If Osama Had Blown Up the Levees Would the Response Have Been the Same?

As Atrios has noted: “Four years of hearing that ‘9/11 changed everything’ as a justification for literally everything, we know now these incompetent fuckers couldn’t run a lemonade stand let alone defend the country or deal with a disaster.”
This begs a question: Would our government have deployed itself differently this week if terrorists had blown up the levees in New Orleans last Monday?
Staging such an attack would certainly have been possible. It was common knowledge that the levees were vulnerable — despite Mr. Bush’s statement otherwise — and the logistics of exploding Oklahoma City style truck bombs next to the berms and canals would seem to be easier than highjacking jetliners and flying them into buildings.
If Osama had blown up the levees, first off, Bush’s vacation would have ended abruptly on Monday, and he would have flown into the disaster scene right away to take charge. (None of the flitting around the country like a scaredy-pants school boy like he did on 9/11.) In Bushspeak, of course, “taking charge” means engaging in photo-ops and reciting Rovian speeches filled with bellicose resolve and determination.
Even before Mr. Bush was done in New Orleans on Monday, every department of the federal government would have been mobilized and resources would have poured in.
And then Bush would have announced an invasion of either Iran or Syria — or both.
Why the difference? Why was the government’s response so inadequate and sluggish? The answer is politics, of course.

Seeing Anderson Cooper 



