Chris's Rants

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Why do they let morons have columns?

John Tierney -- The Case for a Cover-Up:
At last there is a light in the darkness. Washington was slow to respond to Katrina's victims, but now Congress has finally sprung into action. It has bravely promised to investigate the situation.

Unfortunately, the members haven't figured out exactly how, because Democrats want it to be done by outsiders. They say the Republicans will turn it into a cover-up. But why does that bother the Democrats so much? Shouldn't members of both parties want to cover this up?
The NYT pays this guy to write for their op-ed page?!

What does it matter what the members of congress might want? They serve at the pleasure of the American people who elected them, and the American public wants answers, they want accountability, and they want the problems fixed ASAP. Apparently though, Tierney fails to recognize this fact.

The Republicans seem to think that it is more important to provide cover for Dear Leader's catatonia in the face of disaster (for the second time, no less) than it is to find out why after pouring billions of dollars into post-9/11 "preparedness", DHS and FEMA can't seem to be capable of extracating their heads from their respective asses or their feet from their mouths, much less coordinate disaster relief.

There's plenty of blame to go around at every level, of that you can be certain. However, what is equally clear is that under the present administration, FEMA went from world-class competence in its mission to mind-boggling incompetence in a period of five short years. Maybe we should look into why that is before it's too late.

Frankly, I don't trust either party to investigate itself. As Sen. Harry Reid said, that's like "letting a pitcher call his own balls and strikes".

Maybe it is time that we took a close look at just how f***ed up our government's priorities are, on both sides of the aisle and reassess just what our priorities should be.

Maybe it isn't such a good idea to be investing *cough* in defense against terrorism at some ridiculously lopsided ratio as compared with natural disasters which have a much higher probability and much more destructive capacity, as we have just witnessed.

Maybe it isn't such a good idea to have 40-50% of our National Guard forces fighting a senseless war in Iraq, to the point that it adversely affects both recruitment and their ability to respond effectively to problems here at home.

Maybe, just maybe, it would have made more sense to invest in shoring up the levees in New Orleans than to fund the construction of a bridge to nowhere in Alaska.


Post a Comment

<< Home