Friday, September 09, 2005

FEMA and the Clintons

As noted in my posts yesterday, the more that actual facts come out, the more it’s becoming clear that Louisiana and New Orleans authorities bungled post-Katrina more than President Bush or the Feds.

But that is not at all to say the federal role is immune from fair criticism. Such criticism can be a healthy thing when not accompanied by race-baiting, Bush-bashing agendas. FEMA’s role particularly merits close review. And if in hindsight Bush should have supervised FEMA differently or made different appointments, then it’s fair to say so.

But FEMA has had problems for a long time, yes, before Bush took office. Some people are in no position to criticize Bush on FEMA and would be wise to keep their mouths shut. Chief among those people are the Clintons.

Yet Hillary Clinton has come out and said that FEMA was run much better under her beloved husband.

Oh really?

Tell that to some of the victims of Hurricanes Floyd and Andrew, whose aftermath, though bad, wasn’t the logistical nightmare that New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have just suffered. For as noted here (scroll down), FEMA was a bit slow in those situations. And in those cases, FEMA probably didn’t have to deal with a joke governor like Kathleen Blanco either.

And hubby Bill used a regional FEMA directorship as a reward for one “Buddy” Young, who helped sweep Troopergate under the rug. I remember that well, particularly since he was stationed in Denton, Texas.

Hillary, you and Bill had eight years to improve FEMA. You two not only dropped the ball, but your husband turned it into a plum to reward a corrupted crony.

So kindly shut up.

No comments: