When Katrina hit, the state of Louisiana took control of the recovery initially. Why? Greed, simply put. By handling the efforts in-house, friends of the state would get the contracts. By allowing federal control, FEMA decides who gets the contracts. Most of those would probably go to Texas, the home state of President Bush and right next door. The LA Governor was trying to keep the POTUS from taking advantage of the situation and pulling contracts out of LA and into TX. It was just a bad move to attempt this while lives mattered. He was looking too far ahead, and not at the immediate problem.
Yes, his response to this hurricane was adequate. The people who lived there were told to leave before the storm hit, and those that did not and choose to stay knew they would be going through a horrible storm. He sent in help as soon as he could get it there.
The President does need to take vacations, given that it might just be the most stressful job in the world. However, staying on vacation when you know a major port city is getting hit by a freak hurricane is unacceptable. The federal response to Katrina was also downright lethargic when attention was paid.
No, George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina was not timely or adequate. It took him much too long to start helping people in those areas and it was one of the worst natural disasters in the United States in modern times. My suspicion was that he did not consider the area a high priority.
I believe it is more than obvious that George Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina was not adequate. While people affected by this storm have received support since then, the initial response to it, left people stranded for long amounts of time and it predominantly affected people who were African American. Many assume that the people's demographics had something to do with the lack of response from the federal government, which I think is true to some degree.