Will anyone admit they jumped the gun?

[skipdup]

Just wondering... as more and more FACTS come in and show it can't be "Bush's fault", will people admit that they jumped the gun?

- Skip

[AFJuvat]

Based upon past experience.... probably not....

AFJ

[IROC]

IMHO, about 98% of what is going on right now is a result of 20/20 hindsight. I don't think it is logical to blame Bush. Could he have done more? Sure. Should he have done more (without the benefit of hindsight)? I don't think so.

It's kinda like around here we get probably 30 tornado warnings per year (a "warning" supposedly meaning that a tornado is on the ground and is currently destroying mobile homes). How many tornadoes do we really have? Maybe two or three. The local population looks at the weathermen as the "boys who cry wolf" as a result and don't really believe it until they see it. I think, to an extent, the same thing happened in NO. Sure, they knew it was coming, but I think alot of people were going to "believe it when they saw it". Look at the folks that partied in the French Quarter during the storm. I don't think they fully believed it was going to happen.

Of course, I assume you're talking about Katrina. Iraq is Bush's fault for sure. :>)

Mike

[wludavid]

There are people in the anti-Bush camp that won't take no for an answer - that much is for sure. As a reasonable-minded liberal, I ask reasonable-minded conservatives to ignore these people in the same way that we try to ignore the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Shrill accusations are tiring from every viewpoint.

Reasonable people aren't blaming this entirely on Bush. However, you'd have to be a fool to not place a large part of the responsibility on him. As the leader of this country, he's supposed to be sure that things get done - and it's obvious that the correct things weren't done.

And speaking of O'Reilly, one of the Bush Admin's biggest yes-men, is saying something even mildly critical, you know they screwed up. Direct quote from O'Reilly: "President Bush was 24 hours too slow in reacting to the disaster. Why? I don't know. And the head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, seemed clueless for days."

The same question that you asked could be posed to Bush-defenders right now. Will you ever admit he's wrong? What exactly would it take for you not to forgive him?

And please, if you're going to post about FACTS showing that Bush was not to blame, please cite sources for the rest of us.

[jyl]

There are two extremes: one that the slow/disorganized hurricane response was entirely Bush's fault, the other that it was entirely the fault of local/state government.

I don't think very many of the people on OT believe either extreme view. I certainly don't.

However, there are a few here who can't stand the idea of Bush and his Administration receiving any criticism. They seem to think that those who criticize the President are trying to heap "all" the blame on him. As such, they're arguing with their own shadows.

To them, anyone who dares criticize the President gets jettisoned from the faithful. I suppose you'll see the knives come out for O'Reilly now.

[David]

The mayor didn't have a plan in place to get people out and supplies in place for those in the shelters.

The gov didn't have the national guard ready to go in and supplies ready to be dropped.

The pres wouldn't spend the money to fix the levees and he put incompetent people in charge of FEMA.

FDR started a system that allowed people to exist without having to work or take responsibility for themselves.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

[skipdup]

Originally posted by wludavid
And please, if you're going to post about FACTS showing that Bush was not to blame, please cite sources for the rest of us.

I am not commenting on any 1 piece of information. Rather, as information/facts flow into the view of the public.

If you'd rather... Let's change it to "If facts come in showing it was NOT 100% Bush's fault, will those who say it IS 100% Bush's fault (and there are many), admit they may have jumped the gun".

JYL- My opinion (and this is basically a repeat of something I said elsewhere)... I think much of the Bush supporters are just responding to the immediate and brutal attacks and blaming of Bush. We hear "It's Bush's fault!!!" We say, no it's not, and here's why...

And BTW... if in hindsight we find out Bush should have done something different or more, then so be it. If we find out that somehow the disaster is 100% his fault... I will be on here admitting I jumped the gun to support him.

- Skip

[legion]

Had this happened ten years ago, there wouldn't have been so much as a whisper that anything was Clinton's fault from the press. Anybody who suggested such would be dismissed as part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

Clinton would have made a speech that "he felt their pain"...looting and such would continue (but not be covered). He would be praised as a hero.

[skipdup]

I don't think "looting" should be used any longer to describe the violence which took place in NO. Looting is one thing. What happened in NO is quite another. Rape, murder, roving bands of heavily armed thugs, hospitals and police stations held under siege, rescuers attacked, helicopters shot at, etc etc etc.

Calling it "Looting" minimizes what happened down there.

- Skip

[jyl]

Originally posted by skipdup
I am not commenting on any 1 piece of information. Rather, as information/facts flow into the view of the public.

If you'd rather... Let's change it to "If facts come in showing it was NOT 100% Bush's fault, will those who say it IS 100% Bush's fault (and there are many), admit they may have jumped the gun".

[snip]

And BTW... if in hindsight we find out Bush should have done something different or more, then so be it. If we find out that somehow the disaster is 100% his fault... I will be on here admitting I jumped the gun to support him.

- Skip

I'll predict you'll get no takers then, since I've seen no-one say it is 100% Bush's fault. I haven't read every single post, but I've read most of them. Where did you see "many" such claims? (To repeat, criticizing Bush does not equal claiming it is 100% his fault, even though some seem to react to such criticism that way.) And since you won't change your tune unless the disaster does in fact turn out to be 100% Bush's fault, you're safe too. Okay, next topic :-)

[IROC]

Well, we have nothing to fear. GW is on the job now. He made the statement in a press conference that the "community-based community" is going to step up and provide assistance.

I, honestly, would have more respect for the guy if he wasn't such a horrible public speaker. He has made himself an easy target for criticism.

Mike

[skipdup]

John- If Bush was slow or could/should have done more, I will admit that too... That's what I was trying to say.

And yes, there ARE many who say it's Bush's Fault. He's in charge..., his lack of leadership..., his sending troops to Iraq..., his sending money to..., his appointees..., his racism..., etc etc etc. Are you really going to refute this? Am I going to have to start posting the posts which state this?

Or, is it the use of "100%" that bothers you? How does 97.2% suit you? 89.6%? Or, we could say "mostly"...

Work with me a little here...

- Skip

[widebody911]

Originally posted by legion
Had this happened ten years ago, there wouldn't have been so much as a whisper that anything was Clinton's fault from the press. Anybody who suggested such would be dismissed as part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

No, but Ken Starr would proceed to spend $70,000,000 to find out if Clinton took a whiz behind the Superdome.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by skipdup
Just wondering... as more and more FACTS come in and show it can't be "Bush's fault", will people admit that they jumped the gun?

- Skip

FACTS are one thing, interpretation is another. Two people could look at two identical sets of facts and come to entirely different conclusions. And in complex situations, there is almost never a nice, clean black and white answer.

Why do people insist on trying to find one?

[skipdup]

Not picking on anyone, but this was the first example I saw...

Originally posted by svonkampen
...
BUSH and co ARE to blame........What is happening to us? This used to be a great country.
...

nostatic- Are you talking about me, or posts like the above? It (the post) seems pretty B&W to me.

John- This post above doesn't say "100% Bush's fault". But, I think the meanings are close enough for our discussion. Did you miss that post and the many like it?

- Skip

[jyl]

Originally posted by skipdup
John- If Bush was slow or could/should have done more, I will admit that too... That's what I was trying to say.

And yes, there ARE many who say it's Bush's Fault. He's in charge..., his lack of leadership..., his sending troops to Iraq..., his sending money to..., his appointees..., his racism..., etc etc etc. Are you really going to refute this? Am I going to have to start posting the posts which state this?

Or, is it the use of "100%" that bothers you? How does 97.2% suit you? 89.6%? Or, we could say "mostly"...

Work with me a little here...

- Skip

We're getting closer . . .

This is an emotional time, people are upset and frustrated, I don't know how precise you can expect people to be in apportioning fault. I personally don't think it is possible to apportion fault (X% to local, Y% to state, Z% to federal, etc) so quickly and with such limited information. I also am personally not ready to even say if "most" of the fault does in fact lie with Bush or his government. I think "some" does, but whether it is "most" I don't know yet.

In fact, I don't think I've seen many people (or even any person that I can think of offhand) say that "most" of the fault is Bush's. Again I haven't read every post, but what I see is people criticizing FEMA, DHS, and/or Bush while acknowledging that local and state authorities also deserve criticism.

Putting myself in your shoes, I can see a Bush supporter would be frustrated that there has been more media and public attention to the federal government's actions/inactions than to the State of Louisiana's and City of New Orleans' actions/inactions.

But can't you see why this might be so? For people outside of Lousiana, the competence and judgment of the Lousiana governor or the New Orleans mayor is not normally of much interest. I didn't even know their names until last week. But the competence and judgment of the President and the federal government is of high interest to almost everybody.

[techweenie]

There is a pretty good (for this early in the game) overview here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4216508.stm

Plenty of blame to go around.

[island911]

i'll admit it . . I jumped the gun.

I had blamed Bush for not recognizing sooner, that the Mayor was a completely over his head to handle anything, including his mouth.

It turns out that I was wrong; Bush had recognized that, and had made a personal plea to the Govenor to evacuate all of N.O.

[skipdup]

Originally posted by jyl
...
In fact, I don't think I've seen many people (or even any person that I can think of offhand) say that "most" of the fault is Bush's.
...

Are you serious? Or, just trying to mess with me? You can't remember one post which either directly states or implies that it was "mostly" Bush's fault? I'll tell you something... I can't remember one post where someone came back (after directly blaming Bush and receiving arguments based on the direct accusation) to clarify that they didn't think it was only Bush's fault, but just partially his fault (hence, the reason for my initial post in this thread).

OTOH, you may just be right. It depends on what your definition of "is" is. Just what does it mean when someone says it is Bush's fault? What does it mean when people go into precise and lengthy detail of how it was Bush's fault? Must be a gray area.

- Skip

[turbo6bar]

Dunno if he will admit it, but this fellow MAY HAVE jumped the gun:

10 thousand dead

edit: add words "may have"