The point, and I did have one, was that the Federal response was already under way. The article is lying. The buck had stopped, and been dealt with.

If you linked to the Newsweek article, maybe you noticed the magazine cover, the article title, the generous used of the usual anonymous sources, and the inaccuracies. Partisan? Nahhh.

Frankly, I don't have the patience to go over it line by line. I thought my first response pointing out one example would have gotten the point across, but apparently not. To clarify:

The government's response to Katrina—like the failure to anticipate that terrorists would fly into buildings on 9/11—was a failure of imagination. On Tuesday, within 24 hours of the storm's arrival, Bush needed to be able to imagine the scenes of disorder and misery that would, two days later, shock him when he watched the evening news. He needed to be able to see that New Orleans would spin into violence and chaos very quickly if the U.S. government did not take charge—and, in effect, send in the cavalry, which in this case probably meant sending in a brigade from a combat outfit, like the 82nd Airborne, based in Fort Bragg, N.C., and prepared to deploy anywhere in the world in 18 hours.

The goddam 82nd deployed Saturday morning. and arrived six hours later. Now, reread the above excerpt, and come back to this again. See the problem?

The whole article is filled with this kind of crap, leaving things out, adding snide cracks, and all in all, quite representative of a news service that has a long history of rank hostility toward this administration. It's the journalistic equivalent of a driveby, short on facts and long on emotional innuendo.