Is Bush stupid or malignant? I’m not sure they’re mutually exclusive.
Let’s forget the warning about the levees for a moment. For me, the telling things are:
Bush did not ask a single question. We’ve never accused Bush of being inquisitive, but when faced with a disaster of this magnitude one would hope that the president would have a few questions to ask.
Bush said “we are fully prepared.” Clearly this was not the case. I think that Bush doesn’t see his job to make sure we are fully prepared, he sees his job as saying we are fully prepared. I’m getting a refrain here: We are fully prepared, mission accomplished, we will be greeted as liberators… We have a president who thinks that saying warm fuzzy things makes them true and no other action is required on his part.
I see that John Mace has come up with the third, comical option. The “these are not the 'droids you are looking for” option. The “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” option.
I’m quite surprised by this since John never struck me as a knee-jerker.
I’ve heard this notion before, sometimes coupled with the idea that his post-gubernatorial performance suggests early-onset Alzheimer’s. I can’t say personally, not having any way to go back and look at his earlier debates. But it wouldn’t surprise me if he were both less sharp and more orchestrated than he used to be. Perhaps the word is “overcoached.” Relentlessly staying on message can take a toll on a guy who was used to a more freewheeling style before. From a Wall Street Journal article with the fetching title “Juggling Too Many Tasks Could Make You Stupid,” I read the following: “‘There’s scientific evidence that multitasking is extremely hard for somebody to do, and sometimes impossible,’ says David Meyer, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan. Chronic high-stress multitasking also is linked to short-term memory loss.”
So rather than “stupid” or “malignant,” maybe I’ll choose “maladapted.”
Although I am not a Bush fan, i don’t think he is due all the criticism that has come his way. First : “Crackpipe” ray Nagine (“I ain’t one of them drug addicts”): where the hell does this guy get off? He has a levee committee, and a city engineer. all of them knew that the city was only a heartbeat awy from being flooded. Did they stockpile any emergency supplies? No. did they have ANY plan to use the citie’s 3000 school buses to evacuate the lederly , hospital patients, etc. NO! Did they even have sandbags stockpiled (in areas where the levees were likely to break):NO! The same bumbling incompetence was eveident at the state government. So, yes, Bush and brown bear some blame. But the totally corrupt, incompetent city and state government should get 99% of the blame.
I didn’t either, but his MO over several issues recently is to play the role of disinterested, yet precision-obsessed, observer. This means that one launches a semantic attack on the word “anticipate.” One demands an empirical evaluation to determine whether or not the press has been failing to do its job, or dismisses the official documents of British government officials because they merely reflect one opinion, or dismisses Fox’s “upside to the Iraq civil war?” captions because we do not know whether the context of the discussion would merit consideration of the goodness of a civil war in Iraq.
All the while disavowing any partisan interests or apologistic intentions. Nay, he is merely partisan on behalf of methodology! That is his passion!
Bullshit, you say? Do you have data to prove that?
Katrina was a major fuck up on all sides. But this tape has nothing to do with Nagin or local officials or anything else. This tape shows Bush being a big fucking liar. This tape shows Bush hearing, in no uncertain terms, that a disaster of major porportions was coming. He was warned not only that the levees would most likely fail but also that the Superdome was not a fit place to house people.
Two days later he had the unmitigated gall to tell the American people that no one could have anticipated that the levees would fail. How is it that people can call for the head of a president that lied about his sex life but the president that lies about a disaster that killed thousands gets “but what about the locals?”
It is true. This fucker could eat a baby on live TV and people will blame the baby for being so pink and tender.
What specific quote do you have from someone who said the levees would most likely fail. If you’re going to Pit Bush over what he said in response to what other people said, at least quote the peopel accurately. If you have to misquote them, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about, or you have no confidence in your claims.
After looking at the video, I came in to make the same point as John Mace, but perhaps for a different reason. The advisors expressed the possibility of the water topping the levees, and Bush stated that no one could have anticipated that the water would breach the levees. While the White House can’t dodge the fact that they were fully aware of the potential magnitude of the storm and failed in their emergency procedures, they can at least hide behind the fact that this was technically not a lie.
And Brown does come off as competent, which was a pleasant surprise. Given his recent slapfight with Chertoff, I wouldn’t be surprised if Brown was behind releasing this video to help to restore his tarnished reputation. This tends to support that the incompetence occurred higher up the chain of command.
I heard a recent interview with Mike Wallace, and this was precisely his take on Bush. And “intellectual sclerosis” is a perfect description.
Updike, not all Bush bashing is Republican bashing. I’ll admit that I am as liberal and Democrat as they get, but I wouldn’t bash McCain even though I disagree with a lot of what he supports. (Okay, a little, but just because he’s a pol.) I’ll bash his platform with glee, however. But I am continually surprised at those who continue to believe that Bush is competent. And I am amazed at his support among the elderly and the economically disadvantaged; people who will only suffer if his policies were to be fully implemented.
Pope Bob: Knock it off. Since when are mayors in charge of FEMA?
Just to be clear, though, Bush never said “no one could have anticipated…” That’s quite a bit different from what he actually said, which is “I don’t think anyone anticipated…” Don’t confuse what Bush actually said with the OP’s misquote.
I think my local paper reported a better fuck-up from Bush than this levee thing. On the front page of the SJ Mercury News, Bush is quoted as saying: “I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared.” Now, that obviously wasn’t true.
Why draw a distinction? Both stupidity and malice are capable of causing great damage, as are other flaws such as greed, vanity, laziness and lack of compassion. We’re all indebted to whoever (was it you, elelle?) coined the term “malignorant,” because it pretty much brings the issue to a head: at this level, stupid isn’t an excuse, it’s just another reason for someone to be gone. Wrong is one thing. Had there been competing ideas, both presenting evidence to support a certain scenario, and the wrong one was chosen for incorrect but comprehensible reasons, that’s a tragedy. To hear a single voice with no serious contradiction, ask no questions, listen to the evidence, ignore all of it, and later deny it, is a crime. It does not rise to the intellectual level of being wrong, because the latter implies thought.
GWB is president because Republican power brokers saw in him a famous name, no particular ideas of his own, and a willingness to do as he was told. They were correct. Government by a committee chosen from groups far removed even from mainstream Republicans is proving to be less than satisfactory, and (gallingly) Republicans are proving to be faster to realize this then Democrats.
Oh, and sure New Orleans municipal government is corrupt and inept. Always has been. But I didn’t elect them to oversee FEMA, and neither did anyone else. Tell you what: let’s ride Nagin and Bush out of their respective towns, on rails, together.
Not really. Overtopping is not the same as overflowing. But if it makes you feel better, I’ll stand corrected. The flooding was caused by the levees being breached, and the breaches were caused, either in part or in the main, by overtopping.
I think a lot of people originally assumed that the storm surge caused the flooding directly-- ie, that the water litterally flowed over the tops of the levees and flooded the downtown section. But the floods would not have been anywhere near as bad if the levees hadn’t actually crumbled from within. That’s a design flaw that needs to be fixed.
And take them where, exactly? I’ll admit that Nagin could have done a better job, but before the storm hit, how many would have been willing to evacuate? And who would have taken them in? If they had evacuated and the levees held, he’d be getting jeered for wasting money he didn’t have on overreacting.
Actually, wouldn’t the real quote be considered as inaccurate? “No one could have anticipated…” is clearly incorrect, because as we’ve seen, people did anticipate the levee problems, and they rightly should have anticipated them, on the ground of safety. On the other hand, the real quote - “I don’t think anyone anticipated…” is also clearly incorrect, as we’ve seen people did and should anticipate the problems - but also we’ve seen that Bush was in meetings with people who anticipated the problems. Face to face. Which would rather make that an outright lie?
So, do you want to play a stupid game of sematics or not? Make up your mind. Either way, he lied because quite a few people anticipated it and told him about it. Although the “I don’t think” part is most certainly the truth. How could I have missed that?
But I am continually surprised at those who continue to believe that Bush is competent. And I am amazed at his support among the elderly and the economically disadvantaged; people who will only suffer if his policies were to be fully implemented.