Slow FEMA response, or no FEMA response? Which is better?

Harrisburg, Illinois was surprised to find out that after a devastating tornado disaster, Øbama’s FEMA would not be providing any monetary aid or relief services to the town.  Essentially, FEMA said that the damage wasn’t that bad and that the town and the state could muster up the recovery costs on their own:

“Based on our review of all of the information available, it has been determined that the damage was not of such severity and magnitude as to be beyond the capabilities of the State, affected local governments, and voluntary agencies. Accordingly, we have determined that supplemental Federal assistance is not necessary,” according to the letter, of which msnbc.com obtained a copy. “Therefore, I must inform you that your request for a major disaster declaration is denied.”

Naturally the citizens were dumbfounded that such an total cataclysm wasn’t “sufficient” and that such a decision was rendered so quickly.  Senator Durbin was quick to criticize FEMA’s decision and vowed to appeal it.   Yes, this is the same Dick Durbin that demanded that Michael D. Brown, alleged perpetrator in the slow response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, be fired.  Let’s see if the rogues gallery of other cosigners will speak up as they did back then: Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Mikulski, Schumer, Salazar, Cheeks Kilpatrick,  Stabenow, and Reid.

Surely, no aid is worse than slow aid, and as we know, it was the slow responses of Mayor Nagin and then Gov. Kathleen Blanco that was mostly responsible for the debacle.

But it was Bush and Brown that ultimately took the political hit.

Let us hope, for the sake of the now homeless in Harriburg, Ill., that the Øbama administration reconsiders this unfortunate and ill considered decision.  Of course, this could be another opportunity for Øbama to “fly in and save the day”, but I am a cynic.   Let’s see what happens.