Why? Let me tell you.
George W. Bush was supposed to bring a new tone to Washington. No, I am not talking about the non-partisan stuff that was doomed when the election was so close in 2000. No, I am talking about accountability, and responsibility. In this effort, George W. Bush has not lived up to his promises. I love this President, almost as much as I love Ronald Reagan. I believe he has been a good leader in regards to the War on Terror, and I believe that if he would have had better party discipline, his programs on tax cuts and the economy would lead us to new heights. However, that brings us back to this problem of ownership, accountability, and responsibility.
Back during the campaign, you will recall that Matt and I were both inspired an enamored with Bush's call for a responsibility society, an ownership society--where it was no longer "if it feels good, do it, and who cares about the consequences." That, just as much, for me, as his religious views and his philosophy, put me in Bush's camp. However, as I left WMD Central Command last night after Uncle Fluffy Part 101, I began to evaluate the implementation of this notion of accountability and responsibility.
Let me say this: if Bush would have been able to instill this, he would go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents this nation has ever had: right up there with Reagan, Lincoln, FDR, even Washington. However, as with all leaders, he has succumbed to the virus in Washington of not holding people to task.
Let's begin with the War on Terror and 9/11. What were the delivery systems? Airplanes. How did terrorists get ahold of them? By going thru public airports, who were told to be on notice for suspicious things, you know, like Arab men paying in cash and looking hurried. OK, so, who was in charge of our transportation systems? Mr. Minetta, secretary of Transportation. It was his department, and under his leadership, I believe, that the doctrine of "don't look like you are searching too many Arabs" was developed. It was under his leadership that security standards became lax, and airports stopped noticing terror bulletins. However, was Mr. Minetta let go? No, he still holds the same position.
Next, let's look at the intel failures. Who was responsible, you know, for building the wall of intel sharing? The Carter Admin, I believe. Did Jimmy Carter testify? Nope. Who strengthened the wall? Jamie Gorelick and Co., members of the Clinton Admin. Jamie Gorelick was named a commissioner! She should have been a witness. George Tenet was head of CIA, an organization that was caught with its collective pants in a wad. Granted, during his time as CIA head, he only met with Clinton 2 times. But, come on now George, let's take some responsibility. Your organization failed. However, Tenet resigned, he was not fired.
Next, let's go to Iraq. Tommy Franks was a great war general. He did more in a short time than any other general. However, he was a lousy leader post-invasion in Iraq, as was Bremer. Matt has critiqued Gen. Franks, whom I respect a great deal, elsewhere (note to Matt: feel free to link your article here). However, Franks and Bremer had critical failures in securing the nation post Baghdad invasion. There were plans to be followed that were not. However, Bush allowed Franks to retire untouched and pristine, and Bremer was allowed to flounder through the transition to Iraqi control. Where is the accountability?
Now, let's get back to Katrina, and especially New Orleans. We are talking about ONE FRIGGIN CITY, HERE! One friggin, mismanaged city that went nuts. However, rather than come out and say, the police failed/quit, the mayor was busy blaming everyone else and not implementing the plan, the governor was too concerned with her power; what does my man GWB do? He says, its ok, my fault. I mean, who cares if the disaster relief was at the Superdome waiting to go in, and Blanco's admin told them not to, right? Who cares if Nagin had acres of school buses to use to get people out, was asked three days before to issue the evac order, but instead waited til the last 20 hours, right? How are these leaders held accountable?
Bush decides to let them have the biggest say-so in spending the money in LA. HELLO! Mr. President, you allowed hundreds of millions to go for improving the levees, which magically disappeared while the levees were not improved. Nagin and Blanco refused to seek out matching funds to get the work going. Landrieu did god knows what with the money. So, you reward them with 1)taking all the blame, and 2)allowing them to get their greasy little mitts in on the spending?
RIDICULOUS!
Here is what should have happpened:
Ladies and Gentlemen, I come before you today from a city that has been battered by a storm, but stands still. I come before you with tales of survival, human greatness, and the depths of human evil. We will not tolerate the looting that went on, and federal authorities will work hand in hand with local to make sure there are prosecutions.
Secondly, let me defend the federal response. We can only move in when asked, according to federal law. FEMA is not a first response unit, but a coordinatng unit. And there were coordination failures. Govr. Blanco was asked days before the hurricane to federalize the area and allow us to come in, but she refused. I called Mayor Nagin days before, but he waited on the evac order until the last 20 hours. There was a disaster plan in place that was not followed, which we have seen and are analyzing.
As a result of this, only federal inspectors general will approve the funding for the rebuilding. Mayor Nagin and Govr. Blanco have shown that there is a leadership vacuum in LA, especially since we saw no rioting and looting in any other region, even those poor black regions in Mississippi and Alabama that were hit. So, therefore, only federal inspectors general will have the say.
Now, Bush can go on about enterprise zones, which are good, and the other nonsense.
However his talk about generations of poverty and seeking to break the cycle uncomfortably evokes LBJ's War on Poverty, a war which because of the weapons of govt. dealing of the drug of dependence, we have not won. Bush should say, we are going to further limit welfare benefits at all levels. People in LA, in NO, were allowed to become addicted to "assistance." Instead, they were left out to dry, as they had no survival instinct other than to revert to savagery. Bush should have said, no more welfare, no more handouts. We will have workfare, period.
It could have been the chance to truly see NO as an experiment of implementing the responsibility society. Instead, it sounded more like pandering to the bleeding hearts and the media, to send 'message: we care.'
If Karen Hughes wrote this speech and suggested this crap, she should be shot.
I still love ya, Mr. President. I know you are an honest man of faith, but I am disappointed that you did not take the opportunity to stick to the notions of accountability and responsbility. You, like many others, have fallen prey to the Washington Syndrome. I only hope you get it cured, and find that Veto Pen.
One final thing: Bush should have said: I am urging Congress to repeal the Highway bill and direct all that aid immediately to Katrina and Ophelia relief. This is more dire and more important than biking and walking trails for Sen. Lieberman in Connecticut (16 million).
