Originally posted by Dallas
I'm still here -- a bit tired but here. Yes please elaborate a bit on this as what i I feel seems not to sit well with many -- understandable, but
So anything you wish to add to this would help if not myself then others. So please go ahead..
Yes, it is late, and I think this will indeed be my last post before I retire for the night...
In short, I believe this miscue (from a woman as articulate as the First Lady) is truly representative of just how
out of touch this
administration is with the grounded realities of the current and emerging crisis we face now as a nation -- primarily (what I believe to be) the
extremely poor post-war planning and execution following the cessation of major hostilities in Iraq (another topic), and now with regards to the
complete bungling and lack of leadership with regards to what will forever be remembered as a historical milestone of equal tragedy to 9/11.
My original post in this thread then attempts to substantiate this opinion by illustrating several examples of other comments and/or actions which are
similarly demonstrative of this disconnect between this administration and the realities of the situation. Aruguably the best example, IMHO, would
have to be Michael Brown's admission on live television
that "they" -- the federal government -- only became aware of the 10,000+ evacuees
stranded at the Convention Center on Thursday itself -- more than 48 hours after
this crisis had been reported over and over by the
national news media -- news crews were in abundance at teh convention center, brodcasting the unfolding tragedy live for the entire world to see. Yet
when Ted Koppel relays this to him and asks him, "Didn't you look at a television? Listen to a radio?" Michael Brown answers by saying, "We only
learned of it factually
Yes, when you are somehow able to disregard every
channel of broadcast media, all brining the same images of teh same event to live television
for the entire world to see, to dismiss such a real-time tragedy as anything but
"factual" clearly demonstrates a disconnect with the reality
of the situation.
However, don't stop with this example -- think of it as Pringles -- you can't eat just one! Within the first week after Katrina struck, the
President had nothing but praise
for the horsie show judge, and similarly, our First Lady had nothing but extreme
praise for FEMA, all
within the first week.
Which brings me to good 'ol beloved Baghdad Bob... the silly rabbit of an ex-Iraqi Information Minister who was known to tell tall tales... tales
which such intrinsic comedic values that a Google search of "Baghdad Bob" returns 3,620,000 hits in .09 seconds.
Basically, Baghdad Bob was a product of a government that discouraged dissent within its ranks. In ffact, Saddam's, errr... "permanent dismissal"
of voices of dissent is well known and established. Eventually, you find yourself surrounded with "yes men." This same pitfall exists in business,
though accompanied by far less risk (as only the stakeholders in the business are exposed to the risk).
We have seen such a culling within the administration of individuals who express dissent contrary to the established party line (e.g., Colin Powell).
Similar frustrations have been expressed by persons within FEMA with regards to the FEMA management structure which Dubya remade to his "vision" (I
use that term loosely). Thus, this culling process eventually results in an artifical construct of information, as you tend to "weed out" that what
you do not want nor like to hear.
This is the slippery slope that invariably convolutes the truth. And as evidenced by this latest Mother of All Fumbles, without all the facts
it is rather difficult to make effective decisions.
Now it's 1:00 a.m. I am going to bed.
EDIT: for late-night spelling errors.
[edit on 11-9-2005 by sdrumrunner]