Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/7/2005 12:05:12 PM EDT
There have been several folks quite publicly stating that Bush is purposefully handling the New Orleans tragedy as slowly as possible in order to punish the predominately black population, or that were a city predominately white had such an event occur, help would be on its way quicker.

What will happen to back up their statements is that the next time a tragedy occurs like this in another city, and our response is far better coordinated after evaluating what happened at N.O., they'll be enraged about the improved help. While lessons learned from this tragedy will likely be used to help ensure more rapid and practical help for future events, N.O. is turning into a political quagmire from angry folks who aren't thinking clearly.

The old saw from detective stories is solving a crime is like a three-legged stool. To support your conclusions, you have to show means, motive and opportunity. Let's consider the battle of New Orleans on that grounds, and see how well the arguments about Bush's supposed racist foot dragging hold up.

This is certainly an opportune moment for Bush to let a large chunk of Democratic voters be washed away. Never before has a large urban area been so effected as New Orleans in such a dramatic fashion. So this is certainly the right time for such perpetrations to occur. Hard to argue with that one.

Bush certainly has the means to try and alter the speed with which support could be provided. So how, then, would he go about doing so? Ordering the military to stand down instead of ordering them to N.O.? Hm, that would require someone recieving such an order. Maybe he could order FEMA to divert their assistance? No, that seems to have gone ok as well. Additionally, both decisions would likely require conspirators in on his plans on a large enough scale that someone would have blabbed by now. Perhaps the orators who suggest he is not helping enough think that he is simply not providing enough help instead? That's a much discussed and voided argument, though, as any reader of this blog would know. We are now left curious as to the means Bush would use in his efforts. Perhaps a team of Ninjas were used to cause mayhem in the preparations that the military was doing?

Ah, the tricky mystery writers always craft a motive sinister yet plausible. So where then is Bush's motive for being a racist foot dragger? Is it in punishing a voting block that tends to vote Democratic? Louisiana has voted for Bush in two straight elections. But most urban areas tend to vote Democratic. So the city itself then would be subject to some particular isolation or torment. Instead we see that all along the gulf coast area, cities are all slow in recieving assistance. New Orleans being the size it is merely is sticking out like a sore thumb due to numbers.
Perhaps Bush doesn't like Black people or minorities in general then? Maybe. He certainly speaks Spanish enough for the Hispanic voting block on a regular basis, though. His attempts at putting together a diverse cabinet have generated plenty of ridicule from some racial groups as to their representatives true makeup. The length of time that he's been in politics for such a charge to finally come to a head would be an atypical to say the least as well--or is it he's only NOW becoming a racist?
Realistically, of course, let's look at what Bush has to gain by being guilty of the accusations. First, he's reached his limit for getting elected President and after this term is going to be out of politics for the most part. Second, a large chunk of voters who probably didn't vote him are now being spread across other states, where undoubtedly more than a few will settle. The surrounding areas are generally more staunchly conservative in their voting patterns, so that's not something that would be in his interest for his party's future. Third, there would have to be a significant amount of deaths in the voting group to be effective of any politcal means. That isn't likely considering voting statistics in general. The folks who would most likely have stayed and been killed are unfortunately not a significant portion of the voting block. Next, what benefit would he derive from such actions on a national level? The slow response would be looked on poorly by most people. That will reflect on him as a result, and the trickle down to his party would likely not be beneficial either. The amount of death and destruction that have occured will not put a positive mark on his ratings in any case, and were there to be the slightest hint of subterfuge or underhandedness on his part, Bush would certainly be called before the Senate for an impeachment.
In short, I can see NO political gain that could result from such actions on Bush's part.

So now, dear reader, do the three parts add up for you? And how so?
Top Top