Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Compare how the Bush administration would be handling the Swine Flu outbreak compared to the Obama admin?

Would it be Bush's chance to lead, or a repeat of Katrina?

21 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I think the current system of stockpiling anti-viral medication was put in place under the Bush regime. I didn't approve of Bush as a president, but this is one thing he did that was good for the nation.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think he would be handling it better than Katrina as Katrina was in Louisiana (no votes there) but Swine flu has been in New York, Texas, California and Illinois (lots of votes) you got to think like a politician ;)

  • 1 decade ago

    first: Obama is doing nothing that I can see at this moment, except flying Air force one over NY and causing panic. Second: Everyone wants to Blame Bush for Katrina. However, I was there and saw first hand how both the Mayor and the Governor refused assistance prior to the hurricane. I saw a line of trucks from red cross full of food and water ready to go into New Orleans but the mayor and the Governor held them up at the edge of the city. I'm not going to set here and defend Bush, but lets not blame him for things he did not do.

  • 1 decade ago

    Both administrations would do essentiall the same thing.

    The only difference is that the media would use the same actions a evidence of incompetence for Bush and a triumph for Obama.

    I was one of the people who responded to Hurricane Katrina. If you think that Bush failed in any way - you need to learn more about the situation and exactly what was possible.

    Source(s): I was there.
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Well, it's a tricky comparison to make because the swine flu is real, and the bird flu was never actually transmitted from one human to another.

    However, Bush's reaction to the bird flu "threat", was to direct federal and state agencies to purchase over 8 billion dollars worth of Tamiflu from his friend Donald Rumsfeld's company - Gilead Sciences. Unfortunately for America, H5N1 (the virus responsible for bird flu) was already resistant to Tamiflu, according to WebMD. His reaction to a disease that didn't exist was to sell America billions of dollars worth of snake oil- it's hard to guage what he would do in the face of a genuine biological threat.

  • 1 decade ago

    By this time Obama should have planned a troop of infected peoples to Afgan and Pakistan.

  • mack
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    A repeat of Katrina and the way they handled the bird flu outbreak. (Laugh) And Some people STILL think he was a good president. LMFAO

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The systems are largely in place... I don't think all that much would be different. See: Avian Flu

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Not much different, unfortunately. I wish somebody would close the border now!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The Bush administration would have invaded Italy, or some other country that had nothing to do with it by now.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.