First of all, I'd like to ask if anybody really believes that the president of the united states ever gets to completely take a vacation? Just because he was still somewhere other than DC, I don't believe that he wasn't trying to get a grasp on the situation. I don't think that there is anything in his background, or in that of former Presidents Clinton or Carter or Reagan, for that matter, that would suggest that they could jump into the middle of hurricane aftermath and know what to do. Being a good leader doesn't mean you have to have all the answers, it means you have to hire or appoint those who do. Brownie as any kind of supervisor in FEMA was a huge error in judgment. That's what I see as Bush's biggest mistake in this.

Second--I live on the Alabama gulf coast, where we endured Frederic, and last year Ivan. Central Florida took it on the chin three times to our one--last year. This year we got Dennis, who undid the beginnings of Ivan repairs. Katrina did much more damage to the Mississippi coast than she did anywhere in Louisiana, and a little fishing town in southwest Alabama called Bayou LaBatre will be years in the rebuilding; and yes, there will be a rebuilding, because the alternative is unacceptable.

Third--there is plenty of blame to go around, so putting it all on teh third line of defense is pretty short-sighted adn ill-informed. EVERYONE living around the gulf of mexico knows what a hurricane has the potential to do. That's why voluntary evacuations should be as effective as mandatory ones. The fact that they're not is the direct fault of the residents. We don't just hear this in the two days prior to a hurricane, we hear it for six months of hurricane season EVERY YEAR.

Fourth--When a plan is drawn up, as was in New Orleans, by the people in charge of doing so, published and publicized, and not followed by the city officials, somehow the news organizations missed that and Bush still got the blame.