Always Right

I wrote about Al Gore and the criticism he leveled against President Bush for the response to the disaster in the Gulf. I pointed out that, using Gore’s “logic”, he and Bill Clinton were responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing. Now, News Max puts it in perspective by showing that the response by Bill Clinton was 24 hours longer than the response by George Bush. Yet, Clinton got glowing reviews for his efforts while the MSM vilifies Bush. Once again it only strengthens my argument that the liberal media does in fact allow its bias to effect it jobs. Despite what the left tells you, the MSM is influenced by how they feel, ideologically.

Here is what News Max had to say:

Critics say President Bush’s personal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster was too little, too late – with an Air Force One flyover the day after New Orleans’ levees broke and a trip to Baton Rouge two days later.

President Clinton, on other the other hand, got glowing reviews for responding to his administration’s biggest disaster, the Oklahoma City bombing – even though he took a day longer to arrive on the scene than Bush did last week.

New Orleans’ levees broke on a Tuesday – and Bush had his own boots-on-the-ground just three days later on Friday.
When the Alfred P. Murrah Building exploded on Wednesday morning, April 19, 1995, President Clinton didn’t travel to the scene for four full days.

And when he finally arrived, there was no grumbling by troubled pundits about the delay. In fact, Clinton’s response to Oklahoma City is remembered to this day as the turning point of his political fortunes.

Writing this week in New York Magazine, John Heilemann recalls Clinton’s April 23 speech about the bombing:

“With breathtaking subtlety and nimbleness, Clinton used that act of terrorism to illustrate the dangers of the wild-eyed anti-government rhetoric then in vogue among the Gingrichian GOP – a move that set him on the road to political redemption.”

The real difference, of course, was that Clinton had a sympathetic media that was just as anxious as he was to blame the disaster on right wing Republicans. Bush, on the other hand, faces a press corps that couldn’t wait to use Katrina against him.

The double standard becomes even more obvious when reaction to Katrina is compared with what remains the worst law enforcement debacle in U.S. history – the Clinton administration’s decision to rout the Branch Davidians from their encampment at Waco.

More children were killed in that April 19, 1993, assault than died in Oklahoma City. Yet the Clinton administration received little if any blame – and no one was forced to resign.

In fact, after then-Attorney General Janet Reno publicly accepted responsibility, she was hailed as a hero by sympathetic reporters, an irony that’s likely not lost on Bush’s allegedly “disgraced” ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown.

This finger pointing and distortion will not help the donks during the next election.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

5 Responses to “Always Right”

  1. Adam says:

    “This finger pointing and distortion will not help the donks during the next election.”

    No, they need only set back and let the Republicans keep messing up everything.

    This is crazy. I’ve yet to hear people be mad at Bush for how long it took him to get there. I’m more mad at how long it took relief efforts to get there. I don’t really give two damns if Bush goes there or not, or if Clinton went to OKC or not, or how long it was before they went. The scale of Katrina and the bombing in OKC are not even close as far as relief efforts go.

    Bush could have sucker punched the eye wall of Katrina right as it came towards the coast and it wouldn’t have changed the fact that response time for relief wasn’t good enough after the disaster hit.

    I figured it wouldn’t be too long before you started complaining about Clinton in relation to Katrina. You already hit Ted Kennedy. Who is left now?

  2. Big Dog says:

    Once again you show your lack of knowledge on a subject. The National Response Plan (have you ever read it) says 72 hours. There were however items ready to go much earlier than that. The democrat governor would not let them in. Were there items that could be improved, yes. But the fact is the response time when you have to move hundreds of people and tons of equipment is not immediate. Only a fool thinks we can snap our fingers and make stuff appear. The feds went into action prior to the event to pre stage because the democratic leaders of LA refused help despite pleas from the feds.

    How can you say that everything is being messed up when response to Katrina was faster than the last 10 or so major hurricanes? Couple this with the fact that when the levees broke people could not get in and you have a nightmare for response efforts.

    Try as you all might to blame the feds, the local and state government bear most of the blame for what happened and the feds mobilized as quickly as possible.

    I think there will be lessons learned but the feds followed the national response plan. If the locals would have followed their plan this would not be an issue.

    I will make this deal. You tell me what should have been done to make it better or to have a better response. Then, if I can not show you a flaw in it you will be right on this one.

  3. Adam says:

    Once again you show your lack of ability to read. If you’ll go back and read what I said (twice if you have to), I don’t blame just the feds, or the local, or the state. In fact I don’t blame anybody directly. I just said the response was too slow.

    “I’ve yet to hear people be mad at Bush for how long it took him to get there. I’m more mad at how long it took relief efforts to get there.”

    I understand that those lines might look like I’m blaming Bush for the response time, but you’re taking me wrong.

    Frankly I don’t care if 72 hours is standard because, like you said, we knew the storm was coming 72 hours in a advance. I’ve heard you say it time and again 72 hours 72 hours 72 hours, but it means little. The actions taken before hand were not enough and the actions taken after were too slow. That’s a fact, no finger pointing included.

    I’m not pointing fingers, just saying things went wrong that shouldn’t have. Last time I checked your president was saying the same thing, just like you. How rare is that, that all three of us agree?

    I’m not even talking about Katrina when I speak of messing up. Bush’s approval rating is lower than ever, the war is weighing heavy on American minds, the economy is doing better but not as good as it needs to be, consumer comfort is way down, gas prices are way up, etc, etc. Not all of these things are the fault of a Republican, but unfortunately for your party, most of it will get blamed on them in one spin or another. I can’t say I feel bad either…

  4. Big Dog says:

    My lack of ability to read also includes a bit of inference, or use of logic in determing what you meant. Your statement was:
    No, they need only set back and let the Republicans keep messing up everything.

    Now you can say that this means in everything but since the post dealt with response and my quote, which you reference, dealt with finger pointing in the response, the logical conclusion is that is what you meant. Perhaps I can read, but you have trouble writing effectively. Might be a combination of the two.

    The fact is the feds can not respond until requested. This is not some half baked idea, it is the law. While I know the libs have little regard for the law, not everyone looks at it that way. The governor of LA waited way too long to ask for help because she was worried about the political ramifications. The feds could have been there sooner than they were if requested (still 72 hours but from an earlier starting point).

    You can knock 72 hours but the fact is that is one thing that will change very little due to the logistics of the task. If you have ever been involved in any of these large scale exercises (I have, and many) you would realize how daunting it is.

    There are things that can go better but I think when this pans out the right will have higher approval and it will be good for my party. I do think that it has the potential to be a problem for incumbents from both parties.

  5. Adam says:

    Well, I understand your experience here. I’ll also admit that I don’t always write effectively. I won’t keep name calling because I don’t want to argue too much about this, but I will say again that your inference, or use of logic is flawed. No finger pointing here as far as Katrina is concerned.

    I’m just saying that nobody is complaining about how long it took for Bush to get to the South, no matter how long Clinton took in the past, and that OKC isn’t related to Katrina. I think the guy is stupid to bring it up and is just trying to bring Clinton in and make him look bad. We both know you never miss a chance to bash him yourself. The fact is that people are mad that the relief took too long, and even if it is standard 72 hours.

    I don’t share your optimism about your party though, sorry.