Hoyteca wrote:Letat wrote:At least Dubya responded to crises with actions and irresponsible actions are still preferable to irresponsible inaction.
I'm inclined to disagree with that notion. At least with inaction you can at least hope someone else does something.
It's very irresponsible to expect somebody else to do your job for you, like those people who expect the federal government to do everything in the event of a crisis, like Katrina. If the government was supposed to do everything, then why the hell would there be state and local governments? Everyone else knows the government was too busy dealing with dubya.
I don't think I agree. When you don't have enough information or the information you have is bad, doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. Dubya's problem, as I understood it, is that he never thought anything through. He simply reacted to events based on preconceived notions instead of making sure he had good information. He surrounded himself with "yes-men" and removed any dissenters from government.
The Federal Government has resources that local and state governments do not. Events like Katrina create damage that far outstrip local government resources. The Federal Government is charged with oversight into national affairs, and Katrina impacted more than just one local area. Had the Federal Government performed normally, there would have been a lot less chaos and death. That there was just demonstrates the folly of electing people to government looking to prove government is broken by deliberately breaking it.
