Now that things are finally under control, and people are having a chance to investigate the events immediate after landfall of Hurricane Katrina, there are some things about the procedures and responsibilities of government workings that explain things a little clearer.

It is not being reported that in the immediate aftermath, as Bush was seen flying around eating cake and playing guitars, that at the same time he was considering taking over control of the situation in Louisiana.

However, to do this, he would've had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties.

So either he allows the obviously failing plan, already in place, to continue unfolding, or he seizes control from a female Democrat Governor to facilitate quicker implementation of federal assistance and troop movements.

With the left screaming about Bush's imperialism, how would they have taken him wrestling away control from Gov. Blanco, assuredly against her protests (she fought declaring martial law, much less federal military control)?

I still don't forgive the President for not being the symbolic leader that his position should have been. But it occurs to me that as events unfold, and information becomes available, to find out who holds the most responsibility for a bad situation, it is easiest to simply look at those who began pointing fingers first.