Gerald Abrahamson wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:44:04 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On Jul 2, 8:24 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I think a good argument can be made that anyone still supporting
George Bush after Katrina is a borderline nutjob.
Why? Because he saw it as what it was - a CITY's mess by CITY
officials allowing construction below sea level on a sea front in a
hurricane zone, and a CITY's role to pick up the pieces after rather
than a president being some sort of national mayor for a failed city
in which 1/4 of its cops didn't turn out during Katrina because they
were "ghost employees" and other cops were videotaped looting?

It wasn't a problem *until* GWB. The US has owned the entire
area for more than 200 years before 2005, and the city of
New Orleans existed before the US bought the Louisiana
Territory. So, what changed between 2004 and 2005 to
suddenly shift the responsibility of protecting cities
within the continental US from the federal govt to the city?
On 9/11, people living in the US attacked and damaged cities
in the US. Therefore, 9/11 was the cities' fault because the
cities were not prepared to prevent those disasters.

The difference is the entitlement mindset of NOLA who sat on their asses
expecting the federal government to be first responders. The NO cops
were awol and looting instead of doing disaster response.
Since then, the Midwest has seen horrible flooding and blizzards that
damaged many more homes than Katrina, but you heard hardly a peep out of
them. They took care of their own, and requested federal assistance for
what they could not handle.
The feds under GWB did what I would expect them to do, back up the
first responders. But there weren't any, and that's somehow GWB's
personal failure.