Michelle Malkin on "THE BLAME GAME"

By the way, Do not consider my previous opinions as the disgusting and insane politization of the Katrina Disaster, in which some Reasonable leftists have engaged. Michelle Malkin rightly calls them out here. Note, however, that she prudently acknowledges legitimate criticism of both the President, the Federal government and the LA/NO authorities' response:

While the above examples of Bush Derangement Sydrome are beyond the pale, there are serious criticisms to be made of President Bush--and government officials from both parties and all levels, for that matter.

The Bush Administration has come under particularly fierce criticism for its decision to scrimp on anti-flood measures in New Orleans--a decision some claim was prompted by budgetary pressures caused by the war in Iraq:

Federal flood control spending for southeastern Louisiana has been chopped from $69 million in 2001 to $36.5 million in 2005, according to budget documents. Federal hurricane protection for the Lake Pontchartrain vicinity in the Army Corps of Engineers' budget dropped from $14.25 million in 2002 to $5.7 million this year. Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu requested $27 million this year.

Both the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper and a local business magazine reported that the effects of the budget cuts at the Army Corps of Engineers were severe.

I agree with Ms. Malkin that cuts to anti-flooding measures have plagued NO and LA for at least three decades, if not more. This doesn't alter the fact, however, that the President contributed to these cuts with budgetary decisions of his own. Given that the cut funds supported the necessary presence of our soldiers in Iraq, that decision might have been understandable--save for all the pork in bills like this! Whatever decisions previous administrations made, President Bush holds the switch today. Where is the Trumen attitude of "The buck stops here" when we need it. Nevertheless, the President only commands the executive branch of the Federal Government. As Ms. Malkin notes, the locales in Louisiana and New Orleans have some 'splainin to do!

In the months leading up to Hurricane Katrina, it became increasingly clear to local officials that in the event of a killer storm, the No. 1 problem in a city with a 30 percent poverty rate was some 134,000 residents who did not have a car. They knew these people had no way to get out of town -- and that a Category 3 hurricane or stronger would likely bring a flood of Biblical proportions.

And so the plan was...to do nothing.

Well, almost nothing. This summer, as local officials were streamlining the counter-flow interstate traffic plan so that better-off New Orleans residents could leave more quickly, they also prepared a DVD for local churches and civil groups urging the poor to find a ride out of town.

They didn't say who from. They only said who it wouldn't be: The government. Even more amazing, the mayor of New Orleans took the city's buses -- the most viable means for getting poor residents out of town -- and used them to bring people to the Superdome, even as he was acknowledging that conditions there were bound to deteriorate.

Well? Any comment, your honor? Any way you want to pin this failed city policy on the Feds? Was it the President's fault that you waited until Sunday morning to order an evacuation of NO? No, the failure of public response to the drowning of NO can't be laid all at the President's feet. Many leaders have failed to do what they were elected to do. Partisan cheap-shotting does not alter reality. Neither does ignoring or downplaying legitimate criticism--as long as it's fairly expressed at the appropriate time.

Such as when hospital administrators and doctors have to consider who to starve, when they all should have been evacuated.

Otherwise, the more helpful attitude that ought to guide all of us is the Japanese proverb: Fix the problem, not the blame.