One week after Hurricane Katrina, President Bush spoke to the nation in a well-choreagraphed address. But he didn't mention New Orleans recovery efforts in his last State of the Union. On Wednesday two years after the worst natural disaster in our nation's history did it's best to destroy a classic American city, President Bush helped a woman hang an American flag from the front of her new home. At another photo opp at Martin Luther King Elementary School, the President said, "This town is coming back. It's better than when Laura and I were here right after the storm. This town is better today than it was yesterday. And it's going to be better tomorrow than it was today."
Historian Douglas Brinkley of Tulane University, author of, "The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina," said on Hardball that a female student wanted to point out to the President that he wasn't here right after Katrina. He was here a week later. But good teachers teach fourth graders to be respectful. And the girl stayed quiet.
Kind of like the actions of governmental policies (federal, state & local) two years after the levies fell and New Orleans drowned.
Bush's motorcade passed scores of boarded up homes and businesses, some still with painted markngs left over from emergency worker's search for survivors and victims. The new house that the President posed in front of was one of the 10% of 70,000 destroyed homes that have been rebuilt. Two-thirds of New Orleans' population has not returned, and crime in the Cresent City is at an all-time high. The levies have been band-aided, but will require $40 million engineering project to really repair.
The President didn't mention moving that project ahead Wednesday, instead he asked Congress for $50 billion more for Iraq.
There is still plenty of government blame to go around post-Katrina. But polls point out that while the President said New Orleans is coming back, public confidence in the government's response may not. And while all second term presidents slump in popularity, Bush's approval rate was at 49% before Katrina (two years into Iraq) and has sunk to 29% today. It has been washed away.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/29/opinion/pollpositions/main3216082.shtml
Brinkley's analysis of inactions post-Katrina are linked here. Bureaucratic red tape and governments at the federal, state and local levels all get blame. the important thing, Brinkley says, is for America to decide whether the current policy of inaction is reallythe way we want to deal with the worst natural disaster in our nation's history.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082401209.html?sub=new
5 comments:
Its sad how little conditions have improved in New Orleans after two years. And the false perception Bush created with his speech to cover up irresponsibility from disaster to recovery and reconstruction shows how much more he cares about his public image than the fate of the citizens of New Orleans.
The president set this trap for himself...His inability to be able to provide relief and be there for the devasted city in the days after Katrina continue to haunt him to this day, and will be remebered as one of his biggest failures of his presidency for generations to come.
Though satirical the comment might have been, Stephen Colbert had a point when he said at the White House dinner that America "will always rebound-with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world".
Unfortunate, indeed
A correction: Not $40 million. Informal estimates of what it would take to protect the city from the biggest hurricanes is $40 Billion. Right now the race is on to give New Orleans 1 in 100 chance per year protection at a cost of about $14 billion. That 1 in 100 chance means that homeowners will risk a 26% probability that they will see a flood greater than the FEMA base flood elevation before they can payoff their 30 year mortgages.
Not good odds.
Compare this to the flood protection provided by the Thames Barrier to London--1 in 1,000.
Or the flood protection provided by the Dutch to their most important cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam--1 in 10,000.
All those cities have large areas below sea level and are facing rising water, but only in America do we seriously consider abandoning our citizens.
New Orleans can be saved--all we need is the national will to do so.
Peace,
Tim
Thanks for Tim's correction. (The $40 million was my typo) If you can put a bit more clarification on your comparative analysis to the British and the Dutch projects -- even if it's a link to different sights -- it would be appreciated.
Post a Comment