Danged if He Does, Danged if He Doesn't

I haven't had a chance yet to read George W. Bush's new memoir, but I have seen interviews with him.  I think he was a little too understanding and gracious of the criticism he received during his time in office, and I think this is part of the frustration conservatives have with him.  At his core he is a statesman and a gentleman, and in turn he neglected to forcefully defend his actions, which he had every right to do.

It was unreasonable to allow a picture of him in Air Force One looking down at the Katrina damage to be depicted as detached and out of touch.  He made a reasonable decision to put the citizens first and allow the first responders to do their jobs, uninterrupted.  Had Air Force One landed so that President Bush could tour the damage, it would have been a severe strain to the infrastructure.  His decision was a wise one and reasonable people understand that.  And truly, had he decided to land and wreak havoc on the response, he would have been criticized for that, as well.  Danged if he does and danged if he doesn't.

It was also disingenuous of the media to allow the myth that the federal government is responsible for first responding to perpetuate.  The media is obsessed with polling the American public to see how many people think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but I haven't seen any polls seeing how many Americans believe the federal government is to blame for the slow response to Katrina.  Bush begged then governor Blanco to evacuate New Orleans; she ignored him until 20 hours prior.  Bush asked permission to send the military in to help with the response, she initially declined.  The failures in the Katrina response lie solely at the feet of Nagin and Blanco, but the media was only too happy to to allow the democratic myths to perpetuate, and I would venture that a majority of Americans blame Bush for the response.

When criticism is non-stop and unreasonable, it begins to sound hollow and fall on deaf ears.  Intellectually honest citizens can put aside their politics and review the facts and policy and lay criticism where it belongs.  Intellectual dishonesty leads to a 'danged if he does, danged if he doesn't' mentality.