Redstate

OK, and note the nomenclature here, noticed it when I read it this a.m. It's not "the government" they're talking about -- a behemoth by everyone's standards, especially when you include the military. It's "his Administration." Really? He owns all of this? Would that they would respond to his every wish in that way.

You read

Bush, who almost never publicly acknowledges mistakes

and translated it to

It's a "known fact" amongst the MSM that the Administration is stubborn, never admitting mistakes. The MSM oozes with this, leaving an unsuspecting consumer of their information with a vivid picture of a malevolent President smirking and screaming, "Neener-neener-neener!"

I think you're just looking for reasons to get offended at the MSM. If it's a "known fact" that he doesn't admit mistakes, then can you give me a list of say 5 times (that would be one per year) where Bush actually publicly admitted a mistake? I'd be curious to see such a list. Other than stopping the search for WMD's in Iraq, I can't think of anything like that, off the top of my head.

Moving on, the actual Bush quote was

"I am satisfied with the response. I'm not satisfied with all the results."

This of course raises the question "what does that even mean?"

And finally, you said this

The denunciations have come from the usual list of anti-Bushies looking to steal political chits from a disaster

so I feel the need to ask if you include the likes of the following in that crowd:

The criticism of the federal government's response came from across the political spectrum, including ... former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)...

(thats from the WaPo story YOU linked, in case you're interested)

Yes, Mr.Kilmer, I read the WaPo article you linked, and had the same curiousity as the previous poster.

You managed to cook up the usual "the anti-Bushies will always blame him" lament, but didn't manage (bother) to reference the obvious contradiction of Gingrich, Senators Kyl and Frist, etc., to this in the very article you link.

Could you clarify, please?

Mr. Kilmer,

Thoughts on this "usual list of anti-Bushies looking to steal political chits from a disaster"? Wouldn't want to think you're selectively quoting certain people and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

"If we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?" - Newt Gingrich

"An embarrassment." - Mitt Romney

Rep. Mark Foley, (R-Fla.), called upon Bush to recall National Guardsmen stationed in Iraq whose homes and families were in the path of Katrina's destruction.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Ok, so WaPo can point fingers at President Bush and include Republicans pointing fingers as well.

Is it fair to blame the response and the results on the federal government alone? No, but that is what this article does.

Who did they leave out?

State Government got left out.

What about the Governor, shouldn't she have had the State's National Guard troops better organized in anticipation of the flooding? Shouldn't she have insisted on a mandatory evacuation of NO just in case it turned out this bad? Why does WaPo give her and her government a pass?

I remember watching the news Friday night.  People were wandering around New Orleans like they had nary a concern in the world. They had horse carriages offering rides to vacationers. Why weren't they ordered to clear out well in advance? I knew Friday night that Katrina was going to be a beast. The news people knew it and were shocked at the people who weren't taking it seriously.

The Mayor of New Orleans got left out.

I noticed that they included him in the list of those pointing fingers at President Bush:

"...and a sputtering, angry Mayor of New Orleans."

They even included a lovely quote from the Mayor:

"They don't have a clue what's going on down here," an exasperated New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin told a local talk radio station during an interview in which he shouted and wept. "Get off your a##es, and let's do something."

Before Katrina hit it took a phone call from President Bush demanding that he order the evacuation to even get the Mayor to get of his a## and doing anything. What gives him the right to point fingers at others. Why does WaPo give him and his government a pass?

When President Bush says the results are inadequate, I am sure he is not limiting his complaint to the Federal response, but others posting here and WaPo would have us believe that is exactly what he means.

The Post article does not indicate that any Republican other than President Bush has denounced the response of the Bush Administration.  President Bush, as I've written, did not in fact denounce the response of his Administration.

Romney, who is in campaign mode, pointedly did not blame the Bush Administration.

My post stands as read.

which some seem not to have understood, was that the Post piece indicated that the President had agreed that his administration inadquately responded to the Hurricane.  The President did not.

Some replies in here have asserted that Republicans have criticized the Bush Administration.  For the President to agree with critics of his Administration, as the post alleges, the critics would have to had criticized his Administration.  The Republicans have not, though a few of critized the federal government.

Are we reading the same article? Your response strikes one as a bizarre Clintonian parsing of words. I suppose it depends on what the definition of "federal government" is.

From your WaPo article:

"The criticism of the federal government's response came from across the political spectrum, including former president Bill Clinton, former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) ..."

Who are Gingrich and Frist talking about with respect to the Federal government?

And again, I cite Gingrich's quote:

"If we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?" asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican.

Who do you think Gingrich is talking about with respect to responding to a nuclear or biological attack? Local government responding to a nuclear or bio terror attack? Or the Federal government?

I'll never understand why some go through such hurculean efforts to deny the obvious. To deny what everyone, without partisan blinders on, can see plainly.

There was a catastrophic failure of government from local to state to the federal level. None of these branches of government is above criticism and culpability for lives lost.

To suggest otherwise, and attempt to attribute what is so plainly seen by this entire country - save for the partisan acolytes - to the MSM's anti-Bush bias just strikes one as an utter waste of time.

You are simply repeating the assertions ohr WaPo article, which are not backed up by thr quotes in it.

It lists a great many Democrats hammering the president. It describes Republicans as attacking him also, but that is not the case if you read the quotes.

The comments of Gingrich and co. do not contradict anything. They say that they are unhappy with the response. They do not say the the president is responsible, as the WaPo asserts.

Gak!  Who, pray tell, has the leadership over the Federal government?

When critics - Democrat, Republican, or otherwise - are talking about the failure of the federal government, who do you THINK they're talking about? The EPA? HHS? The Army Corps of Engineers?

It's like when folks here criticize (rightly) the State government of Louisiana for their ineptitude. Or the City of New Orleans.

Are you suggesting, with a straight face, that when you criticize the Louisiana state government or the City of New Orleans, you aren't by definition criticizing the Governor or Mayor and their administrations?

Or perhaps it's that the fault in NO lies at the feet of some agency within the State of Louisiana government. Maybe that's what folks here are getting at. A more nuanced critique.

We're talking in circles here. This is bizarre.

The WaPo did misquote Bush. He was disappointed with the response, as he should have been.

The folks that bungled the initial response to Katrina was the mayor, and the governor. Neither of them seemed to be able to make a decision as to when to sent the state national guard in (and the governor controls the state national guard troops).

Bush had already declared an emergency state before the hurricane even struck.

Now ... if you want to be a mayor of a city on the GULF COAST, you'd better be prepared to deal with hurricanes. Sorry, it goes with the job description.

While Mayor Nagin was whining and dithering, his people died.

I'd be more concerned about Republican party inter-squad politics if that type of criticism came from folks who weren't obviously running for president.  The only comforting fact is that neither if them have a snowball's chance of getting the nomination.

Kilmer goes on to not only disparage the "known fact", but then disembles this argument by reinforceing WAPO's claim and spelling out how Bush was NOT acknowledging a mistake.  Though I agree that Bush was in fact criticizing local officials, perhaps the "known fact" is actually known.  Unless an persuasive argument can be generated by others here on the post.  Anyone?  Anyone?  Or, in Ben Stein's language, "Bueller? Bueller?"  Not expecting much.

It's extraordinary to me that people - on both the Left and the Right - are so inclined to place the blame for this bungled disaster at the feet of one governmental level versus the other.

It is clear that there was a systematic failure from the local to the  state to the federal level. All of these leaders - the mayor, the governor, and the President - failed. And failed badly.

There was no excuse for the slow local response to evacuating people and there was no excuse for the slow federal response in mobilizing relief through the military - as they've done now, 6 days later.

You cannot credibly attribute fault to one without blaming the other without revealing yourself to be a kneejerk, partisan apologist - and this is again true for both Democrats and Republicans.

for someone, anyone, to actually document the alleged "failures" at the federal level.

Hint - you need to show that aid should have arrived in X days/hours, but instead it took X + Y days and hours. Can you show me that this is the case? I'm 99% certain that you cannot.

The expectations for a disaster were that it would take three to four days for Federal help to arrive, and that the locals should plan on handling things for themselves for that long. This has already been documented. Let me know if I need to do it again.

Bush declared the region to be an emergency area two days BEFORE the Hurricane.

It's Nagin's JOB to understand that he just might have to deal with water and hurricanes. It falls in the job description of the mayor of a coastal city.

Every so often you get an incredible look into the eye of folks in sheer denial. This is one of them.

No reasonable person who is anything more than a pure partisan would say that the local and state governments in Louisiana performed well. That's just not a credible position. The governor and the mayor definitely dropped the ball.

But for anyone - again, assuming they are not just a partisan operative - to suggest that significant errors were not made at the federal level is an example of extreme denial.

Perhaps it's just a kneejerk need to defend GWB at all costs. Maybe that's the reason that some cannot even concede for a moment that the federal government did not perform well.  And maybe that's the reason that some have opted to swallow the Administration's current strategy of shifting the blame to the local levels.

But even conservative stalwarts, who have never hesitated in the past to go to the mat defending this administration, are calling it as it is.

Bill Kristol, on Fox News Sunday, regarding Michael Brown, head of FEMA: "He has a lot to answer for," says Bill Kistol. "He clearly did not know what was going on."

Michelle Malkin, um as close to a partisan as there is, says on her blog: "MEMO TO BUSH: FIRE MICHAEL BROWN"

The list goes on. These aren't anti-Bushies saying this stuff. These are dyed in the wool conservatives. And they aren't talking about some local government. They're talking about FEMA - a federal government agency.

Now what world do you live in where you cannot even concede for a moment that errors were made at the Federal level? Is the need to defend the Administration so extreme that you cannot concede even the slightest failure at the federal level?

Bizarre.

What significant errors were made at the federal level?

What, specifically, has Michael Brown done that meris firing?

Stop quoting what other people have said. If you can point to some of these "significant errors", then please do so.

If not, then just admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Why was Mike Brown "relieved" of his "onsite command" responsibility over Hurricane relief?

I guess I'm not understanding that. Why would he be relieved of his responsibility if he's done nothing wrong?

Is he being scapegoated by the Administration? Or perhaps, he was promoted?

Why would he be reassigned or relieved of responsibility for something he didn't do incorrectly?

That seems really unfair. Perhaps you can explain.

Crickets.

I hear only crickets from the direction of Mr. Sandor.

Surprising.