The front page of today's Washington Post trumpets "failures" of the Bush Administration. At the top of the page in the large type, a headline chides the Bush Administration for its failure to complete the rebuilding of New Orleans. Apparently in the Post's considered opinion, reconstruction ought to be done. After all, it's been almost five months since Hurricane Katrina left town.
Nearly five months after Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, President Bush's lofty promises to rebuild the Gulf Coast have been frustrated by bureaucratic failures and competing priorities, a review of events since the hurricane shows.
While the administration can claim some clear progress, Bush's ringing call from New Orleans's Jackson Square on Sept. 15 to "do what it takes" to make the city rise from the waters has not been matched by action, critics at multiple levels of government say, resulting in a record that is largely incomplete as Bush heads into next week's State of the Union address.
Here's a phrase that might fit: "Unrealistic expectations." Any takers? And about "those critics at multiple levels of government", can we guess who they might be? Here's is a clue: The President is a Republican.
Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) said in statement from Baton Rouge. "You can't fix a $12 billion problem with $6 billion."...
In Mississippi, 33,378 occupied trailers are meeting 89 percent of the estimated housing needs. But there have been 34,000 repair requests and maintenance complaints, according to Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.).
The article goes on for three web pages -- a remarkable example of a political campaign masquerading as news. Credit the Post with recognizing that it's not too early to panic. November is right around the corner.
In another article, the Post concludes that Bush foreign policy is a failure. One might wonder how it could be called a failure in a year that saw election after election breaking out in the Middle East.
The election outcome signals a dramatic failure in the administration's strategy for Middle East peace, according to analysts and some U.S. officials...
More broadly, Hamas's victory is seen as a setback in the administration's campaign for greater democracy in the Middle East.
That we are seeing the first democratic elections in Middle East history is apparently unimportant to the Post. It's the results that count. It's odd how a party that calls itself Democratic, and the mainstream press who support them, have such a hard time with election results. But again, who are the critics, those "analysts" and "U.S. officials"? Well here's one.
"There were eloquent speeches and praise for Abbas" but little else, said Robert Malley, director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East program, who was on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council staff.
Readers may recall that Bill Clinton's National Security Council was headed by National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, lately famous for pleading guilty to removing classified documents from the National Archives and shredding them in preparation for his 9/11 Commission testimony. He got them out of the Archives by stuffing them in his pants. It's not that I question Mr Malley's credibility just because he was a Clinton NSC staffer. I just wonder how impartial an observer we can expect him to be.
What we don't have to wonder about this: The campaign is in full swing.
Update: Power Line has a take on the second Post article I mentioned. Their's is a pretty long winded article but give it a shot, anyway.
Comments