why would he not?
Once again, this was a break down of the local and state governments. President Bush was heavily criticized for not sending in the military to help out the survivors or to help evacuation. The fact is, IT IS ILLEGAL for the President to send the military into a state without approval of the local and state government. The administration asked several times during the tragedy if they needed help and only after it was painfully clear that they did, did the Governor ask and approve of federal help.
On another flip side of all of this.
I find it rather amusing that Obama is being praised for helping with relief efforts. Isn't this pretty much done by people several pay levels below him?
Meanwhile, when an American dignitary asks for protection over seas by our military and his government fails to provide it, he washes his hands of it by claiming thats all done several levels below him.
That all is kind of odd to me.
first, obama has no control over who or why people praise him. second, your memory of katrina confuses me. third, if you honestly believe the federal gov't should receive no blame for the failures of katrina, that explains a lot. fourth, so it was jindal's fault?
Where did I say the federal government had no blame?
I am confused on something. Is the President responsible for what happens several levels below him or not?