What a head-line!

One a terrorist attack, the other a natural disaster. We mark the Sept. 11
anniversary in the midst of a recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Four years ago, a
shocked nation united and its leaders vowed to protect its citizens. Today, the
government's slow response to Katrina is under fire. Has your confidence been
shaken?

The answer to the above question is HELL YEAH! Disasters, terrorist attacks, crime (when it happens to us) even accidents can all cause our confidence to waver.
Here is a survey question that follows the head-line;

In the weeks after Sept. 11, the president's approval ratings surged past
90 percent. But critics have come down hard on the Bush administration's slow
response to the disaster that followed Hurricane Katrina.News Analysis:Leader Who Rose in 9/11 Slips

This is border line absurd, don't you think. This blame game that everyone from the city officials to the DC bureaucrats are playing goes to prove that they will use any crisis, no matter how tragic, to smear their opponent. We will most definitely look back and see where certain things could have been done differently, for instance;

• when did the LA state government issue its request for federal help, was it timely or did their lack of planning play a roll?
• Did the mayor of New Orleans tell the poor people that that they would be on their own in case of flooding? Someone chose not to let the buses roll. That decision was made in the city, by the city.
• For those that could have gotten out but chose to stay; I'm confident if they had know the extent of this storm they would have made a greater effort to get out.
• Who controls those levies surrounding New Orleans? Has proper maintenance been done, was this just too much of a storm or lack of planning?
• Where were the first responders? In the hurricane perhaps, fighting for survival like many others.
• Since they compared it to (9-11), Do you think that Bin Laden and Al-quieda could have planned such an attack in 9 months?
• Were these people a threat known to the USA prior to 2000?
• Did President Clinton, while in office, demand the release of one of the hijackers from an Israeli prison (even though the Israelis had a policy of not releasing anyone with blood on their hands) to appease the Palestinians?
• Did we have Bin Laden in the '90's and chose to let him go?

No doubt, hind sight is 20/20. I have heard it said, "how could George Bush in 9 months do what Bill Clinton couldn't do in 8 years". But I don't blame Clinton for what happen on 9-11.

The levies surrounding New Orleans, has never broke the way they did with Katrina. I don't blame the engineers.

Prior to a catastrophe, our plans seem to be working. But in reality, we never really know what tomorrow holds, do we?

Here are a few things, if known, would probably have been done differently;

• Adam and Eve eating the fruit
• letting Hitler reign
• our Civil War
• Viet Nam
• News media with an agenda

It is very difficult to predict nature and evil humans.

In my experiences, the people that are slinging mud and blame, most of the time, have something to hide themselves.

The following is an article I thought everyone should read:

Op-Ed Columnist
The Case for a Cover-Up
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: September 10, 2005
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.

Skip to next paragraph


More Columns by John Tierney 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?

Suppose, for instance, investigators try to find out who had the brilliant idea of putting the Federal Emergency Management Agency inside a new department with an organizational chart modeled on the Soviet Ministry of Agriculture and Food Economy. One Democrat, Hillary Clinton, did question whether FEMA would suffer, but the idea was originally championed by her colleagues, particularly Joe Lieberman.

Mr. Lieberman joined Mrs. Clinton this week in calling for a "re-examination" of FEMA's status, but he was against independence before he was for it. After the Sept. 11 attacks, he helped lead the charge to create the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans first resisted, as the Democratic National Committee pointed out during the presidential campaign last year. Its radio advertisement declared: "John Kerry fought to establish the Department of Homeland Security. George Bush opposed it for almost a year after 9/11."

Or suppose the investigators try to find out why the Army Corps of Engineers didn't protect New Orleans from the flood. Democrats have blamed the Iraq war for diverting money and attention from domestic needs. But that hasn't meant less money for the Corps during the past five years. Overall spending hasn't declined since the Clinton years, and there has been a fairly sharp increase in money for flood-control construction projects in New Orleans.

The problem is that the bulk of the Corps's budget goes for projects far less important than preventing floods in New Orleans. And if the investigators want to find who's responsible, they don't have to leave Capitol Hill.

Most of the Corps's budget consists of what are lovingly known on appropriations committees as earmarks: money allocated specifically for members' pet projects. Many of these projects flunk the Corps's own cost-benefit analysis or haven't been analyzed at all. Many are jobs that Corps officials don't even consider part of their mission, like building sewage plants, purifying drinking water or maintaining lakeside picnic tables.

The Corps is giving grants to improve New York City's drinking water. In Massachusetts, the Corps offers BMX-style bike jumps at a lake near Worcester and runs a theater next to the Cape Cod Canal showing a video of "Canal Critters."

In rural Nevada, an area not known for hurricanes or shipping channels, the Corps has been given $20 million for construction projects. When I asked an official why so much was being spent in Nevada, he said that the money was paying for wastewater treatment and mentioned the name of Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat's leader in the Senate.

"Senator Reid is a great and good man," the Corps official explained, "and he is on our committee."

This week Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat, lambasted Mr. Bush on the Senate floor. "Everybody anticipated the breach of the levees, Mr. President," she said. But she and others from the Louisiana delegation have been shortchanging the levees themselves. As Michael Grunwald reported in The Washington Post, they've diverted large sums to dubious Corps projects aimed at increasing barge traffic, not preventing floods. Ms. Landrieu forced the Corps to redo its calculations when a project to deepen a port flunked its cost-benefit analysis.

Would Congressional investigators focus on these pork-barrel projects? I would guess not. My daring prediction is they would make two discoveries. First, that mistakes were made by many people outside Congress. Second, that more money must be spent on flood protection throughout America.

A few outside skeptics may suggest letting this money be spent by mayors and governors in flood-prone areas who can lose their jobs if they earmark it for too many boondoggles and allow disasters to occur. But members of Congress would conclude that only they can be trusted to dispense the money. Of course, should there be another flood somewhere, they would be glad to investigate.

Email: tierney@nytimes.com