NYT Editorial: Mr. Bush in New Orleans

New York Times ^ | September 16, 2005

[West Coast Conservative]

President Bush said three things last night that desperately needed to be said. He forthrightly acknowledged his responsibility for the egregious mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. He spoke clearly and candidly about race and poverty. And finally, he was clear about what would be needed to bring back the Gulf Coast and said the federal government would have to lead and pay for that effort.

Once again, as he did after 9/11, Mr. Bush has responded to disaster with disconcerting uncertainty, then risen to the occasion later. Once again, he has delivered a speech that will reassure many Americans that he understands the enormity of the event and the demands of leadership to come.

(snip)

Last night, the president was particularly strong when discussing the nation's shocking lack of preparedness for disaster, and the stark fact - obvious to every television viewer around the globe - that the people left homeless and endangered by Katrina were in the main poor and black.

The entire nation, he said, saw the poverty that "has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America." Polls show that black Americans are far angrier and more skeptical than whites about the administration's actions since the storm. Mr. Bush's words could begin a much-needed healing process. But that will happen only if they are followed by deeds that are as principled, disciplined and ambitious as Mr. Bush's speech.

[fellowpatriot]

He forthrightly acknowledged his responsibility for the egregious mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

How did President Bush mishandle the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? What more could he have done?

[Proud_USA_Republican]

Its a very used tactic by the MSM and liberals.

After they spend a couple paragraphs vicously trashing, finger pointing, and blame gaming.

They then try to end it with a statement about "letting the healing process begin" to make it seem like they care.

Its also a tactic they use when they want to change the subject really fast or stop people from remembering something that goes against the demlibs/MSM agenda.

Such as 9/11. I've been hearing a lot about "let the healing process begin" this week from them. THey want people to forget about 9/11.

[NonValueAdded]

Dear NYT, did you say Mr. Bush was in New Orleans? Was that Neil or Marvin? They were there with the President? Wow.

[txhurl]

check Drudge - Reuters admits potty note pic was faked...

Knew it was faked because those check-writing fingers ain't what W's cedar-buzzing hands look like.

[Lee_Atwater]

What is it with this "Mr. Bush" crap?

The writers at the New York Times always assume a certain voice. Men always seem to be accorded the "Mr" (or Dr) prefix, no matter what their position. Just as a political writer would refer to a President as "Mr", a music writer would refer to Axl Rose as "Mr Rose".

The paper is still a rag though.

[Williams]

We live in very silly times. Best I can tell, the Katrina efforts have been an unprecedented success. Entire city underwater, and the worst you had was some people stuck for an extra day or two. Hardly an apocolyptic event. The whole region was resettled around the country within days. Federal govt and private help poured in. Cuty is pumping dry, massive rebuilding planned. And the egregiousness was what exactly?

[RKV]

The federal government pays for nothing. It's just them making the rest of us pay. Too right and not said often enough.

[singfreedom]

I just KNEW the praise wouldn't last. I kept looking for the "punch line"------and it came, right in the gut!

God, I hate these "pretenders". Was this a regular news story or an editorial/op ed piece? Sometimes its hard to tell.

[Terpfen]

I understand that: I just think it's BS if a person already has a title to be referred to as. Would they refer to a General as "Mr.?" Lt. General Honore hasn't been referred to as "Mr. Honore." Why not "President Bush" in place of "Mr. Bush?"

It's completely stupid.

[singfreedom]

I think many times when persons/institutions like the "Times" use the term "Mr." to refer to the President, they speak sort of tongue-in-cheek. They only defer to "W" as "Mr." when it suits their purposes! They're just trying to add credence to their guise of impartiality.

[Lee_Atwater]

That's a good question...I don't know how they would refer to a General. I would call them "General". I would call a President "President. These are journalists were talking of here, who knows.

[singfreedom]

Jeez, try to imagine these scenarios under Clinton or Gore! Its nightmarish.

[freema]

By doggies, I think you've got a point. I've been keeping track, and I don't remember things moving quite this fast during 'Mr. Clinton's' handling of Floyd.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"There were many thing obvious to television viewers."

One thing obvious, the MSM is the biggest danger America faces, internal or external. MSM is the enemy of all who would value truth and freedom.

[ntnychik]

Post #6 ping

[freema]

Whoa. Hadn't seen your post. Look at the next one : )

[Southack]

"He forthrightly acknowledged his responsibility for the egregious mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."

Notice the clever wordplay. What the NY Times said is accurate, but misleading.

Yes, President Bush acknowledged **his* responsibility...but out of the gregious mishandling, little or none was his doing (state and local refusals to use buses and AMTRAK come to mind).

So their sentence above is accurate...as well as constructed so deviously as to imply that President Bush was the egregious one when the NYT knows that he was NOT at fault for the evacuation failures (among other things). They accomplish this deviousness in no small measure by leaving out any reference to the failed state and local efforts...giving no clue to the casual reader as to the real responsibility for the errors made after Katrina hit.

FR was once devoted almost exclusively to pointing out this sort of journalistic jab...that's a needed function in the world today.

[ntnychik]

They call all men "Mr.", even axe-murderers. I can't remember how they referred to Bill Clinton.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

To call one MR, infers respect, hence, no MR, for Clinton.

[Terpfen]

I can't remember how they referred to Bill Clinton.

"Our Lord and Savior, William Clinton."