He should have if he thought it would make a real difference.
I wish he had done it...It would have taken the wind out of the dems sails. Plus maybe some lives may have been saved.
Do states rights mean anything to you?
The calculus is more complex than "make a difference."
The last time a president asserted control without a request from a duly-authorized state agent was the civil war.
"For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort."
Bush SHOULD have taken over the relief effort when it became manifestly obvious that the Governess and mayor were ineffective, American lives were being lost, lawless elements were out of control, and a major U.S. city was being destroyed. As far as the technical legal implications of this are concerned, he should have left any concerns over those issues for later reflection. THAT, I believe, is what George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or even Ronald Reagan would have done. But of course, the Bushes are not in their league.
The "officials" advising Bush here were probably the same timorous wimps who "advised" that the intended retaliatory assault on Fallujah be called off after the American contractors there were butchered and their bodies placed on display.
There are numerous people here stating that this would have benefitted the Democrats. I DOUBT it. It would have shown
a) Bush has testacles
b) the Dems have neither brains nor testacles.
In addition, it might have saved lives, prevented looting, and spared some damage.
But Bush II, like Bush I, is an overly cautious man at times.