News Your perception of Bush compared to 2001/2002?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Perception
AI Thread Summary
Conservative criticism of President Bush is increasing, with many feeling his leadership has changed from the confident response seen after 9/11 to a more detached approach amid ongoing crises. Liberals argue that Bush remains consistent in his unawareness and pursuit of personal interests, as evidenced by his handling of events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Some conservatives express disappointment in his leadership style, noting a decline in his effectiveness and connection with the public. There's a shared sentiment that his administration has failed to address pressing issues adequately, leading to a growing disillusionment among voters. Discussions also highlight the complexities of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, with varying opinions on the U.S. role and the need for Iraqi autonomy. Overall, the thread reflects a deepening frustration with Bush's presidency, alongside concerns about the future direction of the Republican Party and the political landscape.
  • #51
Has anyone seen a timeline of this disaster from a credible source? I've looked but can't find one. It would be good to see it laid out hour by hour as to who did what and when as there are so many conflicting reports floating around it is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Art said:
Has anyone seen a timeline of this disaster from a credible source? I've looked but can't find one.
Has anyone found a credible source?
 
  • #53
Astronuc said:
Has anyone found a credible source?
:smile: Exactly... At the moment you can find equally valid sources that say there are still 1000's of folk starving whilst others claim everybody has been eating chocolate sundaes and sleeping in featherdown beds since day 1 (well almost :biggrin: )
 
  • #54
Art said:
Has anyone seen a timeline of this disaster from a credible source? I've looked but can't find one. It would be good to see it laid out hour by hour as to who did what and when as there are so many conflicting reports floating around it is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Yeah, there's a lot of spin going on. A lot of flat out lies. I don't think there's one comprehensive source for all events, given that there's so much that happened.

Much of the misinformation seems to be centered around Governor Blanco. Much is being said that she never asked for federal aid, or did so days after the hurricane. Apparently there was a mistaken Washington Post article, that has since been corrected.

Gov. Blanco requested federal assistance on Sunday, Aug. 28th.

If there's a specific question about when a specific event happened, I'll be happy to look it up.
 
  • #55
Excerpts from Newsweeks Sept. 12, 2005 issue "The Lost City - What Went Wrong..."
A few rescuers were ready, but precious few. On Monday morning, as the storm slammed into the Gulf Coast, Col. Tim Tarchick of the 920th Rescue Wing, Air Force Reserve Command, got on the phone to call every agency he could think of to ask permission to take his three rescue helicopters into the disaster zone as soon as the storm abated. The response was noncommittal. FEMA, the federal agency that is supposed to handle disasters, told Tarchick that it wasn't authorized to task military units. That had to come from the Defense Department. Tarchick wasn't able to cut through the red tape until 4 p.m. Tuesday—more than 24 hours after the storm had passed. His crews plucked hundreds of people off rooftops, but when they delivered them to an assigned landing zone, there was "total chaos. No food, no water, no bathrooms, no nothing." There was "no structure, no organization, no command center," Tarchick told NEWSWEEK.
----------------------------
What went wrong? Just about everything. How the system failed is a tangled story, but the basic narrative is becoming clearer: hesitancy, bureaucratic rivalries, failures of leadership from city hall to the White House and epically bad luck combined to create a morass. In the early aftermath, fingers pointed in all directions. The president was to blame; no, the looters. No, the bureaucrats. No, the local politicians. It was FEMA's fault—unless it was the Department of Homeland Security's. Or the Pentagon's. Certainly the government failed, and the catastrophe exposed, for all the world to see, raw racial divisions.

Bush's many critics will say that the president was disengaged, on vacation, distracted by Iraq and insensitive to the needs of poor black people. The White House blames the magnitude of the storm itself, patchy information on the ground and a confused chain of command, according to a senior Bush aide who requests anonymity in order to speak freely about internal administration discussions. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Bush is fighting a war, and he is sometimes slow to react, and he may have been lulled by early reports that New Orleans had been spared the worst of the storm. These are all legitimate excuses. Still, we expect more from a president.
-----------------------------
For years, the Army Corps of Engineers has asked for more money for New Orleans and not received it. The Bush administration, strapped by the war in Iraq and eager to hold down spending and cut taxes, actually reduced funding for bolstering the city's levees.
-----------------------------
On Wednesday night, Mayor Nagin ordered 1,500 policemen—virtually the entire city force—to stop trying to rescue people from attics and rooftops, and to turn instead to stopping the looting.
-----------------------------
Nagin himself had problems of his own. He had opened up the Superdome to thousands of people—but nobody seemed to have had a plan to care for them or to get them out of there. There were promises of buses that never came. Some 500 National Guardsmen showed up to keep order, but the nervous young soldiers waved their weapons about.
-----------------------------
Washington, too, was slow to react to the crisis. The Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was reluctant for the military to take a lead role in disaster relief, a job traditionally performed by FEMA and by the National Guard, which is commanded by state governors. President Bush could have "federalized" the National Guard in an instant. That's what his father, President George H.W. Bush, did after the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Back then, the Justice Department sent Robert Mueller, a jut-jawed ex-Marine (who is now FBI director), to take charge, showing, in effect, that the cavalry had arrived. FEMA's current head, Michael Brown, has appeared over his head and even a little clueless in news interviews. He is far from the sort of take-charge presence New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani conveyed after 9/11.

...after Katrina, a strange paralysis set in. For days, Bush's top advisers argued over legal niceties about who was in charge, according to three White House officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

While Washington debated, the situation in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast deteriorated. ...Saturday, Bush pledged to return to the region on Monday—and to deploy 7,000 additional active-duty troops under the Pentagon's control. But for many, the help was arriving too late.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179587/site/newsweek/

As far as the blame game goes, this includes Bush and the Whitehouse, so he cannot take a higher moral ground than anyone else. And to this point it is inappropriate for him to head any investigation IMO: "Bush to oversee probe into what went wrong" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9228086/

In all fairness to all, information is lacking, and inaccuracies have been reported even from some reliable sources. For example, per the article above: "Rumors flew. There were alligators swimming in the ghetto. And sharks from the flooded aquarium downtown." But I doubt it will cause the end of the world, and we will have all the facts soon enough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
I just heard a press conference in which Bush apparently plans to head an investigation into what went wrong with the disaster response. Hmmmm - I don't know. I would like to believe he will get to the bottom of it, but can he be impartial?

Meanwhile we are now up to Tropical Storm Nate, with Maria veering to the North Atlantic and Tropical Depression 16 about 180 MILES... 290 KM. . . SE of Cape Canaveral, FL. Watch out if this one gets into the Gulf.
 
  • #57
Astronuc said:
I just heard a press conference in which Bush apparently plans to head an investigation into what went wrong with the disaster response. Hmmmm - I don't know. I would like to believe he will get to the bottom of it, but can he be impartial?

Meanwhile we are now up to Tropical Storm Nate, with Maria veering to the North Atlantic and Tropical Depression 16 about 180 MILES... 290 KM. . . SE of Cape Canaveral, FL. Watch out if this one gets into the Gulf.

Well, I'm sure he asked himself if he did everything he could and he said yes.

End of story.

:rolleyes:
 
  • #58
TRCSF said:
Well, I'm sure he asked himself if he did everything he could and he said yes.

End of story.

:rolleyes:
So after telling everybody else to back of - that now is not the time to look back - he has used the space gained to manouvere so that although he is one of the leading characters being accused, he will head the inquiry?

He obviously learned something from his years of association with Saddam. :rolleyes:

If he gets away with this the US will be the laughing stock of the world. Truth, Justice and the American way :smile: You have got to be kidding...

Not that given the current regimes history I'm surprised. That is why I said on the other thread that an independant judicial inquiry should be set up to investigate this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
Art said:
:smile: Exactly... At the moment you can find equally valid sources that say there are still 1000's of folk starving whilst others claim everybody has been eating chocolate sundaes and sleeping in featherdown beds since day 1 (well almost :biggrin: )
Actually, Art, what is happening is that people are falling into anecdotal evidence extrapolation trap: if a person says they haven't eaten in 5 days, people extrapolate that that means there has been no aid to anyone. But one person (or 1000 people) saying they are starving does not contradict the fact that there was aid there before the hurricane.
 
  • #60
russ_watters said:
? I'm not sure what you mean? There are some clear statements being made about the event that are factually wrong. Still others are misleading (whether intentional or not is irrelevant). Maybe I'll make a compliation thread, but here's just one example (name purposely omitted):
Yes, which is exactly what all the liberals were saying about the media around De Menzes. It was a response to Art's comment.
 
  • #61
russ_watters said:
Actually, Art, what is happening is that people are falling into anecdotal evidence extrapolation trap: if a person says they haven't eaten in 5 days, people extrapolate that that means there has been no aid to anyone. But one person (or 1000 people) saying they are starving does not contradict the fact that there was aid there before the hurricane.
Perhaps the christian fundamentalists thought the old trick with the 5 loaves and 5 fishes would solve the problem? :smile:
As to the details of who is to blame, well hopefully an independent inquiry will sort that out but even with a cursory look at the disaster it is obvious to (almost) everybody that there were serious deficiencies in the response of the relief agencies.
 
  • #62
Returning to the topic of the OP, the kindest thing I can say is I have never been impressed with the man. The only thing that has changed is his ratings. Even so, he has still pushed through pet legislation like CAFTA so unfortunately it has not been enough to make a complete lame duck of him. I suspect this is because those who oppose him are picking their battles, such as Supreme Court appointments. In reference to future military aggression, I hope the low ratings and lack of world support will keep the Bush regime in check.

Bush would do well to return to the traditional Republican platform. At the minimum he must try to avoid more blunders, and try to keep the administration spin from being so obvious (e.g., the insurgents are in their last throes).
 
  • #63
russ_watters said:
Actually, Art, what is happening is that people are falling into anecdotal evidence extrapolation trap: if a person says they haven't eaten in 5 days, people extrapolate that that means there has been no aid to anyone. But one person (or 1000 people) saying they are starving does not contradict the fact that there was aid there before the hurricane.

Yes. And if tens of thousands of people are trapped in the Superdome and NO Convention Center, and they're not gettting food and water and babies and the elderly are dying because of it, then it is to early to point fingers, and besides it's the mayor's fault, and besides it didn't really happen anyways.
 
  • #64
Oh my. I saw a dead body on TV in New Orleans. All bloated and floating in the water.

Could there be two or three dead people in New Orleans? No, I don't want to extrapolate.
 
  • #65
Oh, hey. I just saw a house on TV. It was in New Orleans and flood water was up to the raptors. Do you think there might be a whole row of houses in New Orleans that have been flooded?

Nah, probably my crazy liberal sensibilities that are deluding me into thinking this is a disaster.
 
  • #66
Golly gee willikers. There's an evacuee in the Astrodome who's lost her family, her house, her job, and all of her posessions.

Thank god there's only one.
 
  • #67
Holy mackerel.

Somebody got sick of typhoid.

Well thank god nobody really got hurt.
 
  • #68
Oh, the humanity.

Trent Lott lost his house.

Thank got the President plans to rebuild it.

It's going to be fantastic!
 
  • #69
TRCSF said:
Holy mackerel.

Somebody got sick of typhoid.

Well thank god nobody really got hurt.
Did you really see typhoid? I'd think GI disease emergence would be a headline.

(GI = gastrointestinal, not general infantry)
 
  • #70
pattylou said:
Did you really see typhoid? I'd think GI disease emergence would be a headline.

(GI = gastrointestinal, not general infantry)


Excuse me. I meant Cholera. Five confirmed deaths.
 
  • #71
Ah.

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=120066&region=4

I was impressed that GI disease didn't wreak havoc in Indonesia - apparently partly because chlorine tablets were provided by us in months prior for other reasons, that sterilised drinking water.

I would hope we can get such tablets to the Gulf states as well.

Apparently the cholera variant in these cases enters through cuts - not the mouth - so chlorine sterilisation of drinking water would have made no difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
pattylou said:
Ah.

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=120066®ion=4

I was impressed that GI disease didn't wreak havoc in Indonesia - apparently partly because chlorine tablets were provided by us in months prior for other reasons, that sterilised drinking water.

I would hope we can get such tablets to the Gulf states as well.

Apparently the cholera variant in these cases enters through cuts - not the mouth - so chlorine sterilisation of drinking water would have made no difference.

Yeah, that was a blessing. I know little about microbiology, but doesn't cholera love to spread through standing water? My understanding is that there was not as much standing water with the tsunami, relatively.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
It spreads through human waste. usually contracted orally, and death can be within 24 hours of symptoms due to massive fluid loss (violent diarrhea etc).

Having standing water would certainly make the problem worse. I thought cholera would certainly have become epidemic aftr the tsunami - even though there wasn't much standing water - because of the lack of sewage treatment and clean water supplies. I expect the chlorine tablets helped enormously.
 
  • #74
I was googling briefly to see what was reported prior to Katrina making landfall. Quickly, here is one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/28/national/main798819_page2.shtml

It presents all levels of government and agencies as being concerned and making ample preparations. If this was the case, it is truly baffling why execution went so poorly. Whether there was spin or just incompetency (or a combination) the bottom line is it's all bad.

Bush may not be taking the brunt of the blame according to this ABC Poll: http://abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1094262&page=1, but the South has been important at election time, and they are not happy with Bush.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
65
Views
10K
Replies
86
Views
9K
Replies
238
Views
28K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
64
Views
9K
Back
Top