Why Bush is ultimately responsible for the Katrina aftermath - regardless.

[mzmolly]

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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179587/page/5/

If the local Government was as inept as Republicans like Limbaugh and Ingram would have us believe - Bush could have/should have stepped in and taken over. The fact that he did not do so leaves him without any excuse.

[Search Party]

1. great point

we must maintain focus. rove is doing his damndest to get us off message.

[mzmolly]

2. I think this point is the bottom line ...

If they attempt to make excuses that the locals failed - and that seems to be the tac their taking we can ask why Bush would allow such inept people to oversee the greatest disaster in US history.

[mzmolly]

3. .

:kick:

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

4. plus, * appointed these losers

chertoff and brown

[mzmolly]

5. Yes he did.

And he gutted FEMA and the corp of engineers.

[mzmolly]

6. .

[H2O Man]

7. It's simple, really.

Bush could have taken the same steps as he did four times last year, when hurricanes hit the state his brother is governor of.

[defiant1]

8. I love that....

Gee Georgie, if your daddy could do it, why didn't you??