Katrina and the Incompetence Theory
I have heard the claim that the American government’s (lack of) reaction to Katrina means the American government would be incapable of executing and covering up an “inside job.”
“If the government couldn’t get it together [for Katrina] then they certainly wouldn’t have the wherewithal to plan and execute 9/11,” I’ve seen written in message boards.
This does nothing to prove or disprove the idea of an inside job because they’re not related. It’s a false comparison. It assumes “the government” is a singular, monolithic entity, a problem with many theories in that it is oversimplified. FEMA is not the White House which is not the CIA. Ok, they are related, and you could say any of them have “incompetent leadership,” but they can, and do, operate separate from each other.
The government consists of various smaller governments and many more agencies (federal, state, municipal) with each consisting of a hierarchy of people who obviously could act intentionally or incompently depending on who they are. So how “the government” reacted to Katrina versus how “the government” could have orchestrated 9/11 is apples and oranges. Two different ideas about two different event.
In regards to Katrina, there is the suggestion that lackluster response to the aftermath of the storm could have been “intentional policy,” and what looked like executive-level disregard towards the lives of its citizenry. It appeared they were letting people die with no official reaction. On live television Kanye West revealed, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”
The government’s defense was that various agencies screwed up and it was, of course, unintentional. The bureaucracy failed us. Incompetent leadership. The mayor. Brownie. The bridges between federal, state and municipal levels were broken. These issues are probably higher on the list than “blame Bush first,” however, Katrina revealed Bush administration cronyism. “Heckuva Job” Brownie had been installed as the head of FEMA despite being completely unqualified for emergency management. He was there simply because of political favouritism. A bureaucracy of Bush’s creation.
And Bush is still the the guy who stayed on vacation while New Orleans took a swim.
One problem. Why would they intentionally hurt their political image? In the environment of Post-9/11 and an Iraq Quagmire, Bush already had credibility problems. It seems unlikely that the lack of reaction to Katrina would be intentional per se - this is where the “incompetent leadership” theory resurges - with Bush hurting in the polls why wouldn’t his administration act as if this was a top priority, if for nothing else than to show leadership in time of crises? Ask Kanye. He seemed to have a good enough answer for millions of Americans.
At the time of Katrina I speculated the reason for their negligence. When no one could pick themselves up out of the swamp, all hands were reaching up for “the government,” predictably, to be tasked with the rescue. Outrage in the lack of government response only made people wish a more robust government able to respond faster to the next event. Even if this was not their intention it may have become the result: People demand a better FEMA; FEMA gets more money.
Is that really so cynical?
When Katrina hit, Bush let the bureaucracy handle it. They failed. Bush left it up to FEMA, which left it up to the state, which left it up to the city, and so evacuations didn’t happen, and then in the days after Anderson Cooper cared more than the president, who, again, stayed on vacation a day after the storm wreaked its damage. Bush is responsible for his lack of leadership or reaction, especially once it was clear that there was a problem with the government response.
Obviously, he is a huge dick head, but I would stop short of saying his administration intentionally neglecting the issue in some sort of Stalinist power grab to “make them weak so that they will beg the government to protect them.” Not because I don’t think it’s possible but I don’t have enough information to adequately explain why they would intentionally sink their approval rating.
Unless, of course, approval ratings are meaningless?
As for 9/11, Bush was clearly left out of the loop on the morning of Sept. 11. His administrative competency has nothing to do with what is being examined now as a clandestine military operation. Planned outside of the White House and beyond Bush’s knowledge but nevertheless undertaken by elements working for the same agenda. Bush of course plays along. He did sit there in that Florida classroom like a pet goat. It is somewhat absurd to think 9/11 was the handy work of the junior president and his lapdog administration. So if there is an inside job, it wasn’t inside the oval office.
Sidebar: Of course George Bush doesn’t care about black people. After all, which racial group had their right to vote disproportionately challenged in 2000 and 2004? Black voters were 900 per cent more likely than white voters to have their ballots “rejected, lost, mangled, uncounted, spoiled.”In the video linked bellow, Investigative Reporter Greg Palast spoke in New York City from his book “Armed Mad House 2nd edition” and was followed up by Robert F Kennedy Jr. who says the corporate owned media is a big part of the problem. If memory serves me correctly Palast makes note of the Katrina-affected districts that also had had reams of voters scrubbed, but I’m the blogger and he’s the reporter. Google video
November 16th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Regarding government incompetency and slow responses:
This is the same “government” (speaking in the singular, as you do above) that responded with breakneck speed to the completely unexpected catastrophe that was 9/11 - giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it was, in fact, unexpected. Planes were grounded, rescue crews were in immediately, jets were flying over New York City and Washington. Emergency measures were put into place within hours. Clearly “the government” isn’t incapable of responding to emergencies.
On top of that, they knew Katrina would hit weeks before it did. And it was a much more powerful storm even a day before landfall - much more dangerous. That is gross incompetency or (again giving the benefit of the doubt) extreme wishful thinking. Or, as you have suggested, it was intentional. Maybe the reason is as simple as Kanye said, maybe it’s got to do with puffing up government powers, maybe it’s something else. Whatever it is, it is abhorrent that it could be intentional, assuming that the people who make up said government have a shred of humanity.
I think the reason incompetency is so often drummed up as the reason/excuse for why so little happened in response to Katrina is because it is utterly incomprehensible that it could be anything else. Intentional negligence is a horrifying thing.
Then again, huge chunks of New Orleans are still lingering in third world conditions. Who knows?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:32 am
Outstanding summary pertaining to Katrina and the Incompetence Theory! Always enjoy your blog.