9/11 vs. Katrina

I am so tired of hearing the comparisons between the local authorities in New York and the local authorities in Louisana. I want someone to explain to me how they compare.

9/11 was an attack on two buildings..yes very bad but the entire city of New York did not need to be evacuated. There is no way that even the godlike Guillani could have pulled that off without their being mass chaos including looting. If the streets of New York flooded like the streets of New Orleans, people there would have reacted the same damn way. Its part of human nature, all aspects of people come out, the good , the bad and the ugly.

Katrina was a devastating storm. Flooding, mass breeches of levees, loss of communication, etc. Guillani could not have pulled that off so beautifully as everyone keeps repeating. I was flipping through trying to find coverage on the march and I heard someone on Fox say that Bush basically one upped the local authorities with Rita because he did not want a repeat of Katrina. And the stupid newscaster said that he never needed to one up Rudy.. which was replied to that Rudy is just simply amazing and had the entire city under control. Gag. He is not god. I am so tired of hearing that he is .

Why the hell is he so elevated?

He was communicating to the rest of the world and the unaffected parts of NYC what the hell was goin on. And for a while there, he was the only public official doing so.

So Guiliani's competence, looks heroic next too the bumbling of the rest of the administration.

As for comparisions between Katrina and 9/11 I agree with you. They ought to know by now that if we can't evacuate a million people safely within a matter of hours and without chaos, evacuating NYC or LA will be nearly impossible without near invasion levels of intervention from the authorities.

Sad really.

run and hide. He probably looked so good to many of Americans bcs Bush was such a chicken-skinned idiot in comparison. Had Bush done something similar to Giuliani, at least acted heroic, my guess is that Giuliani would have not gotten so much press.

I agree with you there. But when you are comparing the two cities, unless the city was under water and Guillani was able to get everyone evacuated without problems, there is just no comparison. NYC did not need to be evacuated.

and the comparisons the media are making are between local officials, not that of Bush.. although by huge leaps and bounds, yes Guillani acted far more in control than Bush... and yes I do think that the local officials could have done things differently.. but comparing Rudy to them in this situation is incorrect, imo.

The NYC disaster was limited to a much smaller reason and everyone was of a united spirit against "the enemy" (Al Qaeda, whoever you happened to be thinking at the time who flew the planes into the buildings) People stick together much more strongly if they think they're being attacked by outsiders.

With Katrina, the enemy was the U.S. govt, specifically Bush. I think that freaked out a lot of people and instead of a united front, many people turned it into a free for all. Obviously - the govt wasn't going to help, everyone for him/herself. Plus, the Katrina disaster went on and on for days.

I do, however, think it's totally fair to compare the two when you're talking about Bush's reaction. Bush reacted extremely poorly on 9/11. In defense, republican "friends" all said to me "that's not fair, you don't know how Gore would have reacted in that place, what a traumatic thing. You can't even say for sure how you would have reacted". Okay, fair enough. However, I replied "Yes, but now we know how BUSH reacts in the face of a national crisis - get him out and get someone else in with true leadership skills".

4 yrs later and I'm proven right. Duh. How many more disasters do we need to convince the 40% of deluded Americans that Bush should not be President?

I know, preaching to the choir. I just wanted to point out that not all Katrina/9-11 comparisons are invalid.