Sep 1, 2005 at 8:05 AM by Political Chase
Unbelievable! I thought the arrogance of the Bush administration could not rise to a higher level.
The Daily Kos reports that Homeland Security has refused the Canadian government’s generosity to provide substantial aid for the Katrina disaster. Homeland Security cited security reasons for not allowing the Canadian government’s entry to the United States.
Earlier this evening, CNN focused on a refugee stating, "I ain’t got nothing left but the clothes on my back."
There seems to be a stark contrast between the needs of so many and unexplained actions of the administration’s policy.
Remember Chernoybl? We offered to help and were greeted with "no thanks." Historically that proved to work out quite well for the Soviets didn’t it?
—–
Sep 1, 2005 at 7:34 AM by Political Chase
If you’ll notice, there is little to no commentary within this blog on the musings of David Brooks of The New York Times. There’s a reason for that…I seldom, if ever, get a grasp on exactly what the real point of his commentary is. Often, it goes beyond what he is ultimately trying to convey; it seems to be just babble about nothing of true relevance.
Brook’s article in today’s NYT falls into the category of "Duh?" He rambles on about the history of politics associated with natural disasters, especially hurricane related. Given what I am able to glean historically from Brook’s past commentary, he seems to be setting the stage to defend political entities (i.e., George W. Bush) from an inevitable ambush (his innuendo, not mine) related to managing the Katrina disaster. An "ambush" that might further shed light on the factual, never ending malpractice of George W. Bush as President of the United States.
If only Brooks could/would look closely enough to see that revving his engines, accompanied by irrelevant historical references posing as an amicus brief, he only provides proof of his skepticism of that which he defends.
His article presents the image of the guilt-laden teenager standing before his/her mother, declaring, "Mom, the pot you found in the car is not mine, it’s Jimmy’s."
When the president’s base begins well in advance to present defensive arguments regarding the efficacy of his performance, well, that can only mean that history provides an assured expectation of failure.
Sounds like the self-fulfilling prophecies to which we have all become well accustomed.
Brooks fails to present concrete facts, in advance, that confirm solid confidence in the president’s ability to manage the seemingly unmanageable.
—–
