Wondernig why the feds didn't do more?

This New York Times article says the same thing Ruth and I have been talking about, but in a much clearer way:

Political Issues Snarled Plans for Military Help After Hurricane - New York Times: "'Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?' asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.
Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area..."

For everyone who says "Bush sucks because he should have gotten forces there sooner," be honest with yourself; you're just as likely to have been saying, "Bush sucks, because he ousted the governor and dumped a bunch of troops in Louisiana as if it were another Iraq."

And don't say that wouldn't have happened -- maybe not by you personally, sure, but by this country's elected representatives? Certainly. Just look at the political jockeying in recent days as each party clamors to take stabs at the other. If politicians were civil in this country, we wouldn't have these problems, but they're not -- or, at least, the ones who aren't civil get the press attention.


Rob said…
For once Republicans follow a core principle, state rights. To bad that isn't the case in most issues.

Popular posts from this blog

Passing on Panel Discussions?

Commercial comments (Blogging from Word!)