|
The NYC disaster was limited to a much smaller reason and everyone was of a united spirit against "the enemy" (Al Qaeda, whoever you happened to be thinking at the time who flew the planes into the buildings) People stick together much more strongly if they think they're being attacked by outsiders.
With Katrina, the enemy was the U.S. govt, specifically Bush. I think that freaked out a lot of people and instead of a united front, many people turned it into a free for all. Obviously - the govt wasn't going to help, everyone for him/herself. Plus, the Katrina disaster went on and on for days.
I do, however, think it's totally fair to compare the two when you're talking about Bush's reaction. Bush reacted extremely poorly on 9/11. In defense, republican "friends" all said to me "that's not fair, you don't know how Gore would have reacted in that place, what a traumatic thing. You can't even say for sure how you would have reacted". Okay, fair enough. However, I replied "Yes, but now we know how BUSH reacts in the face of a national crisis - get him out and get someone else in with true leadership skills".
4 yrs later and I'm proven right. Duh. How many more disasters do we need to convince the 40% of deluded Americans that Bush should not be President?
I know, preaching to the choir. I just wanted to point out that not all Katrina/9-11 comparisons are invalid.
|