Has The Bush Administration Failed (Again) By Being Reactionary?

The Bush Administration will be remembered, in part, for how it handled two enormous catastrophes on U.S. soil.

Will it be remembered favorably?

An argument can be made that with regard to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the devastation caused several days ago by Hurricane Katrina, the Bush Administration chose to be reactive, rather than proactive.

This is not to say that the administration, even if it had acted perfectly, would have been able to stop the terrorist attacks, or greatly changed the outcome of Katrina.

But at the same time, questions are being raised as to how the administration acted prior to each event -- questions that lead JABBS to wonder whether this administration is capable of true "homeland security."

***

Americans learned during the 9/11 Commission hearings that the Aug. 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing contained a two-page section titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."

Then National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice -- in defending the administration failing to be proactive in response to the briefing -- told the commission that the briefing contained mostly "historical" information. Critics of the administration charge that the briefing laid out Bin Laden's current gameplan -- including his desire to hijack airplanes -- which was ultimately executed on Sept. 11.

Rice, of course, was to give a speech on Sept. 11 regarding U.S. security. The speech, never presented, only mentioned terrorism in passing, and did not reference Al Qaeda. For critics of the administration, there was perhaps no greater piece of evidence to show that the administration was not acting proactively on the Al Qaeda threat.

Had the administration acted proactively -- taken measures to intercept a terror cell within the U.S., tracked down known Al Qaeda members (including ones who were listed in telephone books) -- perhaps the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks would have been averted. There's no way to know for sure, of course.

But by not acting proactively, the administration gave itself no chance to stop the course of events.

***

Fast forward to the Katrina catastrophe. The massive hurricane -- predicted to be the worst in four decades -- was not a secret. It had been forecast for several days. New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin had ordered a citywide evacuation.

So why did the Bush Administration wait until Wednesday to announce its relief plan?

For a month, the Bush Administration spun that the president was able to conduct all necessary business during his five-week vacation at the "Western White House," in Crawford, Texas. Either that spin was a lie, or more likely, the Bush Administration did not see the need to be proactive in dealing with the potential Gulf Coast devastation.

Why didn't President Bush bring the necessary officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Saturday or Sunday -- before Katrina struck -- to forge a plan? Why weren't supplies -- food, water and medicine -- in place in advance? Why weren't National Guard called upon to assist with the evacuation -- specifically the elderly and infirmed, many of whom were incapable of leaving the city on their own? Why weren't National Guard prepared to enter New Orleans and other Gulf Coast spots as soon as the hurricane passed?

(As an aside, how is it possible that multiple news networks were able to land not only reporters and cameramen, but senior anchors, on the ground along the Gulf Coast, even as the administration made excuses as to why supplies had not arrived in the city?)

Beyond its failure to act proactively in the days leading to the devastation, there's evidence suggesting that the administration diverted money, starting in 2003, to the Iraq War from a decade-long federally backed effort to strengthen New Orleans' east bank hurricane levees. The Senate had planned to restore some of the cuts in the 2006 budget -- but Katrina hit first.

Had the Bush Administration acted proactively, perhaps there would not be hundreds, if not thousands, of dead Americans as a result of the Hurricane. There's no way to know for sure, of course.

But by not acting proactively, the administration gave itself no chance to stop the course of events.

***

The other similarity from 2001 and now is the desire among conservatives to blame anyone but the administration.

In 2001, the conservative noise machine pointed fingers at Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, Jamie Gorelick and others. Through some bizarre logic, some conservatives said that Clinton should be held responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -- it came under his watch -- and also the 2001 terrorist attacks, since, in theory, Al Qaeda had begun planning the attacks under Clinton's watch.

Read some conservative pundits today, and the blame for the Gulf Coast devastation should go to Louisiana's Democratic governor, Kathleen Blanco, and Nagin, New Orleans' Democratic mayor. (Conservatives lay no such blame on Mississippi and Alabama's Republican governors.) Some pundits even want to blame ... Bill Clinton.

The "blame any Democrat" policy (aka "blame anyone but Bush") reverberates throughout the conservative noise machine, just as it did in 2001.

That conservative spin helped get Bush re-elected in 2004. Time will tell whether it is able to change the disappointment, and even anger, among many Americans that the administration reacted too slowly and ineptly in dealing with Katrina.

***

What now?

The New York Daily News may have said it best in a Sept. 2 editorial: "But what is already more than clear is that the nation's disaster-preparedness mechanisms do not appear to be in the hands of officials who know how to run them."

The fact that President Bush -- and a host of Republican leaders -- have publicly criticized the post-Katrina relief effort is a start. At least Americans don't have to deal with the rampant spin (aka denial) that led The Daily Show's Jon Stewart to wonder recently if there is any screw-up the administration can't spin to make it seem like everything went as planned.

But can that admittance that a problem exists translate into proactive efforts when the next (natural or terrorist) catastrophe occurs on U.S. soil? That will be the real test for this administration.

***

This article first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.

He's the worst president this country has ever had. No exceptions.

can do no wrong....

He has foresaken advice from the usual sources, prolly was irritating to him....

Karen is unable to woo him back to the advice table

Rove is beside himself as guilt feelings mount and his escape seems likely to be booted/impeached and a Pardon would become impossible...

... for why they didn't hold a planning session, in Crawford, as soon as evacuations were under way and the seriousness of the Hurricane was certain.