Thursday, September 15, 2005

Opinion piece from Peggy Noonan.

3 comments:

rod said...

Ooooh, cool, are we playing Jeopardy? I'm in!

I'll take "Hacks" for $200, Alex!

And the answer is - "opinion piece from Peggy Noonan." What's the question?

That's a hard one. So many possibilities spring to mind:

-> Q. What are five words that bring fear to the heart of anyone with an ounce of sense?

...or:

-> Q. What is the intellectual equivalent of a screaming orgasm, usually climaxing in a loud, lusty shout of "OH, MR. REAGAN!!!!"?

...or:

-> Q. What is the worst imaginable waste of ten perfectly good column inches?

...but I think I'll go with:

-> Q. What is the only thing more nonsensical than Bill O'Reilly's nightly rant?

Poor Nooners - the only man she ever loved up and died on her, and now the pathetic sap she settled on in his place turns out to be such an obvious laughingstock that even she can't pretend any more. Besides, he's cheating on her with his Secretary of State.

I have to give her credit, though, for this observation: "[N]o president should be surrounded by dry heavers." I take it that means even Peg o' My Blackened Heart realizes that Rove has to be fired.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the warmup Rod! (Um, you left a little froth... spittle? ... on the stage, someone get a towel and wipe that up. Now for a different view:

I'll not go into Ms Noonan's syncophantic gushing over Bush's character, etc. Let's stick with observable facts, namely the source of the catastophy and the response.

Ms. Noonan says "But a president can't control everything! True. Federal power is and must be limited. But the White House made two big mistakes. The first was not to see that New Orleans early on was becoming a locus of civil unrest. When an American city descends into lawlessness, and as in this case that lawlessness hampers or prevents the rescue of innocents, you send in the 82nd Airborne. You move your troops. You impose and sustain order. You protect life and property. Then you leave. That's what government is for. It's what Republicans are for"

Ah, always a good Republican response when in disarray: Send in the troops to shoot to kill, I mean, maintain order. But wait, republicans are also about cutting big government, like, say, flood control projects. So instead of responding by moving in troops, wouldn't it have been better to prevent the accident? There's a concept. I just can't get past the fact that Bush curtailed funding to flood control (and gutted/demoted FEMA) to fund Iraq. Yes I know the Army Corp of Engineers said that it wouldn't have made a difference since Katrina was a category 5, but a) would it have been as bad? and b) the A.C.E. works for the President, so I'd like an independent review if u don't mind. (Oh, wait, the Republicans in congress just voted down an independant review. Nevermind)

Ms. Noonan continues "The White House didn't move quickly, and that was the failure from which all failure flowed. The administration was slow to see the size, scope, variations and implications of the disaster because it was not receiving and responding to reliable reports from military staff on the ground. Because they weren't there. When the administration moved, it moved, and well. But it took too long."
As far as how long it took them, I think this weeks John Stewart's report on this pretty much covers it. Unconscionably long. Criminally long? And, as is currently being spewed by the press, partially due to the cronyism in the administration.

Sorry Dan, this catasrophy has me PISSED OFF.

Larry

Steve Austin said...

I like yuor blog. Please check out my dog collectible blog.