Posted on 12/30/2008 4:44:36 PM PST by meandog
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, killing more than 1,800, leaving New Orleans a shell of its former self.
Now two former advisers to President Bush are saying the deadly hurricane also derailed Bush's presidency, according to Vanity Fair's "oral history" of Bush's perceived missteps.
Dan Bartlett, White House communications director and later counselor to the president, said: "Politically, it was the final nail in the coffin."
Bartlett, once a trusted Bush adviser, has spoken out in recent years against some administration policies. A year after the hurricane, he told The Post that it "was a setback at the time, but it was recoverable." Apparently that didn't happen. As Bartlett said in a recent interview with Texas Monthly: "Katrina. It's enough to make your hair turn gray."
In his book on Vice President Dick Cheney, "Angler," The Post's Barton Gellman writes that Bartlett had supported the idea of having the vice president run the post-Katrina response and was initially frustrated by Cheney's refusal to take on the task.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
the catastrophe in NO was caused by the city and state....
The chocolate mayor and the corrupt governor are solely responsible for the loss of life in Louisiana.
But Republicans - they can't escape the blame even for acts of God.
Its funny, when you think about it.
the only problem was that the news media fed a lot of tripe to the sheeple.......it is sad that people cannot think for themselves anymore.
he who controls the media controls the world.
The hurricane didn't derail his Presidency. The White House's lack of response to the press (and the local Politicians) accusing him of not doing enough knocked him down. Instead they tried to curry favor with a hostile Press... like trying to feed steak bites to a rabid pit bull.
Paul J. Goebbels knew that well.
Yup.
Yep, Bush didn’t hand out enough welfare money fast enough./s
The same Democrat/MSM tactic may have cost his Dad re-election in 1992. Why not try it again?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29338.html
If I recall correctly, Bush had assets ready to move three days before Katrina. However, that dumba$$ Gov. Blanco refused any assistance.
“Bartlett had supported the idea of having the vice president run the post-Katrina response and was initially frustrated by Cheney’s refusal to take on the task.”
How dare he! Article 53 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that it is the vice president’s job to handle natural disasters across the nation, even before the states ask for help.
Only the spineless Republicans would bend over and take responsibility for a hurricane. Disgusting wimps.
If I recall correctly, Bush had assets ready to move three days before Katrina. However, that dumba$$ Gov. Blanco refused any assistance.
In all fairness, I also believe that the problem came about due to the city and state.
I think that Bush should have moved in when he saw nothing being done. He would have taken a ration of crap for that. States rights and all.
Finally, the idiots shooting at the helicopters should have been fired upon.
Lots of blame.
What Bush fell down on was exhibiting leadership and that perception is what did him in. Once again communications failure in action. Oh, the “Brownie” comment was ridiculous. For that boneheaded statement alone he deserved to have this hung around his neck.
Don’t see why Katrina had anything to do with President Bush. If anything it was Amnesty that put the nail in, not a hurricane disaster that was NOT President Bush’s responsibility to deal with.
“the only problem was that the news media fed a lot of tripe to the sheeple”
Yeah, I remember seeing people on roofs and wandering around aimlessly the day after the levees broke, with news commentators muttering nonsense about how the feds weren’t there to feed them. And I was like, “Well, yeah, the city flooded hours ago. Since when was Washington a first-responder for Louisiana? Did anyone complain about 9/11 falling on the shoulders of the NYPD and FDNY?”
I’m still looking for an answer. When did the feds become national first-responders? I think the answer is “Never!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.