Actually, no. The failure to evacuate the city before the hurricane hit, and to properly police shelters within the city, lies with the Governor and the Mayor, though there are signs that the President contributed to that (by refusing to approve the transfer of National Guard units from other states to Louisiana before the hurricane hit). You could also argue that they and their predecessors, over the course of many years, failed to adequately prepare for a natural disaster like this, and other things may have complicated the situation (emergency mangement in New Orleans was privatised last year, though I’ve not yet seen a clear report of what this involved or how it impacted on preparing for emergencies such as this). But the refusal to answer calls to help the state authorities before the hurricane hit, and the failure in the relief and evacuation efforts after the hurricane and flooding, is the President’s fault (because those derilictions were either his own doing or down to people in his administration, people he appointed and apparently appointed on an entirely partisan basis). Not only did federal authorities fail to answer requests for help until three days after the flooding (requests that started two days before the hurricane hit New Orleans), they actually prevented other agencies (local and state auhtorities, charities and private organisations) providing relief.

(Incidentally, the Mayor of New Orleans was a Republican until he decided to run for Mayor, and was both a contributor to and campaigner for George W. Bush. I guess if he wasn’t sincere in abandoning the Republicans for the Democrats before, he certainly must be now.)

But, from a US historian, your notion of how the federal (read central) government relates to the states is over a 100 years out of date. Especially in a disaster of this magnitude, the Feds are frankly expected to step in, an expectation they have largely created for themselves over a 100 years of precedent and action (perhaps even 150 years, if you go back to the Civil War and Lincoln’s massive expansion of the federal government). I would argue that in a disaster of this scale, FEMA, the National Guard, as well as the US military (not to mention the fairly dysfunctional Dep’t of Homeland security) all have vital, central roles to play. Others, including the Dept of Transportation, the Dept of Energy, the Dept of the Interior, and the Bureau of Reclamation all have vital roles to play considering the disruption of interstate commerce (vis a vis Mississippi shipping, as well as the damage taken by the Gulf energy fields) and the environmental destruction the hurricane has caused (underreproted, but very significant), not to mention the simple disruption of interstate travel, and the massive refugee crisis (a million plus people now without homes for a long time to come)

But this is just is just talking about pure logistical and bureaucratic questioons. The President – again, established through precedent more than law, but it has nevertheless has come to be vital function expected of the President by the American people – has a vital role as moral and emotional leader in a time of crisis like this. Bush clearly fell down in this regard for much of last week, too.

So while I think it is clear that Bush is not solely responsible for the crisis (its really a broader federal gov’t failure, not the failure of the President or the Presidency), and while it is also true that state and local authorities deserve blame, the scale and nature of this disaster demands the federal govenernment’s role be paramount. And since Bush is the nation’s figurehead as well as the de jure manager of the federal apparatus, he only should be the focus of the blame.

Ben P

it doesn’t exactly engage with John’s question of whether GWB is to blame.

No, it doesn’t. It engages with Alex’s comment about the Decent Left assuming a default ‘support Bush’ position on many issues.

As d^2 suggests, we’re rather left with the dichotomy of Bush either being a blithering idiot, or a heartless bastard.

True, but the tendency seems to be to assume the latter, when the former is much more likely to be true. And d^2 may have suggested it, but I stated it pretty explicitly previously when I said this:

Well, that’s really my point. Isn’t that more likely to be cock-up rather than conspiracy? I’ll freely admit that Bush seems more prone than the average US President to making cock-ups, but that’s hardly evidence of actual malice, just incompetence.