The Redundant Speech
The much more politically adept bloggers are writing today about Bush's speech last night, about Karl Rove's new leadership position, and how restoring the Gulf Coast has become a feast for the Republican agenda.
The speech, despite its lack of specifics, struck me as also being exceptionally redundant.
A few examples:
(1)Bush's directive to DHS to assess the evacuation and preparedness plans for every major city has already been part of DHS's mandate. Under various orders, and its own strategy assessment, this is one reason why DHS exists. One explanation for the new directive is simply that they haven't done it yet. Another likely reading is that many localities have already given to DHS their plans (as a requirement for funding), but DHS (and FEMA) haven't had the time or inclination to assess them -- as required by law.
(2)Bush's directive to every cabinet official to assess how they responded to the Hurricane Katrina tragedy was also a repeat. First, this was the purpose of DHS in the first place; by statute, it is to assess the government's overall "response strategy". Everything that I have read to date suggests not that they had plans -- and that they were ignored -- but that the overall government strategy did not exist.
(3)Bush's odd reference to more military capacity (a thought, as Josh notes, that Bush didn't carry through to any conclusion) in the event of a total loss of civilian response capabilities isn't new either. That is why Northern Command was created in 2003 in the first place, a command structure that shouldn't be, on its face, too alarming. Nobody is urging martial law; NORTHCOM's leadership would always be under civilian control. But, NORTHCOM was established for the scenario we saw these last few weeks. As Josh notes, there was no "authority" problem; just incompetence or failure to plan what should have been planned for. The military has always, in every response planning scenario, been part of the thinking -- whether as support or as lead agency in the event, say, of a nuclear attack. Nothing new there.
It's clear, after the response disaster of Hurrican Katrina, that whatever the government was directed to do, it hadn't done to date. I'm not sure how a speech would change that; especially since many of the previous directives were codified by law (rather than by mere primetime speech).
In any event, the fact that much of the speech had a lot of redundancies suggests that the Hurrican Katrina disaster could have been avoided had we been as prepared as we required ourselves, as a nation, to be.
So, when we talk about accountability, it isn't to put blame on people who couldn't have planned for the unimaginable (like an alien invasion). It is to hold agencies accountable for their failure to not implement the very imaginable.
A poster over at dKos put up a diary about dear leader's shirt. Now this may be a petty thing, but since last night's address was essentially a photo-op to reassure America about Bush's leadership ability, it's worth pointing out that somehow, the pres went on national (international?) television with his shirt misbuttoned.
Like I said, it may be petty to point this out, but given the importance of last night's speech, it strikes me as hilarious.
September 16, 2005 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
One could say that a post about the redundancy and pointlessness of a GWB speech is, by definition, redundant and pointless, but a nice job nonetheless.
September 16, 2005 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It reminds me of a skit from the old Monty Python's Flying Circus show...The Department of Rendundancy.
What a vacuous speech our president delivered last night. He was more concerned about pushing a conservative agenda then he was for helping people. I am not saying that he doesn't want to help people but he took his failure as a leader as an opportunity to push an agenda.
All the points you make are right on the money Juliette. But he chose to ignore one of the biggest failings...how the GOP's "starve the beast" budget cuts severely affected the government's response. But he decided to blame the bureaucrats in the agencies, whose budgets he decimated, instead.
We got "more of the same" from Bush when we needed (in the spirit of Monty Python) a "and now for something completely different" moment.
And from what I read on Brian Williams' blog (off a link Josh provided on The Mother Ship) the speech didn't play well in the areas hit by Katrina...
September 16, 2005 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this photo and article from BrainBus about Bush's speech last night. I think it says it all:
PRESIDENT BUSH PULLED OVER AFTER SPEECH!
<img border="0" src="http://www.brainbus.com/images/bushdrunk.jpg">
New Orleans, LA-- After delivering his address on reconstructing New Orleans, President George Bush was stopped by the Louisiana State Police last night.
"We had no choice," said Louisiana State Police Officer Orville Poncheton. "His speech was slurred. He had a glazed look in his eyes. Half the things he said made no sense. And did you see how his mouth was hanging open?"
Mayor Nagin and the Chief of Police agreed. "He may be the President of the United States," said Mayor Nagin. "But when a man gets up in public and says the things this guy said last night, you know he's not in his right mind. I mean, he appointed Karl Rove to oversee the reconstruction. Karl Rove! That's like appointing Joseph Goebels to oversee the reconstruction of Poland."
The President refused the breathalyzer test. He is being held without bail and is expected to be arraigned today. The White House Counsel does not foresee any problems getting President Bush out, however.
September 16, 2005 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Here's the rest of the "Bush Busted" piece:
"Of course, we're going to claim 'executive privilege'," said Alberto Gonzales, Chief of White House Counsel. "I mean, if the President's not allowed to get drunk, who is? But if that doesn't work, there's always the insanity plea. No one's going to fight us on that."
September 16, 2005 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
underneath everything else, we must never forget that we are witnessing a united states president who has exhibited time after distressing time a complete lack of leadership, an absence of compassion, and not even trace amounts of humanity... effective leadership wouldn't have prevented katrina but it certainly would have been able to mitigate its effects... instead, the focus has been on consolidating absolute power for the r's and starving the federal government to the point where the concept of the "common good" has lost all relevance... i am exhausted from 5 years of outrage... i no longer find it useful to rage against these bastards... what i really want is action... mommy, make the bad man stop...
September 16, 2005 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Condi wasn't there (remember the photo from last year of her brushing off his shoulder before he went before the cameras?)
September 16, 2005 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have to wonder what would have happened if Bush had read the riot act to his staff and Secretaries and then told the nation what was step one and then what he would do to get it to work right. We pay our taxes to get a service and it was not delivered, that's what he needs to see gets fixed.
In the corporate world they love to reorganize and draw up new plans when as you point out they can avoid all that energy and just get down to doing things correctly. Doing it right (emergency management and response) can start tomorrow.
What will be new is the rebuilding and Karl Rove has nothing to qualify him to lead.
September 16, 2005 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything about this seems redundant to me. What worries me most -- though I may be premature with this judgment about the response to the speech last night -- is the "redundancy" on the part of the left which continues to be critical while remaining fragmented and unable to call a spade a spade. Am I wrong? Will we stop him this time? Will we finally get it right? Or should we be talking less about what's coming from Bush (it's the same old story of coming corruption and politicization), and more about whether the left is responding effectively this time to his continuing failures and cover-ups?
As for photo-ops, seen this portrait of adolescent gloom posted by Billmon?
September 16, 2005 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything that I have read to date suggests not that they had plans -- and that they were ignored -- but that the overall government strategy did not exist.
Sure - I think the key, as I understand it, is that Chertoff was empowered to declare "an incident of national significance" by the National Response Plan right after he received the report from the National Hurricane Center - two days before Katrina struck the Gulf. And he did not need a Governor's request or a Presidential order to mobilize for the disaster. After the storm landed, Chertoff delayed the "national signifiance" further (36 hours) because Bush was taking guitar lessons in San Diego and wanted to hold a special Katrina meeting the next day in DC - which undermined the National Response Plan.
So yes...the plan was ignored...and an alternative response plan did not exist until after the meeting in the White House (presumably).
September 16, 2005 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. For one thing, the president shouldn't be giving 800 numbers and URLs on television. He's got people to do that.
At the end, when he was talking about jazz funerals, he had this look on his face as if he'd never seen one and had no idea what he was talking about. You generally pick big images like that only if you can connect to them and speak about them knowingly.
I was surprised to see Bush observe that the poverty in the region was, in itself, a tragedy that predates Katrina.
But, honestly, I really want to see the speech Clinton would have delivered. He would have known how to hit every note just right and he would have known how to empathize. Bush is still smirking all of the time. No matter what he says, the look on his face just screams "Better you than me." A guy like Clinton, and I admit that this is largely artifice, has the uncanny ability, without a word, to convey the message, "it could have been me, or you, or you, or you, you, and you." Like I said, that's artifice, but it's important because a lot of people in the country are worried about just that -- it could have been me or a person I love. Bush just can't get something like that across because he really lacks empathy.
September 16, 2005 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really!
Like who's control are we talking about? Haley "treat 'em ruthlessly" Barbour? Chertoff the Jailer?
Or perhaps, Juliette "shoot-to-kill" Kayyem? (didn't think I remembered that one?) Ok, I apologize for that snark, but don't you see this pattern emerging throughout all of Bush's reign of terror?
The military (or any nationalized police force like FEMA or the local cops) has to obey his commands. No arguments, just suck it up and carry out the mission.
Doesn't it make you the least bit suspicious of this administration, every speech, photo-op or public flacking for his policies done in front of State Patrols or military units? Any other "public" meeting has to be with a scrutinized, sanitized crowd of Republicans that have signed loyalty oaths? No other persons allowed in, ejected by faceless goons from the RNC impersonating Secret Service agents.
What is there about this type of "redundancy" that shouldn't scare us? Does he need to dress up in a banana republic dictator outfit before we begin to get the drift?
Oh, I forgot....It's not Fascism when we do it.
Notrol
September 16, 2005 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) The Presidential response to the Katrina disaster is key, and the paramount fact. I think most Americans, in their heart of hearts, know that it is a fact, not opinion, that GWB could have (and should have) done much more, given his position and power, but statements about the president's beliefs--"...doesn't care about black people," "...wanted to see government fail"--are weak and serve to dilute the crystal clear fact of this situation: the President chose not to act.
2) The President was negligent, not "incompetent". When you say it was either "incompetence, or a failure to plan," you give them the out they always get. Incompetence is easily played into a matter of opinion by this administration. They were negligent, and specifically he was negligent. He alone ultimately had the power and authority to act to save lives and move supplies to where they were needed. He chose not to. He neglected to appoint competent managers to positions entrusted with the safety and security of Americans.
3) This is the first time in his Presidency that GWB has been so clearly and demonstrably negligent. The starkness of his negligence is not subtle.
4) Whether or not you believe that GWB is "in charge" of his administration, he is the one that must be held accountable for his actions and inactions. There appear to be endless loyalists who will fall on their swords for him. Between a never ending supply of scapegoats and his ability to muddle every issue to the point where no meaningful public argument can take place (and by public, I mean outside the blogosphere, where people of all stripes will take notice), the President is his own brand of Teflon.
5) That's it, I guess. The man at the top is the man you hold to account. We must assume he makes all the choices, because they are all, ultimately, his responsibility. I say we assume there's no such thing as an incompetent sitting president. Incompetence is inert. He's either taking action to the good of our country, or he is negligent in his responsibilities.
September 16, 2005 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
3) This is the first time in his Presidency that GWB has been so clearly and demonstrably negligent. The starkness of his negligence is not subtle.
In hindsight, at least, Bush's neglicence about Al-Quaeda was equally stunning, but because it was successfully bottled up, and released in dribs and drabs, it was a little more difficult to see.
But the larger point about how to frame Bush's failure is convincing. All sorts of people seem to have been incompetent in one way or another, including the NO mayor and LA governor: making the issue incompetence just shifts the ground to "who blew it the worst".
But neither the mayor nor the governor stayed on vacation and went fund-raising for 4 days as the disaster loomed, struck, and spread.
Bush's choice to ignore the situation far too long is clear, visible and understandable to everyone. Keep pointing it out! "Negligence" captures it well.September 17, 2005 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink