What a lame-duck ... er, I mean, standup guy. Everybody respects a standup guy. Takes responsibility. Good for him. The buck stops at the White House. God bless Harry Truman. And it only took a week and half for his political strategists to figure out that Americans, especially Red Staters, admire a man who can admit his faults.
Actually, I stand corrected he's got several more years to mess things up, so he's not quite a lame duck yet. Though, it's good that he can look us square in the face and take responsibility for the government's failings in this, his second term.
Somewhat unrelated. Last night I saw a television ad with daddy Bush and Clinton asking for donations. Is it just me or is old Bill looking like he's about ready to die? Damn, that guy is not aging well.
My bitter encounter with the mighty I pity Washington, D.C.
By Fehmi Koru
When George W. Bush paid an official visit to Turkey last year, just before attending a NATO summit, I had a casual chat with him. This was in June. When I was introduced to Mr. Bush as a senior Turkish columnist writing on all sorts of topics including his war against Iraq, he was quick to ask me if I had been writing for or against his policies.
I like a politician who is attentive of his image even if he's too far away from his home ground. I was one of the staunch opponents of his intention to respond to terrorists with weapons and opening up war on every possible front. When I told him my position, with the interjections of several colleagues who were listening to our conversation, Mr. Bush assumed I was an "anti-American"… "No sir," I said. "I'm not. In fact, when a family member, who is an American citizen by birth, was in the states studying, I urged him very strongly to vote for you in 2000. But I'm terribly disappointed with what you did after getting his vote."
This exchange of ideas reverberated the next day in Turkey, as many newspapers carried what went on between Mr. Bush and me. But I must tell the rest of the story. Mr. Bush, in his most reassuring voice, tried to convince me that things in Iraq would go better and better with each passing day. The last sentence came out of my mouth was not too polite. "I don't think so," I said.
When I entered the U.S. from Dulles International Airport on the fourth anniversary of that fateful day, Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush’s assuring voice was ringing in my ears. I have no idea if he still remembers what I had said to him during the state dinner at Topkapi Palace, in Istanbul on the second leg of his visit to Turkey, but I never forgot what he said. The ensuing events in Iraq and elsewhere did not prove him right, on the contrary, the U.S. seems to be losing ground everywhere every day and Mr. Bush’s popularity has been affected by these developments for the worse. His approval ratings seem to be declining sharply.
I perfectly understand the measures taken by the U.S. to counter any possible terrorist act against its citizens or interests. But, the additional measures after 9/11 as tools of combating terror globally have made life unendurable for U.S. citizens and has begun to affect U.S. interests negatively. The interrogations any random visitor to the U.S. are subjected to are both time consuming and annoying. In my previous post-9/11 visits I had my left finger scanned only, this time both my fingers received such treatment. The most annoying of all is the unhappiness Americans experience when traveling abroad; they are hesitant to show their passports as proudly as they did before the "war against terror" had started. Rampant anti-Americanism all over the world is eroding the last remnants of pride Americans feel towards their country.
The insurgency in Iraq let up and casualties resulting from their violence declined last week. What do we make of that? I believe the insurgents are revising their plans, not because the war against terror is successful, but because of Hurricane Katrina. The hurricane in New Orleans and the White House’s meager response to it has affected the U.S. image so negatively, that the insurgents have called a time-out.
Since the wheels of history do not roll backwards we will never know what would have happened if the U.S. had reacted differently to that fateful day. What if the U.S. had decided to rectify all the wrongs of the world community and correct injustices committed only by those who could afford to commit them? Rather than taking out stuffy dossiers from dusty shelves for conquering the godforsaken distant territories in the steps of the "late" Roman Empire by sending troops to the four corners of the world, the U.S. could have become an arbiter in a world replete with injustice. The Palestinian problem has always been there to be solved, the inequalities imposed on women, the poor and needy are there too. Tyrants who rule ruthlessly and steal from the coffers of their own countries are also there to be taken care of. Using a UN mandate and getting help from the countries on the same wavelength, the U.S. would have been the leader of all the democratic forces to make world more just.
Mr. Bush has chosen a different path and made himself and his cronies look bad in the eyes of the human community.
Contrary to his claim, as someone who opposes his senseless campaign of war, I'm not the "enemy," and I told him so during our casual chat in Istanbul. No, I'm a friend of his country, the U.S., wishing well to the American people. When the hurricane struck New Orleans my mind became restless trying to find a way to help the victims. I wish Mr. Bush's initial reaction too would have been full of compassion rather than hatred on that fateful day four years ago.
He claims to be a religious man, and I hope he will find a way for his redemption.
I hope all the bush lovers (George Bush I mean) posting out there will finally have closure and admit to themselves that this was not only a local failure but huge federal failure also.
the dominant thread of thought in american political science has been that the national government should be federal, with responsibilities divided amongst the national and state (and, by extension, local) governments. and, theoretically, there should be little/no overlap or job-sharing. in view of colonial history it's what the original framers of the constitution had in mind. the 10th amendment of the constitution wrote that desire into law. subsidiarity, the theory that problems/issues demanding the attention of government are best solved at the lowest level of government possible, is probably the best word for it.
the extension of that view to its ultimate point is that individuals should have the right and responsibility to police themselves and should receive the aid of government only when their rights are being infringed by other people or entities. this is the far "right" side of the political spectrum in america. move towards the left and, as you go, the federal government and government in general gains more and more responsibility.
federal government originally was meant to police the states, not the people themselves. where the localities and states failed was where the federal government stepped in.
so it is understandable that the president -- the head of the executive branch of the federal government -- only apologizes for his/his branch's role in the response to katrina. is there an implication of "blame" on the part of state/local governments? yes. should there be? depends on what you believe about american government.
should the federal response have been better? hell yes. nobody is denying that. also, i'm not denying that there's a whole lot of politics and spin going on now and previously. but thinking people like ourselves should be able to rationally and neutrally analyze events like these rather than flip to emotional, reflexive conclusions.
Good civics lesson ochona. And I also like that photo raton.
I'm still waiting to hear an apology from the govenor and mayor.
They are equally, if not more, to blame for the lack of response in New Orleans. All this has shown great ineptitude in their leadership skills yet neither of them are making an apology.
Yes, it was a failure on both federal, state and local levels. I'd just like to hear some apologies all around.
i agree with all that the state as well as fed. gov's should own up to their screw ups. i have read all over that many believe that race actually has something to do with slow response, poor reactions, etc. what the hell is with that?
i have a friend that has served two terms in afghan., one in iraq, and now in his off time, he was called up to go to new orleans.
it is ridiculous that the u.s. had to send it own military personel in, not to help the situation, but calm it so that the cross and aid could help.
Undoubtedly the president of FEMA wasn't qualified. He was there because he was "connected." In this case he knew Bush or someone on that side. The democrats do the same so while we can complain that he was ineffective and wrong for the position I doubt that a democrat admin would have someone much better there. I do like the new guy though. Sounds like he's more of a "been there" kind of guy.
As for fault, well that's all personal opinion at this point. I'm leaning towards thinking that the govenor is in no way a leader and holds much blame. Also the mayor didn't seem to handle stress too well.
While I don't think Bush is directly at fault. (And as for the global warming/wetland argument - the wetlands have been disappearing from around NO for far longer than his term. Yes, it's an argument but only the past 5 years can be put on Bush.) FEMA and other fed departments did drop the ball. For that I think we can indirectly blame Bush. I just don't buy all the conspiracy theories. Bush put unqualified buddies in key gov't positions. Sounds like any other politician to me. That's why don't like either major political party.
The day you can blame the government for all of your problems is a very bad day indeed.
People do what is expected of them. Let's expect the best from our government.
Sep 16, 05 1:26 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Accountability at last
(NY Times)
Let's get all the evacuees back to their home; that's for those who'd like to go back.
What a lame-duck ... er, I mean, standup guy. Everybody respects a standup guy. Takes responsibility. Good for him. The buck stops at the White House. God bless Harry Truman. And it only took a week and half for his political strategists to figure out that Americans, especially Red Staters, admire a man who can admit his faults.
Actually, I stand corrected he's got several more years to mess things up, so he's not quite a lame duck yet. Though, it's good that he can look us square in the face and take responsibility for the government's failings in this, his second term.
Now, if the mayor and governor will follow suit, full accountability will be had.
Somewhat unrelated. Last night I saw a television ad with daddy Bush and Clinton asking for donations. Is it just me or is old Bill looking like he's about ready to die? Damn, that guy is not aging well.
My bitter encounter with the mighty I pity Washington, D.C.
By Fehmi Koru
When George W. Bush paid an official visit to Turkey last year, just before attending a NATO summit, I had a casual chat with him. This was in June. When I was introduced to Mr. Bush as a senior Turkish columnist writing on all sorts of topics including his war against Iraq, he was quick to ask me if I had been writing for or against his policies.
I like a politician who is attentive of his image even if he's too far away from his home ground. I was one of the staunch opponents of his intention to respond to terrorists with weapons and opening up war on every possible front. When I told him my position, with the interjections of several colleagues who were listening to our conversation, Mr. Bush assumed I was an "anti-American"… "No sir," I said. "I'm not. In fact, when a family member, who is an American citizen by birth, was in the states studying, I urged him very strongly to vote for you in 2000. But I'm terribly disappointed with what you did after getting his vote."
This exchange of ideas reverberated the next day in Turkey, as many newspapers carried what went on between Mr. Bush and me. But I must tell the rest of the story. Mr. Bush, in his most reassuring voice, tried to convince me that things in Iraq would go better and better with each passing day. The last sentence came out of my mouth was not too polite. "I don't think so," I said.
When I entered the U.S. from Dulles International Airport on the fourth anniversary of that fateful day, Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush’s assuring voice was ringing in my ears. I have no idea if he still remembers what I had said to him during the state dinner at Topkapi Palace, in Istanbul on the second leg of his visit to Turkey, but I never forgot what he said. The ensuing events in Iraq and elsewhere did not prove him right, on the contrary, the U.S. seems to be losing ground everywhere every day and Mr. Bush’s popularity has been affected by these developments for the worse. His approval ratings seem to be declining sharply.
I perfectly understand the measures taken by the U.S. to counter any possible terrorist act against its citizens or interests. But, the additional measures after 9/11 as tools of combating terror globally have made life unendurable for U.S. citizens and has begun to affect U.S. interests negatively. The interrogations any random visitor to the U.S. are subjected to are both time consuming and annoying. In my previous post-9/11 visits I had my left finger scanned only, this time both my fingers received such treatment. The most annoying of all is the unhappiness Americans experience when traveling abroad; they are hesitant to show their passports as proudly as they did before the "war against terror" had started. Rampant anti-Americanism all over the world is eroding the last remnants of pride Americans feel towards their country.
The insurgency in Iraq let up and casualties resulting from their violence declined last week. What do we make of that? I believe the insurgents are revising their plans, not because the war against terror is successful, but because of Hurricane Katrina. The hurricane in New Orleans and the White House’s meager response to it has affected the U.S. image so negatively, that the insurgents have called a time-out.
Since the wheels of history do not roll backwards we will never know what would have happened if the U.S. had reacted differently to that fateful day. What if the U.S. had decided to rectify all the wrongs of the world community and correct injustices committed only by those who could afford to commit them? Rather than taking out stuffy dossiers from dusty shelves for conquering the godforsaken distant territories in the steps of the "late" Roman Empire by sending troops to the four corners of the world, the U.S. could have become an arbiter in a world replete with injustice. The Palestinian problem has always been there to be solved, the inequalities imposed on women, the poor and needy are there too. Tyrants who rule ruthlessly and steal from the coffers of their own countries are also there to be taken care of. Using a UN mandate and getting help from the countries on the same wavelength, the U.S. would have been the leader of all the democratic forces to make world more just.
Mr. Bush has chosen a different path and made himself and his cronies look bad in the eyes of the human community.
Contrary to his claim, as someone who opposes his senseless campaign of war, I'm not the "enemy," and I told him so during our casual chat in Istanbul. No, I'm a friend of his country, the U.S., wishing well to the American people. When the hurricane struck New Orleans my mind became restless trying to find a way to help the victims. I wish Mr. Bush's initial reaction too would have been full of compassion rather than hatred on that fateful day four years ago.
He claims to be a religious man, and I hope he will find a way for his redemption.
From The New Anatolian, September 13, 2005
q: what is bush's stand on roe vs. wade?
a: he doesn't care how they get out of new orleans.
and have you seen fema's new ad: what can brown do for you?
I hope all the bush lovers (George Bush I mean) posting out there will finally have closure and admit to themselves that this was not only a local failure but huge federal failure also.
hope this isn't too long but:
the dominant thread of thought in american political science has been that the national government should be federal, with responsibilities divided amongst the national and state (and, by extension, local) governments. and, theoretically, there should be little/no overlap or job-sharing. in view of colonial history it's what the original framers of the constitution had in mind. the 10th amendment of the constitution wrote that desire into law. subsidiarity, the theory that problems/issues demanding the attention of government are best solved at the lowest level of government possible, is probably the best word for it.
the extension of that view to its ultimate point is that individuals should have the right and responsibility to police themselves and should receive the aid of government only when their rights are being infringed by other people or entities. this is the far "right" side of the political spectrum in america. move towards the left and, as you go, the federal government and government in general gains more and more responsibility.
federal government originally was meant to police the states, not the people themselves. where the localities and states failed was where the federal government stepped in.
so it is understandable that the president -- the head of the executive branch of the federal government -- only apologizes for his/his branch's role in the response to katrina. is there an implication of "blame" on the part of state/local governments? yes. should there be? depends on what you believe about american government.
should the federal response have been better? hell yes. nobody is denying that. also, i'm not denying that there's a whole lot of politics and spin going on now and previously. but thinking people like ourselves should be able to rationally and neutrally analyze events like these rather than flip to emotional, reflexive conclusions.
well, everything is understandable if you read the note
link
Good civics lesson ochona. And I also like that photo raton.
I'm still waiting to hear an apology from the govenor and mayor.
They are equally, if not more, to blame for the lack of response in New Orleans. All this has shown great ineptitude in their leadership skills yet neither of them are making an apology.
Yes, it was a failure on both federal, state and local levels. I'd just like to hear some apologies all around.
i agree with all that the state as well as fed. gov's should own up to their screw ups. i have read all over that many believe that race actually has something to do with slow response, poor reactions, etc. what the hell is with that?
i have a friend that has served two terms in afghan., one in iraq, and now in his off time, he was called up to go to new orleans.
it is ridiculous that the u.s. had to send it own military personel in, not to help the situation, but calm it so that the cross and aid could help.
does anyone think that the pres. of fema was actually at fault or was it all higher up. ( state/fed)
Undoubtedly the president of FEMA wasn't qualified. He was there because he was "connected." In this case he knew Bush or someone on that side. The democrats do the same so while we can complain that he was ineffective and wrong for the position I doubt that a democrat admin would have someone much better there. I do like the new guy though. Sounds like he's more of a "been there" kind of guy.
As for fault, well that's all personal opinion at this point. I'm leaning towards thinking that the govenor is in no way a leader and holds much blame. Also the mayor didn't seem to handle stress too well.
While I don't think Bush is directly at fault. (And as for the global warming/wetland argument - the wetlands have been disappearing from around NO for far longer than his term. Yes, it's an argument but only the past 5 years can be put on Bush.) FEMA and other fed departments did drop the ball. For that I think we can indirectly blame Bush. I just don't buy all the conspiracy theories. Bush put unqualified buddies in key gov't positions. Sounds like any other politician to me. That's why don't like either major political party.
The day you can blame the government for all of your problems is a very bad day indeed.
People do what is expected of them. Let's expect the best from our government.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.