home

Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis?

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 01:55:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The AP has an article on Bush's legacy, which it says will be defined by three crises: September 11, Hurricane Katrina and the War in Iraq.

Katrina's lethal aftermath revealed that the Bush administration didn't learn valuable lessons from the 2001 attacks about responding to disasters. As for the president himself, since the Sept. 11 terror strikes, Bush seems to have lost his touch for connecting with an anxious public.

As to September 11:

Back in August 2001, Bush was seven months into his presidency and trying to figure out why his job approval rating had declined by up to 10 percentage points since his inauguration. Voters still didn't know much about Bush, and were getting restless.

On Aug. 6, he was given a secret document warning that al-Qaida hoped to attack the United States with hijacked airplanes. Delivered to his Texas ranch, the memo referred to evidence of terrorists possibly casing buildings in New York. Critics now accuse Bush of not making terrorism a priority before Sept. 11. Supporters say he could not have prevented the attacks.

Bush's legacy, as defined by the poll numbers:

_Two-thirds of the public think he could have done more to help Katrina's victims. More than half say he deserves blame for the slow response.

_Fewer than half say Bush has strong leadership qualities, down from 63 percent in October 2004.

_More than half say they don't trust Bush's judgment in a crisis.

And then there's Iraq.....Six in 10 are telling pollsters the U.S. should cut back spending on Iraq to help pay for relief and recovery from Katrina. Almost that many favor a partial withdrawal of troops from Iraq to help with storm damage.

Can Bush lead in a time of crisis? More and more people are saying he can't. And that may be his enduring legacy - that of a President who failed to lead.

< Displaced NOLA Students Stabbed in Boston | Senate Kills Proposal For Independent Katrina Investigation >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? | 28 comments (28 topical)
    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Bush has shown that he can lead. Lead us straight off a cliff into a huge tub of sewage.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? Haw! Haw!

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Whether he can or can't, let's hope he and we aren't faced with any similar tests any time soon...

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    'scuse me? ^ ^ O O | ^

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    From the post:
    Critics now accuse Bush of not making terrorism a priority before Sept. 11. Supporters say he could not have prevented the attacks.
    Outside of placing a 24/7 fighter shield around all major cities, there was little that could be done with the knowledge that an attack was planned, and that it might involve attacks on buildings. What we know he did do is contained in two parts. The first from Richard Clarke:
    CLARKE: In the first week in February, decided on principle, in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy, and to increase CIA resources, for example for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda. And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda."
    Link But he did have Condi Rice do this:
    At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."
    Link Leadership? Rapid elimination. Funding up five fold. Alerted all agencies to expect an attack. What else would you have him do?

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#6)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Bush shooting for the stars is now revealed to be merely Bush shooting off his mouth. What he would like to be and what he is present two starkly different visions. No doubt the viewer's political orientation will govern whether they see Bush as a dream come true with a few clouds now overhead or as nightmare growing darker by the minute.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    What else would you have him do?
    Go home...

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Jim:
    you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda...to kind of catapult the propaganda...to kind of catapult the propaganda...to kind of catapult the propaganda...to kind of catapult the propaganda...
    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#9)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    What more could Bush do? Maybe stopping taking five week long vacations would be a start. Leadership is not typified by that old slogan: When the going gets tough, the tough take off. Acting for something is leadership, acting on ideas is leadership, acting like a leader is not the same as being a leader. Bush has had plenty of chances to show his stuff. He can't blame anybody else for blowing them.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    The Heretik - And what would have been accomplished? He had set in movement a new strategy and he had alerted the agencies repsonsible. Let's face the music and be truthful. You dislike Bush. Fine. But don't expect others to not understand your position. On the other hand, you can dispute my two links. edger - See my comment to Heretik. et al - The truth sure sets you guys off.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Jim: See my comment to Heretik. I did... I didn't need to though. Like my comments on this subject, yours too are predictable. ;-)

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Kevin: Bush has shown that he can lead. Half the country. Down the proverbial garden path.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Ahhh yes, we should ALL get our news from faux news;-) 9/11 - bush reads "My Pet Goat" for 7 minutes AFTER being told America is under attack, and then hides for 3 days and lies about it. iraq war - Attack a country that had no means to harm the US, but a heck of a lot of oil. Anyone else remember 'greeted with flowers', 'pay for itself', '6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months' Schiavo - interrupted middle of vacation to fly back to DC to sign legislation to prolong the suffering of a a woman with a gooey liquid center. Katrina - Stayed on vacation. Said 'no one thought the levees would break' 5 days after they did. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" Jeebus, the list goes on and on.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#14)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    During the invasion of Graneda, a US troop had to use his calling card to call the US. His base commander then had to call the Navy, to direct fire. The military has never let that happen again. All US forces can now communicate with each other. During 9/11, first responders could not communicate with each other. Many died as a result. We were told that the government would standardize the frequencies for first responders, just like the military had done long before. Hurricane Katrina. First responders resort to looting a circuit city store for satellite phones. Does the mayor control the US airwaves? Who supplies the federal responders with communication gear? The govenor of LA.? Why would I ever blame the Commander in Chief of the federal government? I must just irrationally hate Bush.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    PPJ...do you think the response would have been any better if terrorists took out the levees, rather than a hurricane? Let's face it, we are no more prepared for an attack today than we were 4 years ago. That much has recently been made obvious and that's why the poll numbers are cratering for Bush right now.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Jim, lying with IMPUNITY: "Outside of placing a 24/7 fighter shield around all major cities, there was little that could be done with the knowledge that an attack was planned, and that it might involve attacks on buildings." • So what Jim is claiming is that WARNING the airlines to increase their security checks would not have had an impact on their handling of the hijackings? That's patently absurd. • Jim claims that by raising FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration alertness levels all steps that could be taken, were. What about the Air Force. Gee, you think it might be a good idea to keep a few more than TWO fighter jets on standby? It's patently absurd. • Jim further states: "Leadership? Rapid elimination. Funding up five fold. Alerted all agencies to expect an attack. What else would you have him do?" Actually exert sufficient leadership to MAKE SURE THEY DID IT, just like Bush could have exerted sufficient leadership to make sure Brown did the job he was suited for -- estate planner, instead of a job he was SPECTACULARLY BAD AT. But no. Leadership? Not on the lives of the 3,000 Americans Bush's five-week vacation DOOMED. No planning for the occupation. Leadership? Not on the lives of the 1900 dead US soldiers. Leadership? VACATION, smirking, idiots in charge, no oversight, no planning, sitting on his hands while people die of dehydration, or have to jump from windows to their deaths.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    PIL - I grow weary of your potty mouth, but given your comments I doubt that there is anything I can say that would do you more harm than you do yourself. Ernie - And your point is? It is time you understand a few things, like the man says in this Link.
    The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne." For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.
    Now would it be quicker if terrorists blew up the levees? Again, as the man says in the link:
    Journalists complain that it took a whole week to do this. A former Air Force logistics officer had some words of advice for us in the Fourth Estate on his blog, Moltenthought: "We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort were studying engineering.
    But it would likely be quicker because there would not be the secondary problems of no power, roads out, etc., and the problem would be localized rather than spread out over 90,000 acres across three states. Ernie, do you ever try to look at things in a logical manner, or do you just parrot what you read and hear? Roger - Would you actually try and tell me that it is the President's duty to insure proper communication equipment is supplied? And tell us. Who are the "first responders," and do we really want to plug them into the total network?

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#18)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Jim, Communication reform was a stated goal of the admin after 9/11 and was part of the reorganization of FEMA. First responders would include police, firefighters and ambulance crews. Would I want them all on the same grid? Doesn't matter. Like I said, that was one of W's main promises.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Would you actually try and tell me that it is the President's duty to insure proper communication equipment is supplied?
    It's funny how people on the right (even those who call themselves "social liberals") are forever screaming about how the left is too soft on the idea of "personal responsibility" - all those welfare moms and deadbeat dads shirking their responsibilities drive the right wingers crazy. But beware - Right wing double standards are afoot! Because when it comes to one of their own people taking responsibility for screw ups, the whole idea of responsibility goes out of the window. Believe it or not, there once was a time when the people who were in charge actually accepted responsibility for the actions of their subordinates, rather than ducking it and diverting it. A serious screw up by a subordinate was most definitely grounds for resignation. Of course, all this was back in the good ol' days when the men who were leaders actually acted like men, rather than spineless cowards. Remember "The Buck Stops Here"? Remember the days when the people at the top were concerned about something larger than merely keeping their sweaty grasp on power by any and all means necessary? Now I'm an old-fashioned kind of chap, and I would describe this concept as "honour" (or "honor" for our foreign readers). Nowadays of course, it's OK to lie, dissemble and duck the blame. "Honour" is strictly for losers, since the only thing that matters is hanging onto POWER. But cast your mind back a while. I know you are old enough to remember those days Jim. There once was a time when leaders acted with dignity. When they were unwilling to sacrifice their honour for something as tawdry and tarnished as mere political convenience. When the sh*t hit the fan, they accepted that, even if they may not have been directly responsible, they were, nonetheless ultimately responsible. Honour demands nothing less. In the old days, the man who shamed and dishonoured himself was usually handed a loaded revolver and left alone in a room to... "do the decent thing". Would that the same were true nowadays...

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Well, in my eyes he is 0 for 2. Let's hope he doesn't have the opportunity to hit the trifecta.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Ian - It seems to me that Bush, and now Blanco, have said they accept the blame for the various failures. That is well and good. But it doesn't address the question, which simply is, what the role of a President, or a Governor is. Saying that Bush is responsible for first responders' radio equipment is, of course, laughable. Saying that he is responsible for Brown's actions is closer, but even there, in today's world, how much supervision can one person do? I call your attention to the two links I provided, both of which you appear to have ignored. The first, a quotation from Richard Clarke, demostrates Bush giving direction, most likely through Rice, for a huge increase in dollars and focus on terrorism. The second, again through Rice on 7/5/2001, was to put the various agencies on notice that an attack was expected. What else should he have done? Gone on TV and scared the American public half to death? Let me ask. How big a horse laugh do you think the NYT and company would have given him? And when 9/11 did happen, do you remember how quickly the Left attacked? I do. Have you heard of Ward Churchill? Did you follow his comments? And when you critcize Bush over Katrina, have you even sat down and looked at a map to understand the depth of the problem? Have you even tried to understand the logistics? Are you aware that the NG was on the scene faster in NO than in the Hurrican Andrew situation? Do you really understand that we have a republic? First the city, then the state and then the feds. That is how it works, Ian. And the mayor and the governor failed.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    blockquote>First the city, then the state and then the feds. That is how it works...And the mayor and the governor failed... They did... for lack of timely resources. And the man who is ultimately responsible for leading the team that supervises FEDERAL disaster relief and response, is so weak kneed and has so little honor, that his #1 priority, and the priority of his supporters, is to try to use the death of ordinary people, and the state and local failures, as an opportunity to strengthen his power and authority while at the same time shifting blame and evading responsibility. This man Bush, is a cheap, cowardly, self serving, deceitful, and dishonorable little man. His time is up, his supporters know it in their bones, and will say and do anything to try to stop the bleeding. At the very least, he is in his final term, and cannot be re-elected, and will remain the lamest of lame ducks. Hopefully he will be replaced by a "true" statesman, from either party. One who honorably accepts and embraces the responsibility that goes hand in hand with the authority of the office.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    edger: Half the country. Down the proverbial garden path. Well, duh. The second half of what I said, which you left off: Lead us straight off a cliff into a huge tub of sewage.

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#25)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Jim, You really need to pay attention. Nobody said that W should actually purchase radio equip. The federal gov't actually wouldnt do that either. What W is responsible for, through the FCC, is to ASSIGN a standard frequency. Of course, I am pretty sure that you knew that. Cute

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#26)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    Jim says: "how much supervision can one person do" Judging from Brownies qualifications, the answer would be "none". Great argument Jim, I expect from my President, the "Commander in Chief", - absolutely nothing Are you sure that W can live up to that standard?

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    The bleeding just won't stop... Raw Story has this headline this morning: Homeland Security warned Diebold of electronic voting flaw in 2004 prior to presidential election... Developing... Homeland Security? Bush's own pride 'n Joy?? Prior to 2004 election???

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#28)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    It seems to me that a lot of the screw-ups in our govt are the result of a lack of communication. How in the hell, in this day and age of cell phones, email, tv, radio, walkie talkies, the communication age, can communication be a problem? My thoughts are that the damn burocracy of our govt is so thick that our own f'in leaders dont know who to freakin talk to. Govt just grows and puts important things under some sort of f'in committee and subcommittee and blah blah blah to where nobody even knows who is in charge short of the muthalovin prezdnt. Serenity now!!!! GOOSEFRABA!!!! goosefraba...goosefraba...gooooossefraaaabaaaaa

    Re: Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    PPJ:
    Ernie, do you ever try to look at things in a logical manner, or do you just parrot what you read and hear?
    This coming from someone who repeats wingnut talking points for months after they have been discredited. I am amused. PPJ...if you actually spend more than a second thinking about this...it becomes obvious that the scenario had been well known. Remember Hurricane Pam? A simple question for the author of your link: given that New Orleans was a far different case than any of the others he cites (thousands of people trapped in massive flooding) why the hell is he comparing apples to oranges and why the hell wasn't a special plan designed to deal with it? One that included the capability for a rapid response on the massive scale that was known would be needed?? Try thinking about that PPJ, and try answering it without resorting to a so-called expert making bogus comparisons.

    Can Bush Can Lead in Time of Crisis? | 28 comments (28 topical)