Skip to main content

View Diary: Intentional withholding of aid? : the evidence (w/ poll) [updated with lots of links] (310 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A lot of reasons... (none)
    Confusion, for one.  When communications are weak and there are a lot of people making decisions, it's not uncommon for horrible mistakes to be made.  Actually, the variety of sources for rejection of help weaken the "administration as murderer" theory.  They didn't make the wrong decisions, for the most part they didn't make ANY decisions. They depended on local officials to make decisions, and the local officials were totally overwhelmed and exhausted.  Bureaucrats often hide behind paperwork and protocol when they don't know what to do, and that is exactly what the bush appointees did - waited for someone to tell them what to do, and if they weren't told what to do, they didn't do anything.  Well, maybe talk to the press to tell them how hard they were working.

    The "crime" of the administration is very simple.  Four years after 9/11, they are supposed to have spent billions prepareing for another national emergency.  But they didn't.  What they did was give their cronies billions in tax breaks and government contracts, and spend nothing actually planning for a real emergency.  I think they expected that if another disaster happened, it would be a terrorist attack, and the country would unite behind them no matter what they did. They like the perks of governing, wealth and power, not the details.  The scale of incompetence is beyond comprehension, and this has shown that to all of America.  I'm betting that a lot of republicans who thought they were safe because bush was taking care of things are now wondering what will happen to them if we have a major terrorist attack.  What happens if a dirty bomb goes off in Washington?  Will FEMA respons any better than they did to this?  Or will they fail again?

    •  But if *enough* offers of help were refused... (none)
      ...that means it's not error -- but POLICY.

      Does anyone know of any ad hoc offers of help that were ACCEPTED?

      •  Bushco has a policy... (none)
        of appointing people to positions based not on merit, but on how much they have to the campaign.  Bushco also has a policy of ignoring problems that don't hurt wealthy people. Bushco also has a policy of trying to cover up it's own incompetence.  But I doubt they have a policy of trying to kill minorities.  What would they gain?  The right has been working to gain the support of black voters.  They have been working very hard to undermine black support of democratic candidates.  This incident set that effort back 10 years.  The next time a black voter asks a democratic candidate why they should vote democratic, all the candidate has to say is "to prevent another New Orleans".  
        •  I disagree. (none)
          Bush has a policy of appointing people who will destroy the government bureacracies they are in charge of.  Again, the goal is to destroy government's ability to do anything and eliminate all social programs.  Starve the beast. The only roles for government are war and helping corporations.
          •  When it get's right down to it... (none)
            does it really matter if people are dying through malice or neglect?  They are dying.  Babies died because of heat exhaustion.  Elderly people died because they coudln't hang onto roofs long enough.  Young people died because they were shoved in a lawless hellhole with a combination of tired refugees and criminals without police supervision. I think it was neglect.  You think it was malice.  But what really matters is IT HAPPENED.... and there is nothing we can do to stop it.  But we can make the people responsible pay.  From police officers who abandoned their stations to bureaucrats who refused to "risk" making a decision to an administration that lied to us about it's emergency preparedness... we can hold them accountable.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site