CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Campaign mode prevails over stranded, desperate Americans in New Orleans
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Campaign mode prevails over stranded, desperate Americans in New Orleans

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
Salon has excerpted a section of Paul Alexander's book (Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove ) about the Bush/Rove response to the Katrina tragedy in New Orleans. It's pretty depressing and outrageous stuff.

Quote:
June 6, 2008 | On Monday, August 29, 2005, at about 6:00 a.m., Hurricane Katrina slammed into the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. A category 5 hurricane until just before landfall, it was one of the worst storms ever to hit the Gulf Coast. Kathleen Blanco, the governor of Louisiana, had been briefed extensively about what to expect when the storm hit, which was why, on the Friday night before the storm reached the coast, she signed papers declaring Louisiana to be in a state of emergency. Based on what she had been told by her advisers and what she knew from being a native Louisianan, she understood that Katrina, creeping gradually toward land with sustained winds of a strength rarely seen in a hurricane, could prove to be catastrophic for Louisiana, and particularly for New Orleans.

Over the weekend, Blanco and her staff monitored the storm from an emergency headquarters in Baton Rouge. As the storm was hitting on Monday morning, Michael Brown, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, met with the governor and her staff. Brown had arrived in Louisiana the night before, supposedly ready to deal with the disaster. When he got to the headquarters that morning, Brown told Blanco he was prepared to help. "He showed up Monday morning," says Bob Mann, a senior aide to Blanco, "and gave us the feeling we would have everything we wanted and needed. He was nothing if not an effective bullshitter." Specifically, there was talk of FEMA buses. "Michael Brown told me he had 500 buses," Blanco says. "They were staged and ready to roll in."

Meanwhile, as a deadly storm of historic proportions ripped into three Gulf Coast states that Monday, Bush, on a working vacation at his ranch in Crawford, stuck to his schedule for the day. He traveled to Arizona, where he gave a stay-the-course speech about the war in Iraq. He even made himself available for a photo op after the speech, posing with a guitar next to someone wearing a sombrero, seemingly unaware that the Gulf Coast of the United States was in the throes of a horrific natural disaster perhaps unparalleled in the nation's history. For a president who often seemed to care more about developments in Iraq than those at home, here was a singular moment. Never had Bush appeared to be so out of sync, at least when it came to events unfolding in the homeland. To make matters worse, in this case the disaster was not happening on the other side of the world or even the other side of the country, but in a state next door to Texas.

On Tuesday, Bush was still out of touch with what was happening and seemingly unaware of the seriousness of the events unfolding on the Gulf Coast, especially in New Orleans. A major American city had filled up with water, but Bush had not departed from his planned schedule. In Coronado, California, at a naval base near the USS Ronald Reagan, Bush delivered a speech to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the defeat of the Japanese in World War II. But Bush used the occasion, as he had repeatedly of late, to give yet another stay-the-course speech about Iraq. On this day, he compared the ongoing military action in Iraq to the allied struggle against German fascism and Japanese imperialism in terms of its moral significance. "The terrorists of our century are making the same mistake that the followers of other totalitarian ideologies made in the last century," Bush said. "They believe that democracies are inherently weak and corrupt and can be brought to their knees." It was not terrorists who had brought three states in the American South to their knees, but an act of nature that, judging from his actions on Monday and Tuesday, had not fully engaged the attention of the president.

As it turned out, the federal government's attempts to respond to the storm and flooding appeared frozen by inadequacy and ineptitude. Thousands of people were stranded in their homes, unable to make a better escape than to their rooftops to wave for help and hope emergency personnel in helicopters might rescue them. Tens of thousands of refugees were holed up downtown in the Convention Center and the Superdome, yet FEMA was unable to bring in even food, water, or ice, not to mention buses to evacuate them. Touring the Superdome on Tuesday night, Blanco was disturbed by what she witnessed: in short, no federal assistance whatsoever. All she saw was the Louisiana National Guard and the Louisiana State Police -- certainly not enough of a law enforcement presence to be able to maintain order without additional guardsmen and troops.

If Bush had not seen what was taking place by Tuesday, Karl Rove had. The first evidence of Rove's involvement in the Katrina disaster occurred on Tuesday afternoon. "Rove understood what a nightmare this was for the president," Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana says, "so he went into high gear on the spin thing they're so good at in the White House. Rove had David Vitter, the Republican senator from Louisiana. I was at a press conference and David Vitter walked up to the mike and said, 'I just got off the phone with Karl Rove.' I looked at the governor and she looked at me, like, 'Why is David Vitter on the phone with Karl Rove?' I mean, he could have been talking to generals, the president himself, but Rove is just a political hatchet man."

Despite his expertise being politics, the administration had made Rove a central player in the handling of the disaster. "A light switch in the White House didn't get turned on without going through Rove," says Adam Sharp, an aide to Landrieu. "It was clear that Rove was the point person for the White House on this disaster."


That fact was proven precisely by what Vitter had done and said at the press conference. "As soon as Vitter said he had just gotten off the phone with Rove and other Republican officials," Landrieu says, "he started in on the first talking point to come out of the ordeal. I said to myself, 'Oh my God, I can't believe the White House has already given David Vitter talking points to talk about this.' We weren't going to blame anyone. We weren't going to blame the president. I mean, is there a Republican talking point for how to get people water? But that was Karl Rove."
Read the excerpt (the final graph is especially damning) here.
post #2 of 8
Pretty sensational writing, but I guess appropriately angry. History will not be kind, either.
post #3 of 8
Thread Starter 
It seems that as these news byte stories come and go so quickly (ex: Rev. Wright dominating the dem nominee race by a large margin, statistically), people at large have been conditioned to say "it's in the past, forget about it." But Katrina is still a very fresh, festering wound and an important story. I don't think a true time line of events that created this situation has really been brought to light like this.
post #4 of 8
It's truly frightening how short the average American attention span is on something like this, truly frightening.
post #5 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlybird View Post
It's truly frightening how short the average American attention span is on something like this, truly frightening.
That fact is an absolute necessity for the way of how politics, popular attention and media focus are intended to work.
If the attention span was longer, you couldnt run a country the way its run right now.
I am not saying its all that much better in the rest of the world. History shows us that us Euros are usually just 8-10 years behind in this regard, so I fully expect a similar media-blitz and ADD-syndrome to hit countries over here in the next couple of years.

Its sad, but too many jobs, too much money and too much power relies on this short attention span.
post #6 of 8
Thread Starter 
Except that they airwaves are public. We own them. They use them. And when it becomes solely profit that drives them, with no advocate for the people who own them (meaning all Americans), a democratic republic ceases to function. The media should serve to inform the public in a trustworthy manner. Just because we're used to it doesn't mean it's the right way for the media to operate.

I am hoping that if a democrat takes office (GO OBAMA!) he will address the great disparity between the public good and corporate profit vis a vis the media.
post #7 of 8
Well, I dont want to drag this into a discussion about democracy itself, but one of the most important implied basic concepts of democracy is the ability of the voter to actually make an informed decision.
Of course, one can say its a democracy just by the simple fact you have elections etc., but the basic IDEA behind it is that the people voting for or against something/someone do have the information they need to make that decision in their own interest, and do have the inclination to inform themselves.

I would make a bold statement and claim that the media, no matter whether its print, television or radio, or even flyers given out on the streets, is about the only source of information in a globalized world that can give access to enough information to make these decisions.
Information is power, and I would venture a guess and say that the very day democracy was born, those in power started to try and affect peoples views in their favor.

At the very base of any kind of reform of the US election system, or actually the democracy in its current shape, lies the necessity of changing the way the media works, and has to work.
I mean, its not like they are all part of a huge conspiracy to keep people in the dark, so they vote the way they are supposed to. Its about viewers, numbers, hard cash, and we, the people, pay them to feed us shit. We like shit. We may realize it is shit, granted, but its the same majority that decides elections which loves the shit they are being fed, and they crave more... because reality just doesnt taste as well as shit.

In the end, with my limited outside view, I think you guys are fighting at two fronts there:
On one, against a media that has little choice but skew reality more and more in the everlasting quest for viewership and money, but is the primary source of the information so vital to a democracy
On the other against a government that in multiple important areas is an extension of private corporate interests, which in return are a large part of the economic state of your country.

At times, I am quite happy in europe in this regard I would hate to live in the american economical system.
post #8 of 8
Thread Starter 
It's a snake eating its own tail, Khaunshar, but not because we like shit. There are laws in this country to prevent the kind of monopolies we have today but since Reagan and the Greed is Good mentality of the '80s and '90s, there's little decency left in Washington. Only the desire to gain and protect huge wads of money and ungodly power, and to hide the machinations of the two-headed monster of corporate interest and corporatized government from an increasingly dumbed down populace.

Alexis de Tocqueville studied democracy and hypothesized that the only thing that could bring it to its knees was a coopted press, and that's what we're looking at. We don't like shit, but for vast swaths of the country that's all that's on the menu.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Campaign mode prevails over stranded, desperate Americans in New Orleans