Katrina-gate

The Blogmother's questions to ponder about the recent debacle in New Orleans, and nearby areas in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are these:

Should the American people accept an investigative panel to be appointed by the very administration who failed to act in a timely manner to save people and property in the storm called Katrina? (Is it wise to put the fox in charge of the hen house?)

Should we insists that the money that might be used on a panel be put into funds for feeding, clothing, sheltering, and relocating the people displaced by the storm and helping them as they see fit in their time of need ? Should that be done before anyone tries to assess blame?

Should the 'friends of George' be allowed to benefit from the tragedy by being given lucrative no bid contracts to clean up and rebuild the area?

Wouldn't it make more sense to give the local people the contracts? Don't they need the work and money? Don't they know the area better than outsiders?

Are most Americans so gullible or so stupid as to believe that photo ops of our president on the back of a truck touring the flooded regions, and shaking hands with survivors at a shelter are proof of a caring and motivated leader? ( If so, is the Brooklyn Bridge still up for sale?)

We might assume our president learned his empathetic skills at his mother's knees (having heard her statements at the Houston Astrodome last weekend), but where did he learn his administrative skills? Was he hanging out at street corners in Boston or at a used car sales office instead of participating in the classes at Harvard Business School?

When a person continues to make poor decisions over and over and over again, can we assume that he shows poor judgement or perhaps he errs because he is afraid to make a decisions for fear of upsetting his politcal supporters?

Isn't the president supposed to look out for the interest of all of the people in our country, not just those who believe as he does ?

Perhaps the American people should tell him?