 2000, Lynn Canton and Michael Armstrong, ran regional FEMA offices for at least three years before assuming senior positions in Washington." Media Matters is as good as Drudge anyday and twice on sunday:)

September 10, 2005

I rarely read long posts and I know that few others do either. So something to bear in mind is, shorter is better.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I never put much stock in resumes.

Businessmen and women do. Resumes decide who gets a second look and who doesn't. However in such a high profile job like this the references and past experience should have been verified. It is possible that the Time story is bogus but if it is true, there needs to be consequences.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I suspect that he is a political sacrifice.

So does he.

However that said, the biggest problems that happened were at the state and local level. The Federal government didn't respond as fast as it could, but the state and local governments were worse than terrible. The only reason the federal government's delay became an issue was because of the incompentance of the state and local governments.

September 10, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Media Matters is as good as Drudge anyday and twice on sunday:)

I didn't read this post because it was way too long but I did catch this as it was just above my post. I read both the Drudge Report and Media Matters. There is a major difference. The Drudge Report is mostly just links to other news sources. Once in a while they report on a story that isn't getting any coverage that they think is of interest to conservatives. However in the vast majority of cases they simply provide links to other sources.

Media Matters is primarily commentary on stories reported by vatious sources. In contrast, Drudge simply provides a link to the sources without commentary. Quite a difference. When Media Matters does provide links without commentary, they are links that show conservatives in a bad light. Media Matters is so biased that it will poison one's ability to see the broad picture if it is not balanced out with a conservative source. I would suggest anyone freaquenting Media Matters also freaquent NewsMax.com.

September 11, 2005

Quote:

Media Matters is primarily commentary on stories reported by vatious sources. In contrast, Drudge simply provides a link to the sources without commentary. Quite a difference. When Media Matters does provide links without commentary, they are links that show conservatives in a bad light. Media Matters is so biased that it will poison one's ability to see the broad picture if it is not balanced out with a conservative source. I would suggest anyone freaquenting Media Matters also freaquent NewsMax.com.

Not quite, Shane. Media Matter corrects erroneous [conservative] news stories and provides the basis for those corrections with reason and facts. IOWs, it shows where the news storys were not totally correct in thier facts, and then explains why they were in error.

Concider the two articles on Nancy Pelosi and her conversation with Bush. Which one goes into depth and explains what happens? Which one gives a clearer picture of what happened with President Bush?

Quote:

Saturday, Sept. 10, 2005 11:00 a.m. EDT

Nancy Pelosi Charges Katrina Cover-up

After complaining that President Bush was dangerously "oblivious" as Hurricane Katrina victims suffered, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is now warning that the Republican-controlled Congress is mounting a full-blown cover-up of alleged Bush administration bungling.

Pelosi told reporters Thursday that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist plan to organize a "sham committee" to "whitewash" FEMA's response to the disaster. "There has to be an honest assessment," the San Francisco Democrat declared. "We owe these people the truth," she added.

Escalating her rhetoric even further, Pelosi said that FEMA is now run by a group of "political hacks."

The top House Democrat said she favors an independent commission along the lines of a 9/11-style probe - despite recent revelations showing that the panel covered-up important evidence suggesting the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.

Quote:

Numerious Media ignored, mischaracterized Pelosi's account of Bush query on federal response to Katrina: "What didn't go right?"

Numerous media outlets have mischaracterized or ignored entirely House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) account of how, during a conversation with her at the White House, President Bush allegedly demonstrated that he was, in Pelosi's words, "oblivious" to the federal government's failures in responding to the threat and subsequent destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina.

As outlets such as the Associated Press and Scripps Howard News Service have reported, Pelosi said at a September 7 press conference that in a meeting with Bush the previous day, she had pressed him on whether he would fire Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael D. Brown because of "all that didn't go right last week [in New Orleans]." According to Pelosi, Bush replied: "What didn't go right?" Reporting the exchange, Pelosi described Bush as "oblivious, in denial, [and] dangerous."

Pelosi's full account, as aired on the September 7 edition of the CBS Evening News:

PELOSI: When I said to the president that he should fire Michael Brown, he said, "Why would I do that?" I said, "Because of all that went wrong, with all that didn't go right last week." And he said, "What didn't go right?" Oblivious, in denial, dangerous.

But other media, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), mischaracterized Pelosi by reporting her description of Bush as "oblivious" and "dangerous," but omitting her report of their exchange or any indication of what had prompted her assessment.

For example, Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse reported in the September 8 New York Times article:

From Democratic leaders on the floor of Congress, to a speech by the Democratic National Committee chairman at a meeting of the National Baptist Convention in Miami, to four morning television interviews by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrats offered what was shaping up as the most concerted attack that they had mounted on the White House in the five years of the Bush presidency.

"Oblivious. In denial. Dangerous," Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and the House minority leader, said of President Bush as she stood in front of a battery of uniformed police officers and firefighters in a Capitol Hill ceremony that had originally been scheduled to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Americans should now harbor no illusions about the government's ability to respond effectively to disasters," she said. "Our vulnerabilities were laid bare."

Still other media ignored the press conference entirely. For example, unlike the CBS Evening News, neither ABC's World News Tonight nor the NBC Nightly News mentioned Pelosi on their September 7 newscasts. The Los Angeles Times also failed to make any mention of Pelosi's September 7 remarks.

CNN, Fox News, and The Washington Times also reported Pelosi's comments, though they offered comments only on Pelosi's conduct and not Bush's. After airing Pelosi's retelling of her conversation with Bush on the September 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry repeated for emphasis not Bush's question suggesting "oblivious[ness]" to Pelosi but, rather, Pelosi's subsequent remark: "Nancy Pelosi there, suggesting that the commander in chief is dangerous to the American people." Henry then noted Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's "tough statement" in response, concluding that "there's real partisanship digging in here."

On the September 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News congressional correspondent Brian Wilson preceded a clip of Pelosi with a comment that also focused on Pelosi rather than Bush. "Nancy Pelosi is so angry, she did something quite unusual in official Washington: She recounted for reporters her private conversation with the president," Wilson said.Similarly, The Washington Times reported in a September 8 article that Pelosi "lashed out at Mr. Bush ... taking the unusual action of recounting her private conversation with the president."

According to The Washington Times report, written by Bill Sammon and Stephan Dinan, White House press secretary Scott McClellan disputed Pelosi's account of her conversation with Bush:

Asked whether Mrs. Pelosi's version of her conversation with Mr. Bush was an "accurate portrayal," Mr. McClellan replied: "No, it's not." He said, "The president was just wanting to know what she was most concerned about."

After McClellan again stated in a September 8 White House press briefing that Pelosi's account was "not an accurate characterization" of her conversation with Bush, and CNN anchor Kyra Philips relayed McClellan's version of events to Pelosi on the September 8 edition of CNN's Live From..., Pelosi reiterated her account of the meeting with Bush and said of McClellan's response: "That's absolutely not true. Mr. McClellan wasn't there, so he couldn't possibly know."

If the latter is more in line with what you like to read, with depth and clear reasoning, then you have choisen Media Matters.

Sign In

44% Blame Bush, 55% Don't

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Bravus

Naomi

Bravus

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Bravus

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Neil D

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity