September 5, 2005

It's official, Rove, White House plan to blame local officials to deflect responsibility for disasterous response

I've noticed the talking points, heard all the right wing flying monkeys mouthing the same tune. But until I visited Matt St. Amand's blog and saw this, I hadn't realized that it was a reported fact.

Blaming local Dems, such as N.O. Mayor Nagin and Louisiana Gov. Blanco is part of a typically slimy Rove operation to blame the victims and divert attention to Bush's rank incompetence.

And it's yet another loathsome example of how NOTHING trumps politics in this administration, not even arguably the worst disaster in U.S. history. Their immoral use of 9-11 for political purposes were beyond the pale, but this is only worse.

No matter if there are dead bodies strewn from here to the horizon, no tragedy is too large for Rove and Bush to not put his political fate ahead of all.

The only question is, are the American people truly stupid enough to buy this charade once again?

Matt St. Amand, an astute and intelligent Canadian who is a frequent and appreciated commenter in these parts, has more here.

6 Comments:

At 9/05/2005 12:25 PM, Blogger Ol' Froth said...

Yes, they are that stupid. I got into an argument at work today with someone who said it was all the mayor's fault for nor using school buses and taxicabs to get people out, and that New Orleans should have paid more attention to levee maintenance. When I pointed out that the levees and dams are maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers, and that they were warning about levee failure for decades, his response was that its the victims fault for living in a dangerous place, and that his tax dollars shouldn't have to pay to protect them. Unbelievable!

 
At 9/05/2005 12:45 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I feel your frustration. It would be more than I could handle to talk to someone that willing to ignore facts and cling to disgustingly shallow and downright mean attitudes.

The person you talked to is an ass. They're likely terribly uninformed, due to listening to the right wing lies and clap-trap on Fox or the AM wasteland.

And as I've noted, they are so committed to this unreal version of reality because to admit to the truth would mean that they'd have to admit that Bush has been an unmitigated disaster since day one.

They're stubborn, small minded people. Period.

Nothing much can be done with such willfully ignorant people. All you can do is to stay informed yourself, keep an open mind, and make your own judgements based on REALITY.

Those who choose to live in a fantasy world where they are so mentally weak that they need to suck up to the "big guy" no matter what are simply not worth the time or effort.

I'm only sorry that you had to endure confronting such mindless and immoral attitudes.

 
At 9/05/2005 12:51 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Ol' Froth, you might also ask this person if they mind that for decades, millions upon millions of his tax dollars have been used to insure the beach-front homes of millionaires and the very wealthy.

Still more millions of his precious tax dollars have been spent in order to actually fill in and recreate beaches when they eroded too close to these millionaire homes.

Ask this asshat who he thinks live along the coasts of this country, rich Republicans, or working class Dems?
The coasts of this country are inhabited by very well off people, and vastly more millions are spent federally insuring and paying for their damages due to storms and erosion than anything ever done for the people of New Orleans.

And what makes your pal even MORE stupid is that IF Bush and his administration HAD spent a few milllion tax dollars to do the needed and long called for improvements to the levees surrounding the town, then your dumb ass friend wouldn't have to now worry that his paltry tax dollars might actually go to helping victims of disaster!

 
At 9/05/2005 5:06 PM, Blogger Whetam Knauckweirst said...

My social status is the poor end of "comfortable." My wife and I live month-to-month. In my experience, people in my position have a tendency to attack the poor because the poor are closer to our income level than corporate executives and politicians. Any homeless man is within $50,000 of my income level. Any executive is a few million dollars beyond my income level.

My point: It seems to be human nature to attack to closest, easiest target. And poor people are surely easy targets. So, you're gonna have people saying "I don't want my Idaho tax dollars going into a Lousianna levee!" But somehow they don't mind even more of their tax dollars going into an S&L bailout, or into an airline bailout, or cleaning up the devastation following the economic terrorism perpetrated by Enron, et al, executives in 2001 and afterward. Those tabs have been a hell of a lot heftier than what it would take to shore-up a levee.

Corporate executives and corrupt poor people have much in common -- the only difference is that execs are playing/milking a much more affluent system, whereas welfare cheats, and the like, are making off with pennies. But since John Q. Public can relate more readily to pennies than he can $100 million T-bills, John Q. Public lambasts the penny-grubber.

As for myself, I never take my eyes off those corporate swine who torpedo our companies, juggle drunkenly with our rice bowls, and cause more havoc and devastation than any natural disaster.

 
At 9/05/2005 5:35 PM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Yes Dope, there was a male reporter on Fox News who was down south before almost anyone else. The female blonde bimbo in the newsroom on Fox was trying to spread the Rove biblical message you point out above when she did her interview with this guy in the trenches. The male reporter was actually arguing with her about it.

I wonder how long until Fox tells him he is fired for going off "script". Fox has such biased reporting that it has to be scripted. The lady said well in NY for 9/11 we had such a charismatic leader in Rudy G that we just came together as a nation to help out yada yada yada. The man standing in the muck in the Biyou said 'I think that is not correct and you can't compare this to 9/11. Rudy G had a Police/Fire Department and a functioning government structure to deal with a tragic blow to a big section of his city. Mayor Nigaen was left with NOTHING. No functioning government, police or fire - personnel maybe and a few items - but massive total devastation and no electricity, gas or water power to use for resources. So there is no comparison.'

The lady tried to make more excuses about how it's a local problem and not Bush's lack of initiative. This same guy - who has a lot of guts to say it -- said, 'well the people needed food and water day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and did not get it. They need food and water today and should not have to wait so long.'

in my lifetime, I can not remember ever seeing a huge tragedy like this without ANY national response for over 72 hours. Every other president regardless of party affiliation has nationalized our National Guard troops and sent them in right away to help restore order.

Not Bush- he did not have any to send. He was lost and afraid. The Governors and the Congress got things moving. The Lousiana State Guard did get going before anyone -- not due to any leadership from the whitehouse.

The folks - mostly poor and black down south were purely invisible to Bush. They are not part of his elite base and since they probably don't vote, he figured he was not in a hurry. Compassion from him? Not on your life.... he can fake it - but this time he can't escape his own mess - George Bush stinks of it!!!

 
At 9/06/2005 5:23 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I can't help wondering the vast differnce in action if this relief effort had been an effort to KILL people, rather than save them.

What I'm saying is, if this had been an invasion of a foreign country, designed to destroy the city and kill the inhabitants, would it have been so slow and ineffective?

Hell no.

There would have been ships lined up to the horrizon, landing craft would have blanketed the beaches, hundreds and hundreds of millions would have been spent, paratroopers would have blanketed the area, tanks, trucks, and humvees would have been thick inland.

But when it comes to saving poor blacks, they stood around sucking their thumbs, saying "gee, we can't find a way to go through streets when there's WATER in them.

We don't know what to do. We'll fly a few dozen helicopters and try to save the city that way.

Why the VAST, VAST difference between an effort to SAVE lives, vs. an effort to KILL people?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home