Thus I can't help but compare President Bush's reaction to 9/11 vs his reaction to Katrina.
I wonder what is causing the difference?
Well let's see.
9/11 was localized. Physical damage was localized. It was fairly easy to get relief efforts in and get things moving.
NO is under feet of water. No electericity. Access roads out. Poor communication abilities. People scattered around. Gangs shooting at relief workers.
Big difference!
"I wonder what is causing the difference?"
On 9-11 we had a very real, very evil person to blame. It's human nature in the face of something this bad to find "the bad guy". Unfortunately, the "bad guys" here are other Americans. As President, he has to be very careful making fellow americans, specifically politicians from the other party, as the ones to blame.
Bush does well when he's angry. There's no one or group of people to get mad at here.
There's only incompetence. Neither Michael Brown nor Michael Chertoff have ANY experience with disasters.
You think Bernie Kerik would be acting so cluelessly as these people have? Michael Brown basically admitted today that he didn't know what he was doing.
The difference is that we knew this was coming. People could have listened to both their local officials and the President and evacuated and prepared for it. They decided not too. For some reason, some people think that is the fault of the President. Ridiculous, isn't it?
They are different situations and I dont think they should be compared.
We have never compared natural disasters to acts of war?
At least not that I remember.