Cross-posted at Dem News.
I was reading about the upcoming midterm elections in
The Economist this morning and almost fell out of my chair when I read this
paragraph:
Much of the bile heaped on Mr Bush over Katrina was unfair. First, the disaster was not as ghastly as the media painted it. The stories of chaos, murder, rape and even cannibalism among the storm's victims turned out to be false. Second, much of the blame for the wretched response to the hurricane belonged to Democrats: Louisiana's dithering governor, Kathleen Blanco, and the mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, who let school buses that could have been used to evacuate people sit idle until they were half-submerged.
Let's deconstruct this sentence by sentence. The "bile" heaped on President Bush over Katrina was not only justified, but light compared to what he could have received. President Bush was
warned on August 28 that the possibility of levees being breached was a "very, very grave concern." During that briefing the President asked no questions, but assured state officials that "[w]e are fully prepared." Four days later, with the magnitude of the disaster clear to everyone, President Bush appeared on
Good Morning America and falsely claimed, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." This alone is enough to accuse President Bush of incompetence and dishonesty, and it doesn't even scratch the surface of all the mistakes he made both before and after Katrina, in terms of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), that agency's head Michael Brown, and the
numerous problems with the reconstruction of the city.
Next, The Economist claims that "the disaster was not as ghastly as the media painted it." Oh, really? Thousands dead. Billions of dollars lost. A great American city destroyed. Not "ghastly" enough for you?
To back up its ridiculous claim, the magazine states that "[t]he stories of chaos, murder, rape and even cannibalism among the storm's victims turned out to be false." No true stories of chaos? Are you sure about that? As for the murder, rape, and cannibalism charges, they were mostly peddled by conservatives who sought to blame the victims. Columnists such as Rich Lowry, Michelle Malkin, and Peggy Noonan, seized upon reports of looting and horrific events in the Superdome as an excuse to attack those who were left behind. This was capped off with right-wing television and radio talk show host Glenn Beck referring to the victims of Katrina as "scumbags." Amanda Marcotte summarized these attacks on the helpless in a piece for Alternet back 2005.
Finally, The Economist blames the Democratic governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, and the mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin. The characterization of Blanco as "dithering" most likely stems from the myth that Blanco did not delcare a state of emergency in New Orleans. This was originally reported in the Washington Post on September 4, citing an unnamed "senior Bush official." This was later proven to be entirely untrue -- Blanco had declared a state of emergency on the 26th of August -- and the paper later had to print a retraction. The criticism of Nagin is far harsher than that of President Bush, especially considering that had Bush and Michael Brown done their jobs, Nagin's failures would have been averted.
Yes, I know I'm complaining a lot about one paragraph, but I really think that history shouldn't be re-written about an event as tragic as Katrina, especially by a magazine supposedly as reputable as The Economist. Most of this issue's articles were about how the Republicans were about to get walloped next Tuesday and why that was a good thing (though the magazine's number one reason for being happy was that spending tends to dwindle under a divided government). Still, though The Economist may not have much use for the Republicans, I can't say I have any more use for The Economist.