In final press conference, Bush defends his legacy

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

It was slow in comparison to what would be an appropriate reaction to ANY national disaster.

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.

[DrPhil]

I really appreciate KSig RC.

[SWTXBelle]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

So you believe and Brownie and his minions did a great job with Katrina? Adequate job? What?

This is actually exactly what I'm railing against. Maybe I'm not being clear, so I'll explain further.

My basic point is twofold:

1 - You're assigning massive blame to Bush for something that was nearly entirely out of his control (in multiple senses, including: act of God, literally singular in nature/scope/scale, actions of others overrode his actual role, etc.); and

2 - You're hand-wringing without giving any context, which because of #1 brings us the problem with tautology (by this I mean, I'd prefer if we got into specifics instead of saying "too slow" or similar).

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

My comparison was between your opinion and Bush's stated opinion, which you seem to feel rather strongly about. My opinion of your opinion (LOL) is based in an education in formal logic, etc., so I would hardly call it "uninformed" but yes, my opinion of Katrina would largely be regurgitated from media reports and my own biases, and wouldn't add much to the conversation. Hence, I didn't give it.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't give yours - feel free.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

I mean, this is what I'm getting at - I'm sure there were mistakes made, and clearly it doesn't appear to be the most efficient from the outside, but I'm not sure why we expected a seamless operation out of a.) the Federal Government and b.) something that's never really happened before, ever.

In that regard, it seems silly to make sweeping judgment of the man.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

It's fair if you feel like this, but I respectfully think it's pie-in-the sky and not really true.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

I'm really not interested in telling you NOT to have an opinion, and if that's what you got from my previous post, well we're not really rowing the same boat.

[SWTXBelle]

No, you graciously allowed me to have an opinion, although you have tagged it as "meaningless tripe", but also made it quite clear that you regarded only opinions which come from those with professional/specialized knowledge as being worthwhile. I respectfully disagree.

I'm not going to hijack the thread with a discussion of Bush's role in the handling of Katrina, other than to say that my opinion is not an isolated one, and even some with professional/specialized knowlege have been critical of it. Bush directly addressed only one aspect of the federal response - the helicopters rescuing residents after the storm - and asked us to take that isolated aspect and let it be representative of the whole federal response. Is Bush trying to use synecdoche? I don't know. But if it is not fair to judge Bush for actions over which he did not have direct control, it is not fair for him to take credit for the same. That is one reason why I think he was "nervy".

eta - to get back on topic. Those of you who saw the press conference - what do you think of Bush's "defense"?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

No, you graciously allowed me to have an opinion, although you have tagged it as "meaningless tripe", but also made it quite clear that you regarded only opinions which come from those with professional/specialized knowledge as being worthwhile. I respectfully disagree.

Your sentence was meaningless because it lacked any substance, not because you're a layperson or whatever.

Your condemnation of Bush's statements is ironic given the lack of expertise - he's "nervy" for defending himself, but you're fine judging from afar, that was my point.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

eta - to get back on topic. Those of you who saw the press conference - what do you think of Bush's "defense"?

I found it refreshing to see an elected official have a sort of comfort with speaking from the hip - we don't often see these guys "unplugged" and given that Bush is an unusually poor public speaker for a President, he seemed markedly more comfortable than I would have expected.

Now, it was still awkward - obviously nowhere near 30,000 people were pulled off roofs, so he's still not exactly factually correct - but it kind of reinforced my image of Bush as a guy who I'd probably want to drink a beer with, someone who is most likely a Peter Principle victim to a certain extent but likely not the functional retard he's been portrayed as in certain places. Maybe that's how low the bar has been set, but I enjoyed it much more than I expected. It's not 'normal' charisma, but there's still a little there for GW, at least enough to see how he got where he is now.

[SWTXBelle]

I think that approachable, guy I'd like to have a beer with vibe is a big part of Bush's appeal. I know that in the Texas gubernatorial race he came off as Joe Six-Pack, which is quite a trick when you are born into the kind of privilege he was. He was a good governor, but the thing most of America does not know is that the governor of Texas is not a powerful position. I don't know that it is a sufficient indicator of executive ability. (Warning - personal general opinion follows) I initially was impressed by the team he assembled, but I fear that some of them did not live up to their potential. It may be that events did not play to his strengths.


I will be interested in hearing his final speech, when he gets to control his message more than in a press conference.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I think that approachable, guy I'd like to have a beer with vibe is a big part of Bush's appeal. I know that in the Texas gubernatorial race he came off as Joe Six-Pack, which is quite a trick when you are born into the kind of privilege he was.

Most politicians do this to some extent, especially at the higher levels of office. If you're in a position to run for the Presidency, you're probably not a "Joe Six-Pack," either because of your intelligence, your wealth, or both.

President-Elect Obama did a fantastic job of it during the election; he's a reasonably-wealthy, well-educated person who went to a private high school, and to talk to some people, they would tell you he's Joe Everyman. McCain did it as well during his campaign, trying to play down his wife's wealth. The fact is that there are very few people in the country who could truly relate to someone who is running for that high of an office.