Yes and No

I am not going to join in on the chorus of people criticizing the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. There were mistakes made, sure, but it's dangerous to ever let ourselves believe any government is going to do everything perfectly, every time. The storm was a big one, and in all fairness, it didn't look like it was going to be as big as it was until shortly before it reached landfall.

Bear in mind what my mother reported from Miami, when Katrina was only a Category 1 storm: "Everyone is shocked," she wrote, "at the amount of damage done by this small Cat. 1 hurricane. They are saying that the damage looks more like a Cat. 3 or 4." The storm then lost strength as it traveled over the peninsula and, as experts had predicted, it got stronger again once it reached open water in the Gulf of Mexico. But I don't believe anyone predicted it would gain that much strength--and by the time it did, it was almost on top of everyone already. There was enough time, really, for only one thing: to order the evacuation of New Orleans and get everybody out. Every effort had to bend toward that goal; then as the storm came on, really the only thing anyone can do is batten down the hatches and wait till it's over. Then there were the living to help, but the living numbered in the tens of thousands, and no matter how much we might like to believe otherwise, it takes time to mobilize troops and get them in place.

Much as I hate to agree with anyone in this crummy administration, the argument that local authorities are always going to be the first responders in such a situation is absolutely right. And comparisons to September 11th (pause to reflect; and move on) aren't fair, because as horrible as that was, it was still pretty localized--if it hadn't been, my friend Ann who lived three blocks away would not still be alive. Hurricane Katrina affected the Gulf coasts of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, along with the major city of New Orleans. That's a huge territory to try and deal with all at once. So no: I will not jump on the backs of the administration for having been slow to respond. It was terrible watching those people suffer for all those days, but I refuse to use their misery to score cheap political points.

Particularly when there are plenty of political points to be scored that aren't at all cheap. President Bush, for example, demonstrated stunning political tone-deafness by trying to keep to his schedule that first day, by giving speeches on Social Security and picking up that idiotic guitar. (His version of Dukakis in the tank, if you ask me.) Having just seen again footage of that moment when Bush was informed that a second plane had flown into the World Trade Center, I think we definitively know now that Bush is not quick on his feet. To put it mildly. Which would be okay, really, if the people around him--like, say, the people in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency--were quick on their feet.

I know, I just got through with a long defense of why the federal response wasn't as awful as everyone's claiming. But at the same time, it was no model of efficiency, either. But here's what happens when you hire your pals to run important government agencies. I won't belabor what others have written about so well, but clearly Michael Brown has no business even being an employee at FEMA, let alone its director. But in George Bush's world, loyalty is valued above all else, and Michael Brown had worshipped at the Republican altar sufficiently to be rewarded. Whether or not his appointment constituted good governance was, clearly, never once considered.

But worst of all was all those years of neglect before the storm ever came. As I noted before, John McPhee wrote powerfully of New Orleans's vulnerability to a major storm in 1989, and it was old news even then. But even though the city and state--not to mention the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--had been pleading for money to reinforce the levee system, instead President Bush cut those funds. Why? Because he had a false war to pay for--and yes, I absolutely agree that those National Guardsmen should be at home defending their communities, and not overseas spilling their blood in a war of choice.

There's a new book called The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney. I haven't read it yet because it was only released two days ago, but I'm definitely interested because there seems to be a concerted effort by this administration in particular to dismiss science when it interferes with ideology. The warmer ocean water clearly contributed to Katrina's power, but Bush still insists that global warming is an unproven theory that needs "more study" (a few decades' more, if he could have his way). His U.S. Army Corps of Engineers knew the levee system could not stand up to a Category 4 storm, but he cut their funding because he needed the money for other, ideologically-driven purposes: tax cuts in a time of war; a war on the wrong people that only increases the national vulnerability to terrorism. And that's to say nothing of the utterly absurd "debate" over evolution.

As Salon writer Joe Conason asserts in a recent article (subscription required), Bush is unfit for command. Plain and simple. And the next three years look to be very long indeed.