QUOTE(Domethesis @ Sep 9 2005, 09:12 PM)
Yes he should investigate. I'm afraid that any other organization independent of the administration
would taint the investigation unfairly against Bush.
Is it your contention that there is nobody in the entire USA (outside the administration) that would be able to treat the facts neutrally, then?
Not a single judge or investigating body would be able to look at the documented records detailing exactly who said what to whom, and who decided what and when - surely the central task of any investigation into the Katrina aftermath? - Without being "unfairly tainted" against Bush?
The USSC, NTSB, FDA audit teams, and the major accounting firms (all of which have been suggested as possible investigating bodies) are all rabidly partisan Bush-Bashing organisations that are just as likely to fit the facts to their preconceived notions as Michael Moore or MoveOn.org? No organisation
independent of the administration? The American Junior Golf Association? The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists? The American Zoo & Aquarium Association? Are they all hopelessly biased too - it that why you rule them out? Or are they part of the Bush administration?
Maybe you didn't consider any of these suggestions because none of them has much experience of the kind of careful, politically neutral investigation designed only to establish the facts, with no fear or favour, do they?*
But - here's the thing - NEITHER DOES ANYONE INSIDE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION - least of all the President, who doesn't himself list, even among his undisputed talents, any great gifts for detective work or deductive reasoning. So why is he
the right man to head up any investigation into anything, especially one that has to investigate himself and his own administration?
I'm sure the other side feels the same way about Bush investigating. Hey,you can't satisfy everyone.
You're right, you can't satisfy everyone. But then, the mooted investigation isn't supposed to satisfy anyone of anything except that the kind of organisational chaos we all saw in the first week or so after Katrina hit won't happen again. It isn't going to be useful if all it does it dole out blame and identify "guilty parties" - only if it makes actionable observations on what went wrong and how to do it better the next time something similar occurs.
In that context, the mere fact
that many people - even some with no political axe to grind - suspect that some of the mistakes were made inside the Bush administration, whether or not those suspicions are sufficiently justified,
should rule out the President
Get your facts straight and try to see both sides of the issue before you get any rash beliefs.
You might like to take your own advice on this - President Bush himself is under (as yet unproven
) suspicion of making some of the mistakes that contributed to the confusion of Katrina relief operations. That
is a FACT i.e. that suspicion does exist. You and me and everyone else will only
be able to decide whether or not that suspicion is justified after
a non-partisan investigation has taken place. What we can
say though is that President Bush is not
going to be able
to be non-partisan in investigating his own behaviour.
Bush is an honest, hardworking and loyal President who will do everything in his power to give this country the respect it deserves.
That's a point of view, certainly. But you also said ...
Everyone has their own opinions, even though some of them are warped and wrong, not having anything to do with factual events or circumstances.
... which amply sums up how much weight anyone needs to give to such a point of view. No more and no less than any other opinion. You'll forgive me if I find it hard, given the other things you've said which I've challenged above, to think that your own opinion has very much baiss in "factual events or circumstances".
*Actually, that's a purely rhetorical flourish - my choice of two scientific associations from the Googling of "American" and "Association" as examples was deliberate - they probably are rather better qualified to examine the facts objcetively than anyone in any part of politics.