by DemFromCT
Front page on the WaPo is the video about Bush being warned about Katrina, but the Daily News header tells the story:
W Knew Kat was 'big one'
Vid debunks Prez denial
The WH says the video proves he was fully engaged, unlike the ports deal. That, of course, means he was fully responsible. And the ports deal shows what the WH denies: on his watch, he's fully responsible whether he's engaged or not. Meanwhile George Will notes that Presidential smoke and mirrors only goes so far:
Rhetoric of Unreality
Where Is Iraq After Nearly 3 Years of War?
So which is the tabloid and which the staid establishment media? Will again:
Today, with all three components of the "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002, the country would welcome, and Iraq's political class needs to hear, as a glimpse into the abyss, presidential words as realistic as those Britain heard on June 4, 1940.
The country's pessimism is entirely due to the realization that Bush isn't up to the task (only a third think he's respected by leaders overseas, as he travels overseas hoping to get away from his job ratings and bad news in general). That is not a repairable position, given the Iraq and Katrina screw-ups. From now on, the WH better get used to serving whine with the lame duck.
[UPDATE]: More from the Miami Herald as reaction sets in:
'I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees,'' Bush said on Sept. 1. ``They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And, as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded.''
The revelation that Bush was warned in advance about Katrina's destructive power is another blow to an administration whose integrity and competence has come under fire for its response to the hurricane, the ill-fated Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, its handling of a transaction that would let a United Arab Emirates company manage cargo terminals at six major U.S. ports, and its conduct of the war in Iraq.
''It's devastating that the president would ask no questions,'' said David Gergen, a former advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton who's now a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. ``If he sat there mum in a full briefing . . . that will only confirm the suspicions of a lot of opponents.''
The above is a news story, not an op-ed, btw.
[UPDATE]: Ron Fournier, AP:
WASHINGTON -- President Bush vowed, "We are fully prepared." Mike Brown barked orders. Weather experts warned of a killer storm. The behind-the-scenes drama, captured on videotape as Hurricane Katrina roared ashore, confirmed Americans' suspicions of government leaders: They can run a good meeting, but little else.
It is hard to review the transcripts and footage obtained by The Associated Press without reaching three conclusions.
-Federal, state and local officials knew what was about to occur.
-They knew what to do about it.
-They failed to deliver.
...
A bit more jaded than before Katrina, Americans are less likely to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, and they are quicker to question his positions on the Iraq war and post-hurricane controversies such as the port security issue.
The president can no longer say, "Trust me," without a majority of Americans asking, "Why should we?" But this is not just about Bush.
...
Theda Skocpol, dean of the graduate school of Arts and Sciences at Harvard, said Bush lost his can-do credibility in Katrina's winds.
"The whole episode has raised the question in the public mind about what government can do, but it also raised questions about the Bush administration, which was built on the promise of protecting people in case of emergencies," she said.
The White House points to places in the transcripts where Bush is said to be engaged. That may be true, but Americans also heard the president on videotape boasting that his government was prepared for Katrina. He was certainly wrong about that. Now the public has more evidence to consider whether he was also arrogant, out of touch and dangerously incurious.
That's pretty devastating stuff.
Since the Republican personality deals in fears, I say that the Republican Congressional delegation finally realizes by early autumn that their only potential salvation is impeaching Cheney and Dubya. Sufficient justification already exists. They need to do it break the momentum against them and show them as independent actors. Besides, they need to do it before the Democrats do it for them in 2007. To their ears, President Hastert sounds much better than President Pelosi.
Posted by: PrahaPartizan | March 02, 2006 at 07:42
Prime Minister Singh also thinks Bush is a loser for skipping the Taj Mahal:
Sounds like a really clever way to get a barb in at your guest.
Posted by: emptywheel | March 02, 2006 at 08:30
He really isn't interested, 'pockets. He wants to ride his bike. A little discussion of narcissistic personality disorder would be appropriate.
Posted by: Melanie | March 02, 2006 at 10:57
The WH says the video proves he was fully engaged, unlike the ports deal.
Um, and how do we know that there won't be a tape or transcript later of Bush saying, "Yeah, they're good guys, friends of [name of bigbusiness donor here]. No problem. Slam dunk."
Posted by: CKR | March 02, 2006 at 10:59
The Taj Mahal isn't just a beautiful building, it is one of the great romantic buildings in the world. It was built by Shah Jahan as a tomb for his beloved wife Mumtaz who died giving birth to something like their 15th child. What you don't realize at all from the pictures is that it is inlaid with black marble verses from the Koran and semi-precious stones all around the doorways. It is thus a testament to love and piety. That is the background to the Prime Minister's statement.
It was also an extravagance. Shah Jahan planned to make his own tomb on the other side of the river as a mirror image--black marble inlaid with Koranic verses in white. At that point his son had him imprisoned in the Red Fort at Delhi partly out of ambition but also to save the kingdom from bankruptcy. At least this is what I was told when I visited it.
I think the Katrina tapes are so devastating to Bush because of the difference between a terrorist attack and a natural disaster. Katrina was forseeable and foreseen, even planned for. And yet not only did they botch the response, they lied about it.
In a terror attack people's anger is directed toward the perpetrators and anyone ancillary to whom the anger can be directed. But Mother Nature is different. People know there is no real point getting mad at Mother Nature (or God, depending on ypur preference) and so the anger gets directed at the gov't. And precisely because it was foreseeable, they cut no slack as might have happened with another terrorist attack.
I think after this we will be seeing Bush break 30% approval. Certainly 25-27% favorable.
Posted by: Mimikatz | March 02, 2006 at 13:06
Posted today on dailyKos, a brief and somewhat cryptic update on developments re The American Prospect's "Dem's Don't Know Jack".
Posted by: RonK, Seattle | March 02, 2006 at 13:25
Interesting that Theda Skocpol is now dean of graduate arts and sciences at Harvard. She was denied tenure even after publishing a classic in modern sociology: States and Social Revolutions. Skocpol had to repair to Chicago while she sued Harvard for sex discrimination, eventually forcing the University to give her tenure.
Posted by: kaleidescope | March 02, 2006 at 18:41