Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
This is completely meaningless tripe, and borderline tautological - it's like saying "Bush's response was inadequate because it was not enough" or something similar.
Remember - you're using a personal definition of "slow" or "appropriate" that is based in, as far as I know, absolutely zero professional or specialized knowledge. Bush is disagreeing, based on both professional/specialized knowledge, and an offsetting personal bias. Which one is showing more "nerve"? Or are they basically doing the same thing?
I mean, feel free to judge the man's actions from afar, but it's kind of silly to act like he has "some nerve" when you're assigning to him actions/results/etc. that are, as DrPhil has noted, only marginally within his control (or are largely out of his control). That seems awkward to me.
|
So you believe and Brownie and his minions did a great job with Katrina? Adequate job? What? And that only those with professional/specialized knowledge are entitled to an opinion which is not "meaningless tripe"? As far as I know, you have no professional/specialized knowledge in this area, so does your response now count as nothing? I would be interested in what criteria you are using in defending the response to Katrina. Maybe you have some information I do not, and that would inform my opinion. I doubt it, but am always open to having to change my opinion. We are perhaps using a different definition of "adequate" for the federal response.
Bush specified one very isolated aspect of the federal response to the disaster, and wants us to believe that it is representative. Given the reams of coverage of Katrina - before, during and after - I'd say that anyone who wanted to judge the federal government's response has plenty of information with which to make an informed decision. The most telling fact is that here we are, years later, and the levees are still in danger of failing again, residents are still not able to return, and the city is still suffering. No, Bush is not responsible in the sense that he made every decision, but he is in the sense that he appointed those who were. The buck stops with him. He was certainly ready to take credit for the response to 9/11.
As to whether or not professional/specialized knowledge is required to judge the federal government's actions, I'd have to defer to C.S. Lewis, who famously said that the problem with allowing only those in a field to judge is that you then have to decide the criteria for who is entitled to an opinion. I don't have specialized/professional knowledge in foreign affairs, or finance, or a host of other aspects of the government. That does not mean I am not fully able to judge the actions of my elected representatives. Using your logic, almost none of us should be able to have an opinion regarding almost anything other than our limited professional/specialized field of knowledge.
eta - back on topic, at least somewhat - what do you think will be the final overall verdict on Bush? I'd predict it will be a mixed bag - that history will give him credit for some things he did well that are currently not being discussed much, but his handling of Iraq will be negatively viewed. That's my meaningless, tripey opinion.