is exactly what's driving the trolls and wingnuts.
They can't handle the fact that their boy has been utterly exposed for the callous prick he is, and in front of a watching world. It's pathetic that they are so desperate that they'd try this tactic - tearing down
Kerry?????? - lame as it is. I mean, Kerry never once mentioned the plight of the African hummingbird during his campaign. He must be anti-hummingbird.
TayTay's right. Maybe Kerry didn't say the word "levee" (though I'd bet he did, at least during visits to Louisiana, where it was relevant). But national security was something he talked about
constantly, through the entire campaign. If the majority of people in the country now wish Kerry was in charge, that's not Kerry's fault. Bush cheated for it; now he's got it. This is ALL on his head, and they can't spin their way out of it. Look what I just read this morning; an interview with
Christopher Hitchens, of all people, on Australian TV on Sunday:
Voters will remember disaster response, Hitchens says
Reporter: Tony Jones
. . . . TONY JONES: What does this disaster and the ramshackle and often pathetic response to it tell us about the world's last superpower?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, you remember the distinction between imminent threat and non-imminent threat, or permanent threat? The argument like that in the case of Iraq, which has already begun to intrude into this case too? With New Orleans the threat from flooding from the ocean, or from Lake Pontchartrain is permanent. It always could happen. But the really extraordinary thing about this is that we knew it was also imminent. And don't forget, as a third observation, that this is the lenient version of Hurricane Katrina. It was expected to be much worse, or predicted certainly that it could have been much worse. In fact, as you will remember, the real disaster only happened just as people were beginning to relax. They thought they'd got away with it again. So in these circumstances, it's really unpardonable that there should have been such little preparation.
TONY JONES: Even more astonishing, wouldn't you think, that President Bush himself claimed only last Thursday that "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees" - when of course that's what was being anticipated by the disaster planners all over the country.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Absolutely. It's one of the two or three best-known risks to the United States, is that the levees protecting New Orleans could break. I know that and I live in Washington. It's also, I'm afraid to say, the only thing the President has said about this that anyone can remember. I mean, he didn't get there - it isn't that they didn't fly to the city beforehand, which he could easily have done on that kind of warning, and say, "Look, I'm the President of the United States, we can't lose or even risk losing one of our great historic cities. I have come to make sure that all the state and city officials have got everything they could possibly want in advance." For example, a few piles of bottled water wouldn't have come amiss if there's going to be suddenly too much water but none of it drinkable. Elementary things like that. He didn't do that. Then he did a fly-by from his holiday retreat, and then he got there too late and then he said something completely idiotic. So I really can't see there is any forgiveness for that. And remember also, that he did interrupt his holiday not very long ago to pay attention to something that was none of his business at all as President. Namely, the alleged living condition of an actually dead woman named Terri Schiavo. . . .
. . . .TONY JONES: Pitch ahead for us, if you can. What lasting effect do you think this will have on the Bush presidency?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, in terms of political psyche, shall we say, it's good for the Democrats in about five different ways. One, it reminds people of the existence of the underclass, which tends to be downplayed, shall we say, by the Republican Party. Second it reminds people of the importance of government spending and government services, again, I think the same intuitive or subliminal point applies. Third it makes it at a populous level anyway harder to make a solid case for Iraq, though it doesn't really alter the case about whether you think the war is a just or necessary one. And then fourthly, it reflects very badly on the personality of the President himself. So this is not, I think, a transient story. This is not something that is going to be confined to the Weather Channel, shall we say. I think it will be remembered as a hinge event in the second term.
TONY JONES: If it is a hinge event, is there any way he can use it to his advantage, as he ultimately did after a very shaky start immediately after September 11?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, no, I think people forgave him for blundering around on that day, and not quite knowing what to do and making what must have been one of the worst speeches ever given by any politician. That could, as it were, be forgiven because everyone felt I'm sure, my God, how would I have held up on a day like that? This is worse because, a) it could be seen coming and b), I might just add, by the way, I mean, these States that have been devastated, Louisiana and Mississippi and Somerset and Alabama, they're all in the Republican column. The President is supposed to care about and nurturing the South, so is Karl Rove. What were they thinking? What were they thinking? I have no answer to that question that doesn't come up with a revelation of the most, really, catastrophic incompetence and insouciance. . . .