more reaction to Katrina

Alert reader Koz sent this op/ed piece in.

I read it quickly twice, and from first blush there's some good stuff in there, worthy of adding to our debate. Of course, anytime you read an op/ed piece, the writer usually has an agenda, and it's no different here. Notice how the author (obviously Republican) uses perjorative words like "dithering" to describe several prominent Democrats. (Not that he's wrong, but it's a subtle thing journalists do to sway debate.)

That said, the dude also gives Bush a jab for not getting there sooner. Not getting into the argument yet about why aid didn't arrive to the South earlier and who's responsible (we will get into that, but in time), I think it's clear that at the very least, Bush should have dropped everything from the beginning and simply been there. One thing my dad taught me is that as a pastor, when people are sick and dying you can't heal them and ease their pain. But you can be there for them, for their families; your simple presence is what's needed. In a tragedy of this nature Bush is the de facto national pastor, and should have been there earlier. (But I'm glad he's there now.)

Anyway, read this Washinton Times Op/Ed piece, and see what you think. Maybe you don't agree with the guy's assessment. Send me a rebuttal piece you came across that's well written, and I'll put that up here too. Or write your own, as like I said, we will be getting into this.