Sunday, September 11, 2005

Recommended Reading

One of Washington's long-time lobbyists says that Hurricane Katrina has prompted him to rethink what he does for a living. Go read.

• Posted at 7:36 PM · LINK

Recommended Reading

There are a lot of interesting articles out there about Hurricane Katrina and the response to it. None but the most partisan seem to suggest that any party with any responsibility was blameless. Some come down to the technicalities of arguing things like how culpable Governor Kathleen Blanco was because she told the Feds, "I need everything you've got" but wasn't more specific. My feeling is that we're in trouble if any emergency system relies on any mayor, governor or even president being 100% on the job and letter-perfect in time of catastrophe. We should have a system of checks and double-checks that works even if these people are unavailable or swamped; where if they drop the ball, there's someone else to pick it up.

That said, I'm going to link to a batch of articles on the aftermath. I don't suggest that any one has total command of all the details but as a whole, you sure get a sense that the response could have been (Correct that:) should have been more effective.

• Here's the main New York Times overview of the response. I think the Times too often errs on the side of listening to "unnamed White House sources" but this piece seems relatively free of that.
• The Washington Post gives us "The Steady Buildup to a City's Chaos" while the Los Angeles Times has a piece called "Put to Katrina's Test."
• An article in Time magazine entitled, "Places Where the System Broke Down" and one in Newsweek called "How Bush Blew It."
• The Knight Ridder newspapers are running this article headlined, "Failure At Every Turn."
• And for another perspective, here's a piece by Christopher Ruddy called "Don't Blame Bush for Katrina."
• Lastly, Andrew Sullivan is a conservative commentator who hasn't sounded much like one lately. His slow conversion from being a champion of George W. Bush parallels that of a few friends of mine.

• Posted at 1:57 PM · LINK

1,461 Days Later

About ten minutes after America learned of the 9/11 attacks four years ago, people started saying, "Nothing will ever be the same again." I think a lot of us are amazed how little some things have changed.

If there was one sure bet back then, it was that this country would spend whatever it took to make this country safer, especially in terms of airport security. A lot of money has been allocated and it's been a long time since I've heard anyone claim it has spent wisely or even that it's achieved much of the stated goal. Even before the Katrina disaster exposed the inadequacy of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, there were reports of waste; of cash that had been earmarked to improve security going for the customary government pork instead, lavished in states and on locations that are on no terrorist's itinerary. Here's an article about how so much of it went to low-interest loans for small businesses like pet salons and Dunkin' Donuts stands. At the same time, no one seems to think that our nuclear plants are guarded as well as they could be...but, hey, at least you can get a cruller in Seattle.

In the weeks after 9/11, I wouldn't have imagined that anyone — Democrat, Republican, Independent — would have accepted that kind of thing. But we apparently do.

Catching Osama and bringing him to justice seemed like the most important thing in the world at the time. On September 13, with the rubble of the World Trade Center still smoldering, George W. Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." Eighteen months later, that same George W. Bush said, "I don't know where he is and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." I wonder if Bush lost one supporter because of that switch. But those who think he's been a strong leader have apparently decided that he's right; that it's not our priority. That's quite a change from four years ago.

I don't blame Bush for that. It's the whole country. Most Democrats don't care either, and the few who've brought it up — primarily as an election issue, not a real concern — haven't been able to get any traction.

We talk tough and then we confuse talking tough with actually doing something. If on 9/12/01, you'd said, "Four years from now, Osama will still be free and most Americans won't care much," everyone would have said you were nuts, unpatriotic and disrespectful of all those who'd perished on 9/11. But now bringing him to justice is no big deal. Some of the Iraq hawks seem more interested in pursuing that war because of tenuous, arguable connections to Al-Qeada than they are in pursuing Al-Qeada.

This is not to suggest that we would be safer if we'd captured and killed Bin Laden. That would not have stopped his movement any more than the death of Colonel Sanders meant an end to fried chicken. I'm just amazed that four years after we declared him the worst enemy and murderer of Americans that had ever lived, most people really don't care much. Just before Martha Stewart was sentenced, a friend of mine said to me, "If you gave most Americans the choice of seeing Osama Bin Laden brought to justice or Martha behind bars, I think a lot of them would have voted for Martha."

• Posted at 12:08 PM · LINK