Ben Stein chimes in

[Tiger in Spain 0]

to Ben Stein.

More on Katrina

Ben Stein, © 2005, The American Spectator

9/12/2005

(Excerpt)

Fact: Katrina was a devastating storm. It left terrible damage to innocent people's lives and to property throughout the Gulf South.

Fact: There have been other storms as damaging and some far more damaging. What, then, is different about this storm? Here are a few tentative thoughts.

First, the incompetence of the local and state authorities in Louisiana and especially New Orleans was breathtaking. To issue a mandatory evacuation order without providing means of transport is almost criminally irresponsible. To take citizens to shelters where they would be beaten, robbed, and raped, and to provide no police protection for them was astoundingly incompetent. To allow armed gangs to shoot at rescuers was almost beyond belief.

Second, the response of the federal government is described as slow, and it was slow at first. But can anyone name a natural disaster in which more federal troops, supplies, and money have been dispatched as quickly as they have been done in this disaster? Bush's response has not been unusually bad, but amazingly powerful and swift. In other hurricanes, survivors have been left for weeks on their own. In Katrina's case, the whole affected area has been covered with money and aid and troops to restore order on a scale and with speed never seen before.

Third, the networks and newspapers have been quick to cry racism because so many of the victims were black. This is total nonsense.

<snip>

What is the real story of Katrina is (I suggest) not so much that nature wrought fury on land, water, people, property, and animals, not at all anything about racism, not much about federal government incompetence. The real story is that the mainstream media rioted.

They used the storm and its attendant sorrows to continue their endless attack on George W. Bush. Wildly inflated stories about the number of dead and missing, totally made up old wives' tales of racism, breathless accounts of Bush's neglect that are utterly devoid of truth and of historical context -- this is what the mainstream media gave us. The use of floating corpses, of horror stories of plagues, the sad faces of refugees, the long-faced phony accusations of intentional neglect and racism -- anything is grist for the media's endless attempts to undermine the electorate's choice last November. It is sad, but true that the media will use even the most heart breaking truths -- and then add total inventions -- to try to weaken and then evict from office a man who has done nothing wrong, but has instead turned himself inside out to help the real victims.

In the meantime, George Bush does not lash out, does not attack those who falsely accuse him of the most horrible acts and neglect. Instead, he doggedly goes on helping the least among us. I don't know how he does it, but we are very lucky he does. As for truth, it eventually may be salvaged from the flooded neighborhoods of The Crescent City, but not as long as there is a lie to use to hurt an honest man trying to do the best he can, and hundreds of thousands of brave, tireless men and women who do more than point fingers and tell tales. The Katrina story is a disgrace to the people who are "reporting" it while pouring gasoline on a fire. They and their crusade against George Bush are the real stories, and they are dismal ones.

Complete Article Here

[Ranger12 46]

I really have to wonder who came up with the original estimate of 10,000 may be dead and what they based that on. I thought that was a greatly inflated number the first time I heard it. It did not make sense when you figure the number of people that left before it hit and the numbers that were being reported evacuated after the flooding. Where did 10,000 come frome? This is probably not true, but it does make it seem like that number was thrown out there just to try to add fuel to the fire in the blame game of Bush.

BTW, I know Stein is a very smart man and financial guru, but everytime I see him or hear his name, I can't help but only think of one thing..."Bueller..., Bueller..., Bueller".

[AURaptor 1,125]

I really have to wonder who came up with the original estimate of 10,000 may be dead and what they based that on.

Who? It was THEM. You know, the EXPERTS which 9 out of 10 times remain unnamed, but who the network news weasles count on when they need hard, impresive , official sounding numbers.

Stories have a source, and then decissions are made on whether to run with those stories or not. Take the 3 cargo ships which were reported cruising around the oceans, before the invasion of Iraq, flying no flags of any country, that supposidly contained WMD . These ships never existed. There never was a follow up on those reports. No source was ever cited. The story just died. I think that producers should be held accountable for such fables they allow on air.

[rexbo 104]

I really have to wonder who came up with the original estimate of 10,000 may be dead...

The same who said tens of thousands of civilians would die in the first days of the Iraq invasion, and there would millions and millions of refugees fleeing the country, and thousands of American soldiers dead; you know those people who will say ANYTHING, regardless of the facts, to make Bush look bad...

[WarTim 3,456]

It is always refreshing to read an honest and fact filled editorial. Too bad the media is so filled with bed wetting libs that the truth rarely escapes their tiny minds.