NationStates Jolt Archive

If someone already posted this, delete this:

But man I did not see that coming.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050914/ap_on_go_ot/katrina_washington

Alfred Blaim?

I'm impressed. He's one tough guy.

(psst, it's spelled blame)

If someone already posted this, delete this:

But man I did not see that coming.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050914/ap_on_go_ot/katrina_washington
Uh... I shudder to say this and pray to God noone reads it... But good... on... Bush...?

If someone already posted this, delete this:

But man I did not see that coming.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050914/ap_on_go_ot/katrina_washington
I'll bet he didn't, either.

Loyal soldiers falling on their swords according to orders:
1. George Tenet
2. Michael Brown
3. A lame-duck president, who may have thought he was emperor, until a certain hurricane disaster threatens to damage the right wing enough they might actually start losing congressional seats, and somebody's corporate masters start making some calls???? Hm-hm, just a thought...

Uh... I shudder to say this and pray to God noone reads it... But good... on... Bush...?
OMG!
Did "they" get to you?

Alfred Blaim?

I'm impressed. He's one tough guy.

(psst, it's spelled blame)

GODDAMNIT!!!!!

hate being science major :headbang:

Yeah he took responsibility. But I feel that many other government officials are at fault, especially at the state level. There is only so much the federal government can do when communications and bridges happen to be knocked out. I guess no one is smart enough in this day and age to understand logistics of doing a major operation. Radio towers were also knocked out by Katrina. There was a communication black-out.

This actualy took him off my dirt bag list which is the list of people I have the least respect for and put him on the dim wad list. Two whole levels. Now if he could get over Iraq and admit that to, but he is still not the only one to blame for the disaster we still have many big corporations to close to gov. that have effected things especialy considering the poor.

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at a joint White House news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

"And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong," said Bush.

Two captions come to mind- "The Pocket Change stops here"
& "This should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, by the unassailable logic of Bush apologists, that Bush is a just Bush-hater and so we can safely dismiss anything he has to say."

I find it very heartening that the American people didn't buy the Bush Administration's attempts to blame the local officials for the disaster response. It's sad that Bush took so long to accept any responsibility, and it's sad that it took a disaster of the magnitude of Katrina to force Bush to put someone with experience in charge of FEMA, but at least he seems to be making an effort to correct the mistakes he's made.

I wish that I could believe that our president, in correcting his errors, was going to make more than the minimum token effort needed to turn around his plumetting popularity polls.

Oh please. Don't take him out of context. He said he was sorry for the federal response that was not adequate. Obviously there were shortcomings on the part of state officials and that is quite glaring. You cannot and will not reduce the blame that falls to state officials. I hate you people who think the federal government is completely at blame. I was personally effected by Katrina because some of my relatives lived in New Orleans. I blame the New Orleans mayor for not deploying the bus system and the Governor Blanco for not acting quickly enough. I blame them both for ordering a mandatory evacuation one day late. Bush was even considering envoking the insurrection act that would essentially remove Gov. Blanco from being in charge of the operation.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?ei=5090&en=aa642b8c89c27c01&ex=1283918400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1126238795-dGCl9WlaN8lbkCHBy9hw2w&pagewanted=print

And what plummeting polls? You mean those with questionable samplings? Ah yes.. check out this one: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm - relatively stable (remember this was one of the only pollsters right about the 2004 election, and is based on likely registered voters.. traditionally a better method).

You people who speak falsehoods or take what he said out of context should realize he also said there were glaring shortcomings on the part of state officials.

Also one other thing, the federal response was faster then that of Hurricane Hugo and Andrew.

My family was personally effected by this, and I'm utterly disgusted out of my mind that some of the left wing fascists in this country are trying to make this political. I swear if anybody uses my family for their political gain, there will be certain words exchanged. Some people at my campus are sick in the head.

--snip--

Also one other thing, the federal response was faster then that of Hurricane Hugo and Andrew.

Care to back that up? Oh, and you are the person who thought Clinton was in charge in 1992 when Andrew hit, right?

My family was personally effected by this, and I'm utterly disgusted out of my mind that some of the left wing fascists in this country are trying to make this political.--snip

My empathy goes out to you and your family.

That being said, yes, it would be bad if someone blatantly politicized this...like, for example, calling a large group "fascists."

Care to back that up? Oh, and you are the person who thought Clinton was in charge in 1992 when Andrew hit, right?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm - Yes an opinion piece.

"Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:

"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three."

--

I never said that Clinton was in charge in 1992. I clearly know that was Bush Sr, smart one. Nice try on trying to making me look like an idiot. It just seems I know what I'm talking about.

My empathy goes out to you and your family.

That being said, yes, it would be bad if someone blatantly politicized this...like, for example, calling a large group "fascists."

I'm just frustrated at some people in this country. That's all.

So just because your relatives lived in N.O. people shouldn't criticise the poor response to help them? That seems like twisted logic to me. Seems to me these people are sticking up for your relatives. Shouldn't you be looking for positive change the most out of everyone?

Don't be so quick to pigeon-hole everyone as 'leftists' as you put it, just because they are critical of a right-wing President. They're criticising him because they think he did a bad job. I'm sure plenty of 'rightists' think he did a bad job too.

By the way, I think it's a little uncivilised to use the word 'hate' so flippantly.

So just because your relatives lived in N.O. people shouldn't criticise the poor response to help them? That seems like twisted logic to me. Seems to me these people are sticking up for your relatives. Shouldn't you be looking for positive change the most out of everyone?

Oh yes. But please direct the blame accordingly to what exactly happened. I don't feel the feds are the most responsible for the slow response. Those people criticizing the president are not sticking up for my relatives. They can go bugger off, because all they are doing is trying to slow down the reconstruction effort. Don't even dare.

And as I shown the federal response was adequate. Now adequate is not good enough for me (I myself like taking things the extra mile).. but it wasn't poor.

They're criticising him because they think he did a bad job. I'm sure plenty of 'rightists' think he did a bad job too.

They are wrong.

Get real.

I swear if anybody uses my family for their political gain, there will be certain words exchanged.

Are you saying that using your relations for political gain is worse than using people to whom you don't happen to be related?

I have to say this right now: This will be my final statement on Katrina for now. This is a very sensitive issue and I've already snapped at two people. I do not want to snap at anyone here. I will let you guys discuss this on your own. If you want to dispute previous comments I made go ahead and do so. This is far too emotionally sensitive for me right now.

If you are understanding, thanks.

The fault my friends for Katrina lies with God, or Mother nature or Whatever force you believe in. The responsibility for not being better prepared for a catastrophy like this lies with any of us who weren't, aren't prepared. Whoever planned & executed the 911 attacks are to blame for them. Whoever placed the bombs in London & Spain are to blame for them, as a world we need to lay the blame on the real things, or people responsible for acts, & maybe look at ourselves to prepare, the BUCK stops with each of us.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm - Yes an opinion piece.

"Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:

"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three."


Excuse me, but the National Guard is under the control of the STATE government. The jurisdictional battles on this point have been well documented, and the slow response by the fed was partly a deliberate holdup unless the state ceded their control. This very statement supports the notion that it was the STATE that responded quickly, NOT the Feds.


I never said that Clinton was in charge in 1992. I clearly know that was Bush Sr, smart one. Nice try on trying to making me look like an idiot. It just seems I know what I'm talking about.



I'm just frustrated at some people in this country. That's all.

Yes. You are frustrated that everyone refuses to see things your way while you whitewash the Feds issues - even in a thread that is premised on the President acknowledging sever shortfalls by the Federal response.

As to using your family as some sort of moral high ground with which to berate anyone who disagrees with you - well assuming that you are telling the truth about your close tes to the disaster, if you think that this allows you to impose a moratorium on real debate on this issue, you are wrong.

Get ticked at me if you like. Say harsh words if you like.


I don't care.

Because I won't abdicate my right to speak or my right to examine evidence and form my own conclusions simply to satisfy you.

Not everyone here is just blaming bush. If you did not notice we leftest actualy think this was the first good thing he did in a long time. He actualy apologized about his mistakes. Heck he did not even know about katrina and what happened till three days later when one of his advisors brought in a dvd of clips from all the different news orginizations. I repeat my self again he is still not the only one to blame. We have to blame the education sytem that has degraded the black comunity in New Orlens keeping them extreamly poor. We need to blame the big buisness people there who lobyed the state and the national gov. to over look their damaging building practices. We must also blame the thousands of public oficials that never did any thing to prevent this over the past 150 years.

Ok, this is coming from someone here in Louisiana, who actually sees first hand what is happening, who has been at the press conferences, who has personally volunteered, who has pulled people out of houses, who has taken people into his own house. FEMA is at horrible fault for this, but our local governemnt is a sham. People saying that Bush pulled money from Corps of Engineers are right, but here in LA they were over-funded anyway, they werent using all the money every year anyway. Governor Blaco and the state legislation was putting the US corps of army engineers at work cleaning up the LSU lakes. Man-made lakes. They wanted Baton Rouge to be more aesthetically pleasing.

Bush asked Blanco to tell him what she needed. She said she needed 24 hours to think about it. How is that for a non-chalant attitude of this disaster.

Ray Nagin is at fault. He refused to use the public school buses to move people. He wanted greyhound to "get their asses in gear" and send them coach-class buses. And the buses he had at his disposal brought people to the superdome, not out of there, even to laplace (20 minute drive) where the damage was negligible. Instead he packed them into the superdome and refused food because he didn;t want people to want to stay there. Then we have the supedome that spiraled into the th circle of hell.

FEMA's response was woefully inadequate i will admit, and things could have been done. I have greater respect for the president now that he shouldered all the blame (although it is not his place to), and i am glad her relieved "Brownie" of his post. The poeple of East Baton Rouge Parish have done the most for these people, but we get very little press or thanks. Here at LSU, we have thousands of people in the PMAC (basketball stadium), and we have turned our fieldhouses into triage centers. OUr population has quadrupled since the disaster. We were a city of roughly 300,000 people, now we have upwards of 1.2 million in this city. FEMA has requsitioned most of our gas, so we have quite a bit of a shortage. The church i attend has taken over 700 people, which requires more than $10k a day to run. This shelter is the one many of you may have seen the president attending, and the one John Travolta brought food to. This is one of the largest shelters in the area, and it recieves no FEMA support. This is not Bush's fault completely.

What benchmark do we have? When else have we had a city essential cut off from the outside world. In the first 2 days after the disaster, there was only 1 point of ingress, the twin span bridges had been demolished and the causeway was structurally unstable. how were they supposed to get people in? How can we have a mass exodus when there are no roads. A helicopter can only bring out so many people at a time. Ray Nagin should have gotten those people out. Mandatory should mean mandatory. If you don't get out, you should be thrown out. people, at times need to be protected from themsleves. our local government had many fatal errors, and the fed response had to work around these.

Alfred Blaim?

I'm impressed. He's one tough guy.

(psst, it's spelled blame)
Well, at least we now know you can correctly spell at least one word. :rolleyes:

The fault my friends for Katrina lies with God, or Mother nature or Whatever force you believe in. The responsibility for not being better prepared for a catastrophy like this lies with any of us who weren't, aren't prepared. Whoever planned & executed the 911 attacks are to blame for them. Whoever placed the bombs in London & Spain are to blame for them, as a world we need to lay the blame on the real things, or people responsible for acts, & maybe look at ourselves to prepare, the BUCK stops with each of us.
Wow! An actual thinking NS General poster! What a pleasant change! Thank you! :)

Piekrom']Not everyone here is just blaming bush. If you did not notice we leftest actualy think this was the first good thing he did in a long time. He actualy apologized about his mistakes. Heck he did not even know about katrina and what happened till three days later when one of his advisors brought in a dvd of clips from all the different news orginizations. I repeat my self again he is still not the only one to blame. We have to blame the education sytem that has degraded the black comunity in New Orlens keeping them extreamly poor. We need to blame the big buisness people there who lobyed the state and the national gov. to over look their damaging building practices. We must also blame the thousands of public oficials that never did any thing to prevent this over the past 150 years.
Holy shit! Another thinking poster! On NS General! Somebody make a note of this, please! :D

Wow! An actual thinking NS General poster! What a pleasant change! Thank you! :)

Thinking??? NS General???

WHAT IS THIS FORUM COMING TOO!!!

The fault my friends for Katrina lies with God

God hates us for our freedom.

*snip*
I don't actually believe that the federal government is entirely to blame for the poor response. State and local officials had more than their share of mistakes too. What I do believe is that FEMA is the organization which is supposed to take responsibility for the coordination of disaster response for large scale disasters like this. The local officials were clearly out of their depth, but it's FEMA's specific purpose to respond effectively in this sort of situation.

I find it distressing that the Bush administration actually tried to lay all the blame on the locals, and that it took so long before Bush would admit even the smallest bit of responsibility. I think the fact that the head of FEMA has resigned is an unqualified admission that he screwed up. I'm glad that Bush is finally admitting some responsibility.

As far as the poll results go, you're right that they're not very reliable. I suppose the main reason I mentioned the polls was becaus it's the only thing I could come up with that explains Bush decision after so many days to finally accept even the smallest bit of responsibility for the response. I suppose an honest change of heart is a conceivable posibility, but I wouldn't bet on it.

As for SARAKIRASPENOWLAND comment of Katrina not being anyone's fault but God - well, yeah, obviously. However most of us are discussing the poor response to Katrina rather than the disaster itself. The response is something we can, I hope, do better next time so it's worth considering. I think it would be nice if you had enough respect for people here to not assume they're total blathering idiots.

Alfred Blaim?

I'm impressed. He's one tough guy.

(psst, it's spelled blame)
I read it as "Bush takes Blair" and was wondering how I missed that particular Pay per View.... :D

Ok, this is coming from someone here in Louisiana, who actually sees first hand what is happening, who has been at the press conferences, who has personally volunteered, who has pulled people out of houses, who has taken people into his own house. FEMA is at horrible fault for this, but our local governemnt is a sham. People saying that Bush pulled money from Corps of Engineers are right, but here in LA they were over-funded anyway, they werent using all the money every year anyway. Governor Blaco and the state legislation was putting the US corps of army engineers at work cleaning up the LSU lakes. Man-made lakes. They wanted Baton Rouge to be more aesthetically pleasing.

Bush asked Blanco to tell him what she needed. She said she needed 24 hours to think about it. How is that for a non-chalant attitude of this disaster.

Ray Nagin is at fault. He refused to use the public school buses to move people. He wanted greyhound to "get their asses in gear" and send them coach-class buses. And the buses he had at his disposal brought people to the superdome, not out of there, even to laplace (20 minute drive) where the damage was negligible. Instead he packed them into the superdome and refused food because he didn;t want people to want to stay there. Then we have the supedome that spiraled into the th circle of hell.

FEMA's response was woefully inadequate i will admit, and things could have been done. I have greater respect for the president now that he shouldered all the blame (although it is not his place to), and i am glad her relieved "Brownie" of his post. The poeple of East Baton Rouge Parish have done the most for these people, but we get very little press or thanks. Here at LSU, we have thousands of people in the PMAC (basketball stadium), and we have turned our fieldhouses into triage centers. OUr population has quadrupled since the disaster. We were a city of roughly 300,000 people, now we have upwards of 1.2 million in this city. FEMA has requsitioned most of our gas, so we have quite a bit of a shortage. The church i attend has taken over 700 people, which requires more than $10k a day to run. This shelter is the one many of you may have seen the president attending, and the one John Travolta brought food to. This is one of the largest shelters in the area, and it recieves no FEMA support. This is not Bush's fault completely.

What benchmark do we have? When else have we had a city essential cut off from the outside world. In the first 2 days after the disaster, there was only 1 point of ingress, the twin span bridges had been demolished and the causeway was structurally unstable. how were they supposed to get people in? How can we have a mass exodus when there are no roads. A helicopter can only bring out so many people at a time. Ray Nagin should have gotten those people out. Mandatory should mean mandatory. If you don't get out, you should be thrown out. people, at times need to be protected from themsleves. our local government had many fatal errors, and the fed response had to work around these.

What I think is particularly annoying is that even if W had perfect precognition and on day 1 of his first term demanded that all the levies be upgraded to "Category 5 ProoF" they still would not have been done in time to stop Katrina Damage. Maybe if Bush Senior had started the work it would have been complete, but, having seen road construction, even that is debatable.

There was precicely Dick that the Fed could have done about the damage or even evacuation. That responsibility and blame lies entirely with the PTB in NO.

As far as the Post-Event FEMA response... well, that is another issue entirely - though it would not have been so noticable or "egregious" had the NO-PTB done their jobs in the first place.

Maybe if Bush Senior had started the work it would have been complete, but, having seen road construction, even that is debatable.

Heh ... as a native Houstonian, that made me laugh. People built the Great Wall faster than I-45 will be completed.

If someone already posted this, delete this:

But man I did not see that coming.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050914/ap_on_go_ot/katrina_washington

Yeah, he took the blame, someone catch me, I think I'm gonna faint! But where's the CONSEQUENCES?!? I want to see some consequences here.

Bush swore upon a Bible to protect our citizens, and he failed, dismally. I think he should resign or be impeached. There's no excuse for the shitty response to the disaster that was Katrina.

You want to see the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Fine. Look no further than this...

Truman: The buck stops here.
Bush: The buck stops wherever I decide to put it down.

Even JFK admitted he screwed up and accepted the blame for the Bay of Pigs. LBJ did not run for re-election after the disaster that was Vietnam. They accepted consequences. Let's see if BUSH does. Something tells me he won't.

Yeah he took responsibility. But I feel that many other government officials are at fault, especially at the state level. There is only so much the federal government can do when communications and bridges happen to be knocked out. I guess no one is smart enough in this day and age to understand logistics of doing a major operation. Radio towers were also knocked out by Katrina. There was a communication black-out.

Yep. And still, we all in the rest of the country knew damn well what was going on. Meanwhile, Bush was still playing cowboy on vacation, Condi was shopping for shies in New York, and Cheny was mansion shopping in Maryland. Meanwhile, all Bush could talk about was how poor Trent Lott lost his house...well boo-fucking-hoo! He knew, or should have known...that the event was so catastophic that it required IMMEDIATE Federal response. Blanco ASKED for help. what part of "HELP!!" doesn't the Bush administration understand?

I still say that if is was a white, upper-crust, gated community full of "good" folks who'd been obliterated, response time would have been a lot quicker. But because it was poor black folks, they didn't give a shit, until someone finally MADE them give a shit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesatecala
--snip--

Also one other thing, the federal response was faster then that of Hurricane Hugo and Andrew.


Hmmm...Hugo hit before Andrew did...and Andrew hit when Bush Sr. was President, back in 1992. So are you saying Poppy was even worse than his son? Quit trying to point a finger at Clinton, over things Clinton had nothing to do with! You right wingers make me sick the way you keep trying to deflect blame by pointing a finger at Clinton and saying..."but HE did this-and-such" Hey!! Aren't you guys supposed to be the party of personal responsibility? Well, how about accepting a large dose of that personal responsibility for yourselves? And take the consequences that come along with it. And tell Bush to resign or be impeached.

I'm just frustrated at some people in this country. That's all.

Yeah?? Well, guess what?? SO ARE WE!!!

Oh yes. But please direct the blame accordingly to what exactly happened. I don't feel the feds are the most responsible for the slow response. Those people criticizing the president are not sticking up for my relatives. They can go bugger off, because all they are doing is trying to slow down the reconstruction effort. Don't even dare.

And as I shown the federal response was adequate. Now adequate is not good enough for me (I myself like taking things the extra mile).. but it wasn't poor.



They are wrong.

Get real.
And in my not-so-humble opinion...you are an incurable right-wing apologist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesatecala
--snip--
---snip-- Aren't you guys supposed to be the party of personal responsibility? Well, how about accepting a large dose of that personal responsibility for yourselves? And take the consequences that come along with it. And tell Bush to resign or be impeached.
Um, Lyric, just what, exactly, is he responsible for (in regards to Katrina) and in what way does it merit impeachment?

As far as "presonal Responsibility" goes, far more of that belongs to the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisania - who were directly involved, than the President of the United States who, by definition, becomes involved when it's too late to do anything but clean up the mess (FEMA).

Um, Lyric, just what, exactly, is he responsible for (in regards to Katrina) and in what way does it merit impeachment?

Katrina is just the straw that breaks the camel's back! He's responsible for a shit-pile more, prior to Katrina, that warrants impeachment. But Katrina was just icing on the cake, PROVING that Bush really DOESN'T give a shit about the poor and destitute in this country. He went on a speaking engagement/fundraiser for the RNC and strummed a guitar while poor black folks in New Orleans drowned!

He swore to protect our citizens. He failed. Dismally. Because he didn't care. And that is why he needs to be impeached.

He is, as Molly Ivins puts it...great at politics...and lousy at governance. I concur, I lived in Texas under Gubnor GW Bush.

He's responsible for putting partisan hacks with no experience, and incompetent fools in charge of FEMA, probably as payback for some political patronage. And because of that, hundreds died. He's responsible, at least indirectly, for MURDER, if you ask me.

about bloody time it is his fault (even though he is a pawn of big oil/tobbaco/food) that and all those who helped him (blair, osamma, cheney etc etc)

if a city cannot get people out, a city should ask the state for help

if a state cannot solve the problem, the state should ask the feds

---

Nagin had school buses with which he could have moved those among the stranded who wished to get out of Nawlins (as we've seen, many would not leave... their right and also their responsibility)... instead he swore and demanded Grayhound buses. lmao. Why accept a Chevy when you want a Porsche? Strike 1 against Nagin.

Strike 2 goes to the Louisiana governor, who suffered major bouts of indecision... in a crisis situation, you must move.

Strike 3 goes to the feds, i guess... FEMA were ineffective for several days, which is awful... but one reason for that was ill treatment by gun-toting looters/hijackers... so okay, declare martial law (state governor or president i think may do that... not sure about mayor) so that FEMA can go to work.

Bar none, i've said this before and will say it again, nobody knew just how bad it would be... you can't know until it actually happens.

about bloody time it is his fault (even though he is a pawn of big oil/tobbaco/food) that and all those who helped him (blair, osamma, cheney etc etc)

it was far more the faults of Nagin and the LA governor, who were on the ground and saw the need.... but you wanted a chance to get in a cheap shot at president bush, so i wouldn't expect a thoughtful answer.

3. A lame-duck president, who may have thought he was emperor, until a certain hurricane disaster threatens to damage the right wing enough they might actually start losing congressional seats, and somebody's corporate masters start making some calls???? Hm-hm, just a thought...

An improper use of terms to begin with. A lame duck president is one who LOST the election when he attempted to run again and is serving out his elected term. It is not one who WON the election. We haven't even HAD a lame duck president since George Sr. Wow.

Blame for all this is properly more accurately put at the feet of the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of the state of Louisiana, both of whom actually DID impede the flow of goods and material into the state. Whatever blame Bush had was rather minimal and was only done to stop or defuse the liberal witch hunt that has swarmed this whole event. Not being able to take any blame on for themselves has been a liberal trademark for years. Watch. You will lose even MORE seats over this. When the Democratic Party ceases to attempt to exploit every d*mn disaster that comes along to further it's own political agenda, (see 9/11) I will finally begin to worry about you guys.

However. I am FAR from that point. :)

As, obviously, are you.

God hates us for our freedom.
of course it could be the resposibility of the Former Soviet Union & thier weather control Satelite, in that case Bush should reinstate starwars, but give the credit to Reagan.

Katrina is just the straw that breaks the camel's back! He's responsible for a shit-pile more, prior to Katrina, that warrants impeachment. But Katrina was just icing on the cake, PROVING that Bush really DOESN'T give a shit about the poor and destitute in this country. Not his job. His job is to worry about the whole country, not just the poor & destitute.
He went on a speaking engagement/fundraiser for the RNC and strummed a guitar while poor black folks in New Orleans drowned!Because they didn't leave when told, and/or weren't provided a means to leave by the local (Democrat) Officials.
He swore to protect our citizens. He failed. Dismally. Because he didn't care. And that is why he needs to be impeached.There is nothing in the job description of President that implies "Caring". it is his job to govern, not to "care".
He is, as Molly Ivins puts it...great at politics...and lousy at governance. I concur, I lived in Texas under Gubnor GW Bush.This is your first genuinely arguable point.
He's responsible for putting partisan hacks with no experience, and incompetent fools in charge of FEMA, probably as payback for some political patronage.Please name a political figure who hasn't. It's not an excuse for FEMA's failure, but it's not somthing that is unique to Bush. And because of that, hundreds died.No, hundreds died because they refused to leave when asked, then refused to leave when told - and refused to force the local (Democrat) government to provide them with a way out (City/School busses). He's responsible, at least indirectly, for MURDER, if you ask me.To be "inderectly responsible for murder" (otherwise known an negligent homicide) one has to be able to show that the defendant had forknowledge of the event and the ability to stop it - not just mitigate the damage. As I said before, not with the entire US budget could W have had te levies repaired in time. The only other option open to him would have been to declare martial law the instant the Louisania Governor hemmed and hawed and forcably removed the population of New Orleans - which, no doubt, would have been decried as some sort of "Purging" of poor black neighborhoods.

Bush will take his hit for FEMA - as he should - but 99% of the "blame" for the human suffering there lies solely at the feet of the Local (Democrat) Government.

What has my thread become....

Rejoice my fellow Americans, one of our publically elected officials has taken responsibility for something gone wrong!

It is the restoration of accountability within a democratic society I was worried about, not these petty partisan bickerings.

Bush will take his hit for FEMA - as he should - but 99% of the "blame" for the human suffering there lies solely at the feet of the Local (Democrat) Government.

WRONG!

As clearly shown HERE (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/crskatrinarept91205.pdf) (Thanks to The Nazz for the link)

What has my thread become....

Rejoice my fellow Americans, one of our publically elected officials has taken responsibility for something gone wrong!

It is the restoration of accountability within a democratic society I was worried about, not these petty partisan bickerings.

Too late for that now. If you make unwarranted accusations, or show irresponsible viewpoints, prepare to defend them. This is NOT just a liberal message board anymore.

Too late for that now. If you make unwarranted accusations, or show irresponsible viewpoints, prepare to defend them. This is NOT just a liberal message board anymore.

That cuts both ways. Prepare yourself for an anal examination every time you post a conservo-creep opinion, because I'm gonna ream you. Damned if I'm gonna let right-wingers get away with the shit they have been for the past 12 years in this country!

This is NOT just a liberal message board anymore.

It never has been. :rolleyes:

You notice, even when taking the blame, he uses this phrasing:-

"I want to know what went right and what went wrong," said Bush.

Even now he's trying to give a positive spin on things by putting "what went right" first. Now, i always thought Chomsky was a bit paranoid at times, but even i can see the Fnord there.

I know I promised to leave.. but this is ridiculous...

Yep. And still, we all in the rest of the country knew damn well what was going on. *sniped for nonsense* Blanco ASKED for help. what part of "HELP!!" doesn't the Bush administration understand?

This is not really a valid argument. Afterall one has to provide evidence to this and not just rantings. Blanco was very slow acting and in fact Bush considered envoking the INSURRECTION ACT removing her from the relief effort, but he didn't because it isn't wise removing someone of the opposite party like that. What part of evidence don't you understand?

But because it was poor black folks, they didn't give a shit, until someone finally MADE them give a shit.

Oh the typical racism card. That just doesn't fly really.

Hmmm...Hugo hit before Andrew did...and Andrew hit when Bush Sr. was President, back in 1992. So are you saying Poppy was even worse than his son? Quit trying to point a finger at Clinton, over things Clinton had nothing to do with! You right wingers make me sick the way you keep trying to deflect blame by pointing a finger at Clinton and saying..."but HE did this-and-such" Hey!! Aren't you guys supposed to be the party of personal responsibility? Well, how about accepting a large dose of that personal responsibility for yourselves? And take the consequences that come along with it. And tell Bush to resign or be impeached.

Um, Andrew hit when Bush Sr was president, and I was not blaming Clinton. I didn't even bring up Clinton... why such the pretentious attitude? No, Bush does not deserve to get impeached over the failings of state government. Governor Blanco deserves to get impeached for all I care. Us right wingers? Do you even know what I believe in? I guess not. I don't you even understand my beliefs because you just ignore what I really am saying.

Silliopoulos (excuse me I spelled your name wrong):

Excuse me, but the National Guard is under the control of the STATE government. The jurisdictional battles on this point have been well documented, and the slow response by the fed was partly a deliberate holdup unless the state ceded their control. This very statement supports the notion that it was the STATE that responded quickly, NOT the Feds.


Under disasters like this one, the govenor usually signs over the national guard to the federal government. You really need to examine the facts, and clear your head of any misconception. The state did not respond quickly because it should of swiftly handed over control to the federal government.

Yes. You are frustrated that everyone refuses to see things your way while you whitewash the Feds issues - even in a thread that is premised on the President acknowledging sever shortfalls by the Federal response.


You don't even know what you are saying. I'm frustrated with people who put all the blame on one person. I'm saying that while I think the federal response was merely adequate, I think the state is at more fault then anyone here. So please get over yourself.

As to using your family as some sort of moral high ground with which to berate anyone who disagrees with you - well assuming that you are telling the truth about your close tes to the disaster, if you think that this allows you to impose a moratorium on real debate on this issue, you are wrong.


I'm not really doing such a thing. Just stating that my emotions are a bit on the sensitive side at this time and that's all.

Because I won't abdicate my right to speak or my right to examine evidence and form my own conclusions simply to satisfy you.

You are clearly failing to look at the evidence.

An improper use of terms to begin with. A lame duck president is one who LOST the election when he attempted to run again and is serving out his elected term. It is not one who WON the election. We haven't even HAD a lame duck president since George Sr. Wow.

Blame for all this is properly more accurately put at the feet of the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of the state of Louisiana, both of whom actually DID impede the flow of goods and material into the state. Whatever blame Bush had was rather minimal and was only done to stop or defuse the liberal witch hunt that has swarmed this whole event. Not being able to take any blame on for themselves has been a liberal trademark for years. Watch. You will lose even MORE seats over this. When the Democratic Party ceases to attempt to exploit every d*mn disaster that comes along to further it's own political agenda, (see 9/11) I will finally begin to worry about you guys.

However. I am FAR from that point. :)

As, obviously, are you.
Sorry about my jargon mistake. For "lame duck" then, read "president who is not going to be president after election day 2008 and threfore can be sacrificed now, so others don't get blamed, even if they deserve it, too."

Why are right wingers so in love with this particular politician? They'll even lay blame on his father before saying anything about him. Do they understand that they're not going to have him around anymore after the next election? Should we be worried about mass suicides?

Why are right wingers so in love with this particular politician? They'll even lay blame on his father before saying anything about him. Do they understand that they're not going to have him around anymore after the next election? Should we be worried about mass suicides?

Not everyone who supports Bush is a flat out right winger. See that's your problem, alienate everyone you can.

I'm bush like. The president did not cause the hurricane in the south. The presidents approval rating is actually up. So americans dont blame him for this terrible event. His approval rating is doing realy good. The people to blame are "laberals". The president is morally correct he would never do anything wrong to people. Which is why he is the president. W. for 08'.

WRONG!

As clearly shown HERE (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/crskatrinarept91205.pdf) (Thanks to The Nazz for the link)

On breif perusal of the faxes:

The Governor requested Aid under Stafford on Aug. 27, to which the White House responded. That in NO WAY alleviated the responsibility of the local governments to get people out of the danger zone - especially when the assets to do so were under the direct control of the local authorities.

Note too, that if the Governor was so sure of the scope of the disaster that she filed for Stafford on the 27th why did she wait until Aug 31 issue an order authorizing the commandeering and use of buses for evacuation and relief efforts? It was too bloody late by then.

Aug 27:

President Bush officially declares that a "state of emergency" exists in Louisiana and orders Federal aid to the affected areas to complement state and local relief efforts. (As of yet, there is no State and Local Authorities, despite the retroactive request for aid, are nor evacuating poor people)

4:00 pm CDT: Per Governor Blanco's order, Contraflow begins , reversing all traffic on inbound interstate lanes and making more room for evacuating vehicles in outbound lanes. (Which, as noted, doesn't help poor people with no access to vehicles)

5:00 PM CDT: New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin declares a State of Emergency and issues a voluntary evacuation order, saying he is having his legal team determine if he can order a mandatory evacuation without exposing the city to legal liability for the closure of hotels and other businesses. (Dear Mayor, please CYA before helping Poor People out of the city)

Sunday Aug 28:
Approx. 10:00 AM CDT: New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin orders mandatory evacuations of New Orleans. (But does nothing to ensure the poorest would/could comply...)

By the 29th his busses were useless.

And if the Fed was supposed to be 100% in control of the situation then why, on Sep 2 did The Bush administration have to ask Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco to request a federal takeover of relief efforts. The move would have given the federal government control over Louisiana's National Guard and local police. The state eventually rejected the proposal. (Why are't you in control and doing more even though we won't let you...)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/katrina-timeline.php

The Federal Government was in no way responsible for evacuating the people of New Orleans. That should have been done before the storm hit. But even if the Fed HAD come in and forcably evacced the low-lying areas before the storm, Bush would be damned for "forcable relocation of African Americans into concentration camps" and "Usurping the Authority of Local Governments".

I'm bush like. The president did not cause the hurricane in the south. The presidents approval rating is actually up. So americans dont blame him for this terrible event. His approval rating is doing realy good. The people to blame are "laberals". The president is morally correct he would never do anything wrong to people. Which is why he is the president. W. for 08'.


You are quite annoying. Do shut up.

You are quite annoying. Do shut up.

You know, i may be very anti-the Bush administration, but i do agree with you on this issue.

You know, i may be very anti-the Bush administration, but i do agree with you on this issue.

What he is saying contributes nothing to the conversation. Not liking Bush is one thing, but expressing your dislike so incompetently is very annoying.

What he is saying contributes nothing to the conversation. Not liking Bush is one thing, but expressing your dislike so incompetently is very annoying.

Quite. It always helps if satire is FUNNY, i find.

I'm sure if the congress investigates this they will find the federal response to be adequate. I've seen recent polls showing jumps in the approval of federal handling because people are now getting the facts.


5:00 PM CDT: New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin declares a State of Emergency and issues a voluntary evacuation order, saying he is having his legal team determine if he can order a mandatory evacuation without exposing the city to legal liability for the closure of hotels and other businesses. (Dear Mayor, please CYA before helping Poor People out of the city)

Wait a minute I thought it was mandatory? That is what was underlined in the city and state evacuation official plan. Why didn't he follow it?

Also don't forget the Mayor never ordered the deployment of the various bus systems in New Orleans (school buses, transit buses). Who cares about legal issues.. this was about lives.. the mayor was obviously far too slow. I would of said "fuck it, order a mandatory evacuation.. if I get sued, at least I knew I saved lives".


The Federal Government was in no way responsible for evacuating the people of New Orleans. That should have been done before the storm hit. But even if the Fed HAD come in and forcably evacced the low-lying areas before the storm, Bush would be damned for "forcable relocation of African Americans into concentration camps" and "Usurping the Authority of Local Governments".

I'm sure an investigation in this matter will end up showing the clear faults in the state response, and moreso the New Orleans city response. Both horribly inadequate.

Yes, it was the feds who had to come in and get people out of the sports dome.

Also remember, Bush was considering declaring the "INSURRECTION ACT", overriding Governor Blanco and removing her authority in the relief effort.

<snip>Wait a minute I thought it was mandatory? That is what was underlined in the city and state evacuation official plan. Why didn't he follow it? he didn't make it mandatory until the next day when the city was less than 24 hours away from being innundated.

Also don't forget the Mayor never ordered the deployment of the various bus systems in New Orleans (school buses, transit buses). Who cares about legal issues.. this was about lives.. the mayor was obviously far too slow. I would of said "fuck it, order a mandatory evacuation.. if I get sued, at least I knew I saved lives". Had he made it mandatory on the 27th (or even the 28th) and used all the busses at hand (rather than whining for Greyhounds) he could have been the hero of this story rather than the idiot playing CYA.

he didn't make it mandatory until the next day when the city was less than 24 hours away from being innundated.

Had he made it mandatory on the 27th (or even the 28th) and used all the busses at hand (rather than whining for Greyhounds) he could have been the hero of this story rather than the idiot playing CYA.

Oh yeah, now I remember.. he made the evacuation mandatory one day late was it... heck, if I knew there was a huge hurricane headed my way, I would take any old bus that could make it.

I'm sure you all remember this photo:

http://images.chron.com/content/news/photos/05/09/08/kat-buses.jpg

Oh please. Don't take him out of context. He said he was sorry for the federal response that was not adequate. Obviously there were shortcomings on the part of state officials and that is quite glaring. You cannot and will not reduce the blame that falls to state officials.

I agree that state officials past and present are to blame for majority of this. A person on another forum I frequent said that during the 1960's when they were getting their degree that in their various books on geology that NEW ORLEANS was cited as prime example of what could happen if a hurricane of this magnitude hit a city like New Orleans which is built on drained marsh land and loose DELTA sedimentary. They predicted then that the levies would all fail as they did and that the aftermath would be similar to what it was. But remember this, the Army Corp of Engineers(The Federal Government) are the ones that built those levies and are partially responsible . Why weren't they repaired and stregthened back back in the 1960 and 1970's when experts where saying this sort of thing would most likely happen in the next 30 - 40 years. Next lets look at FEMA, Brown wasn't qualified for the job at all. The former FEMA director and Bush both pushed to get Brown in. What happened after that was many of the disaster experts at FEMA quite in outrage over someone of no experience being made the Director of FEMA.

I hate you people who think the federal government is completely at blame. I was personally effected by Katrina because some of my relatives lived in New Orleans. I blame the New Orleans mayor for not deploying the bus system and the Governor Blanco for not acting quickly enough.

The Mayor could of asked the GOVERNOR to send as many troops early as possible to drive those buses. But he sure as hell couldn't make the CIVILIAN drivers drive those buses and risk endangering their lives. As mayor he has no authority to force CIVILIANS to risk their lives.


My family was personally effected by this, and I'm utterly disgusted out of my mind that some of the left wing fascists in this country are trying to make this political.

As I am sure that people who have lived and suffered through FACISTS Governments do rightly hate the way you have incorrectly used the word FASCIST.

<snip>
The Mayor could of asked the GOVERNOR to send as many troops early as possible to drive those buses. But he sure as hell couldn't make the CIVILIAN drivers drive those buses and risk endangering their lives. As mayor he has no authority to force CIVILIANS to risk their lives.
<snip>
Had the evacuation order happened on the 27th or 28th as it should have there would have been no danger to the lives of the bus drivers - unless you count being hijacked by one of the passengers. So your point is moot.

points for mesatacala and snycks

the thing that most people miss, is that the federal govt cannot provide aid until it is requested, which did not happen until it was too late.

this is not to say that i belive that none of the blame should go to bush. what i DO like is that he IS willing to take responsibility (unlike the majority of politicians) unlike the ones who made this problem bigger then it ought to have been [read: local officials who just want to blame bush and call him a racist].


and in note: i can see how they might blame bush, i do blame him some too after all, but i dont see where the racist comments come in, and how they help anything whatsoever....

points for mesatacala and snycks

the thing that most people miss, is that the federal govt cannot provide aid until it is requested, which did not happen until it was too late.

this is not to say that i belive that none of the blame should go to bush. what i DO like is that he IS willing to take responsibility (unlike the majority of politicians) unlike the ones who made this problem bigger then it ought to have been [read: local officials who just want to blame bush and call him a racist].


and in note: i can see how they might blame bush, i do blame him some too after all, but i dont see where the racist comments come in, and how they help anything whatsoever....

Aid from the federal government was asked for days before the hurricane made landfall. http://www.gov.state.la.us/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf

The requests were ignored, and what's worse, the federal government then lied about whether the requyest was made. Blanco was so desperate, she was asking her constituency to write the federal government to get them off their asses 5 days before Katrina hit.

changes in foreign policy underway? (http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GI15Aa01.html)

Aid from the federal government was asked for days before the hurricane made landfall. http://www.gov.state.la.us/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf

The requests were ignored, and what's worse, the federal government then lied about whether the requyest was made. Blanco was so desperate, she was asking her constituency to write the federal government to get them off their asses 5 days before Katrina hit. Bull Bull and Bull.

Aug 29, 6:10 AM CDT: Katrina, a Category 4 hurricane with 145 mph winds, makes initial landfall near Buras, La. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/katrina-timeline.php

Blanco made her premptive request for $9mil in projected aid on Aug. 27. The Fed responded the same day. Just how does that equate to your absurd assertion?

Research before spewing.

(edit - interestingly, the pdf you post is different than the letter posted on the Office of the Governor website (http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976) by a matter of $121mil - and also differs by the same ammount from the pdf from the Congressional Research Service than Nazz linked to... (both of which are well archived) got any clue why?)

I agree that state officials past and present are to blame for majority of this. A person on another forum I frequent said that during the 1960's when they were getting their degree that in their various books on geology that NEW ORLEANS was cited as prime example of what could happen if a hurricane of this magnitude hit a city like New Orleans which is built on drained marsh land and loose DELTA sedimentary.

The city government of New Orleans did not push the issue hard enough so that these levees would be repaired. The Army Corp of Engineers may have built the levees but it isn't their fault. They built it for a category 3 hurricane. That is what they were asked to. They also saved the city after Katrina, and repaired the levees. Water is now being drained faster then thought and they are going to reopen four districts of the city.

Please do research before you make assertions.

What happened after that was many of the disaster experts at FEMA quite in outrage over someone of no experience being made the Director of FEMA.

The issue is this: FEMA will show up when asked. I do not think Brown was the right man for the job, but the correction has been made. But nonetheless, it is up to the local city and state governments to take the disaster in their hands first. It was up to them, and they failed utterly and miserably.

The Mayor could of asked the GOVERNOR to send as many troops early as possible to drive those buses. But he sure as hell couldn't make the CIVILIAN drivers drive those buses and risk endangering their lives. As mayor he has no authority to force CIVILIANS to risk their lives.

That's total nonsense and you know it. Those are school buses and they are paid for by the city. They can very well be ordered to do that, and there was no chance their lives were endangered if they were ordered to evacuate a day or two before.

As I am sure that people who have lived and suffered through FACISTS Governments do rightly hate the way you have incorrectly used the word FASCIST.

So ridiculous talking to someone who doesn't consider the facts.

Bull Bull and Bull.

Aug 29, 6:10 AM CDT: Katrina, a Category 4 hurricane with 145 mph winds, makes initial landfall near Buras, La. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/katrina-timeline.php

Blanco made her premptive request for $9mil in projected aid on Aug. 27. The Fed responded the same day. Just how does that equate to your absurd assertion?

Research before spewing.

(edit - interestingly, the pdf you post is different than the letter posted on the Office of the Governor website - and also differs from the pdf from the Congressional Research Service than Nazz linked to... got any clue why?)

Wait, your talingpoints link confirms that Blanco issued a state of Emergency before the hurricane hit. Also, while the feds may have responded, obviously their response was neither organized, implemented nod did it succeed in grasping the magnitude of the emergency.

Perhaps you should read your own links before opening them.

As for the Nat'l guard takeover...which is not the only way the feds can help...if the feds take over control of the Nat'l guard, they lose their state-given police powers. That makes for a very sticky situation.

I dunno as to why the letters you've seen differ...perhaps Blanco had to send several? I got mine off the LA govt. website...it's all official and everything, so it would not only be a crime to post something fraudulent...it would be a glaringly easy to prosecute, obvious and impeachable crime.

Aid from the federal government was asked for days before the hurricane made landfall. http://www.gov.state.la.us/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf

The requests were ignored, and what's worse, the federal government then lied about whether the requyest was made. Blanco was so desperate, she was asking her constituency to write the federal government to get them off their asses 5 days before Katrina hit.
Oh, and Blanco PWNED by CNN! (nice "conservative" network yah?)

There is a shot where Blanco is being set up several days ago for a TV interview, and her press secretary is helping her adjust her mic. They’re having a personal conversation, but the cameraman catches it!! In it, she kinda jokes to her press secretary something like “yeah, well I guess I really need to ask for troops,” and a couple more things she says. A bit later in hte segment she gets into a semi-argument with Miles O’Brien, and he’s pointedly asking her exactly WHEN she asked the President for troops.She gets frustrated and says she didn’t even know what day it was the, she was confused, but Miles presses her.

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/12/blancocnndaybreak/

Gymoor, someone can declare a state of a emergency but it can be all talk and no action, if they don't follow proper procedure, as Governor Blanco didn't. Just because she declared state of a emergency and requested a measling $9 million.. doesn't mean she handled the impending problems properly.

Also one thing about the national guard. If they are federalized, they do not lose their police powers. This has been proven several times in the past.

I feel we should start the investigation into the gross mishandling of the situation, primarily into both Governor Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin. We should start impeachment proceedings for both.

Oh, and Blanco PWNED by CNN! (nice "conservative" network yah?)

There is a shot where Blanco is being set up several days ago for a TV interview, and her press secretary is helping her adjust her mic. They’re having a personal conversation, but the cameraman catches it!! In it, she kinda jokes to her press secretary something like “yeah, well I guess I really need to ask for troops,” and a couple more things she says. A bit later in hte segment she gets into a semi-argument with Miles O’Brien, and he’s pointedly asking her exactly WHEN she asked the President for troops.She gets frustrated and says she didn’t even know what day it was the, she was confused, but Miles presses her.

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/12/blancocnndaybreak/

Don't get me wrong...I think Blanco f-ed up too...I just want to make sure she isn't blamed for things that aren't exactly her fault....like not requesting aid or declaring a state of emergency.

The thing is, with you Bush apologists, is that you seem to think that if anyone else messes up anywhere else, that means Bush's mess ups don't count.

No matter how bad Nagin and Blanco were, Bush still screwed the pooch.

Don't get me wrong...I think Blanco f-ed up too...I just want to make sure she isn't blamed for things that aren't exactly her fault....like not requesting aid or declaring a state of emergency.

Oh no.. that's not what I'm saying. She did that alright. But she was totally incompetent handling the crisis. Remember.. all talk, no action.

The thing is, with you Bush apologists, is that you seem to think that if anyone else messes up anywhere else, that means Bush's mess ups don't count.

Now you are resorting to personal attacks by calling us Bush apologists. Again, I only agree with Bush say... 60% of the time in general. I never Bush's mess ups didn't count (personally, I think there were not many in the Katrina relief effort).

And just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a Bush apologist.

Seriously lay off the flame baiting... it isn't nice.

No matter how bad Nagin and Blanco were, Bush still screwed the pooch.

That's where we disagree.

Gymoor, someone can declare a state of a emergency but it can be all talk and no action, if they don't follow proper procedure, as Governor Blanco didn't. Just because she declared state of a emergency and requested a measling $9 million.. doesn't mean she handled the impending problems properly.

Also one thing about the national guard. If they are federalized, they do not lose their police powers. This has been proven several times in the past.

I feel we should start the investigation into the gross mishandling of the situation, primarily into both Governor Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin. We should start impeachment proceedings for both.

Neither does the half-hearted intitial response by the feds mean that they handled things properly.

Do I have to look up the law in question about the Nat'l guard? Do I really have to? I'm sure someone has it handy, and then I expect a retraction from whichever one of us proves to be wrong ($5 says it's you.) I also expect someone to quote newsmax about it.

Thinking??? NS General???

WHAT IS THIS FORUM COMING TOO!!!
If it were not for the looters, we would have been better prepared for the Tsunami.

(feel better?)

Wait, your talingpoints link confirms that Blanco issued a state of Emergency before the hurricane hit. Yep, as did the President
Also, while the feds may have responded, obviously their response was neither organized, implemented nod did it succeed in grasping the magnitude of the emergency. and you are saying it should have been when the declaration (and request for a paltry $9mil) was made before the hurricane made landfal? Before any damage was done? before there was ANY "magnitude" at all?
Perhaps you should read your own links before opening them. I did. As well as yours, and the one from Nazz and the one from Stephistan (on another thread). None are exculpatory to the Local Authorities.
As for the Nat'l guard takeover...which is not the only way the feds can help...if the feds take over control of the Nat'l guard, they lose their state-given police powers. That makes for a very sticky situation. Then don't whine when C&C is F*ed up with having too many bureaucrats involved.
I dunno as to why the letters you've seen differ...perhaps Blanco had to send several? I got mine off the LA govt. website...it's all official and everything, so it would not only be a crime to post something fraudulent...it would be a glaringly easy to prosecute, obvious and impeachable crime.See for yourself.

From the Louisiana website:

http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976
http://www.gov.state.la.us/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf

and Nazz's post

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/crskatrinarept91205.pdf

Look at the "Enclosure A to Expidited Request"

OOPS. What was that about Impeachment?

Neither does the half-hearted intitial response by the feds mean that they handled things properly.

Do I have to look up the law in question about the Nat'l guard? Do I really have to? I'm sure someone has it handy, and then I expect a retraction from whichever one of us proves to be wrong ($5 says it's you.) I also expect someone to quote newsmax about it.

The initial response by the feds was not half-hearted.

You are being incredibly rude and incredibly mean spirited. I don't see why I should even consider arguing with you anymore.

snip--That's where we disagree.

How is Bush not responsible for gutting FEMA, putting it behind another layer of beaurocracy and hiring as it's director a totally inexperienced incompetent...and then saying said incompetent was doing a heck of a job?

Especially when moving FEMA to Homeland Security was supposed to make it better?

Especially when this is supposed to be the "I'll make you safer" President.

How is Bush not responsible for gutting FEMA, putting it behind another layer of beaurocracy and hiring as it's director a totally inexperienced incompetent...and then saying said incompetent was doing a heck of a job?

Especially when moving FEMA to Homeland Security was supposed to make it better?

Especially when this is supposed to be the "I'll make you safer" President.

All biased spin... I'm glad the director is gone, but he has subordinates who direct a lot of the operations. He doesn't do all the planning himself.

You really should get over yourself and start looking at the facts.

The initial response by the feds was not half-hearted.

You are being incredibly rude and incredibly mean spirited. I don't see why I should even consider arguing with you anymore.

Wait, I haven't called you any names.

I just asked about a friendly $5 bet.

Or if money is not allowed, perhaps a melodramatically apologetic thread, started by the person wrong about Nat'l guard law, explaining just how wrong they were? I'm putting my money where my mouth is...how about you?

I'm not being rude, you're just interpreting me that way. Be assured I type most everything with a smile on my face. :D
(though of course, this topic is no laughing matter.)

All biased spin... I'm glad the director is gone, but he has subordinates who direct a lot of the operations. He doesn't do all the planning himself.

You really should get over yourself and start looking at the facts.

Governors and Mayors don't have subordinates?

All I'm asking is that you apply the same standard to everyone.

Neither does the half-hearted intitial response by the feds mean that they handled things properly. <snip>
You mean their Half Hearted response to the Half Hearted request presented by Blanco? Seems to me that they responded in exactly the way they were asked to respond.

But I do think the Fed screwed up - to the extent that FEMA has always been a F*ed up organization and a place to drop political benefactors. But don't you like the way Brown was Crucified? You know, He of No Experience? How about this:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ September 14, 2005 -- 11:43 AM EDT

Last night we noted the new Knight-Ridder article which shows DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff waiting some 36 hours to make the determination that Katrina was an 'Incident of National Significance'. Before that, Chertoff, not Michael Brown was in charge. And before Chertoff did that, Brown -- who's taken the big drubbing -- actually had little power to act.

This 'incident' finding is part of the new National Response Plan, which is supposed to govern federal responses to domestic disasters. Yet the plan appears to have been largely disregarded with Katrina.

But a TPM Reader pointed something out to me that suggests that Knight-Ridder might have gotten one detail wrong (or at least missed one) -- one which if anything makes the administration seem even more disorganized.

If you click here you can see a copy of the Chertoff memo which invoked the 'incident' finding.

But the reader points out that on page 7 of the Plan, it says quite clearly that "while all Presidentially declared disasters and emergencies under the Stafford Act are considered Incidents of National Significance, not all Incidents of National Significance necessarily result in disaster or emergency declarations under the Stafford Act.."

And if you go back to August 27th, this is just what President Bush did. He declared a state of emergency in the state of Louisiana under Title V of the Stafford Act.

Ergo, Katrina became an Incident of National Significance on August 27th -- two days before the storm. But Chertoff apparently didn't realize this and waited till a day after to make the determination on his own, one that according to the flow chart had already been made.
Lawyers and DHSers will know more about whether I've construed these sections correctly. (I certainly haven't read all 400+ pages of the document.) But they at least seem pretty clear.

Now, IIRC, Chertoff is a fairly respected guy picked with bi-partisan approval after 9/11 - yet "Brownie" takes the rap for him and Bush gets beaten for picking Brownie, who couldn't do dick without Chertoff's say so.

Bush did what he was supposed to do - answer a letter from a Governor with a declaration of Emergency Status, just like he was doing for three other states, while still doing other presidential stuff (see the timeline). FEMA F*ed up, sure, but, and this is key, FEMA did not have the responsibility to protect people from the storm - only to clean up whatever mess was made of things by It and the Local Government If the government could magically appear just before bad things happened then we wouldn't need prisons, because a cop would appear before the crime was committed and prevented it from happening. People have GOT to stp trying to blame the Fed for the death toll when it wasn't theirs to lower in the first place.

snip--

Now, IIRC, Chertoff is a fairly respected guy picked with bi-partisan approval after 9/11 - yet "Brownie" takes the rap for him and Bush gets beaten for picking Brownie, who couldn't do dick without Chertoff's say so.

--snip

Whose decision was it to place FEMA behind another layer of bureaucracy again?

I don't know how much this actually contributes to the conversation at hand, but I find it ironic that not a single person attempting to crucify FEMA and Bush has been able to put up a substantial argument against the legal processes that occured. Synik has essentially summarized (congratulations, by the way) what should be a relatively LOGICAL REPORT on the matter at hand, and there is nothing more to say unless you can provide imperical evidence that contradicts said report.

How is Bush not responsible for gutting FEMA, putting it behind another layer of beaurocracy and hiring as it's director a totally inexperienced incompetent...and then saying said incompetent was doing a heck of a job?in context:

Friday Sept 2: President Bush tours Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana to survey Katrina's damage. He describes the result of relief efforts up to that point as "not acceptable."

10:35 am CDT.: While visiting Mobile, President Bush says about the efforts of FEMA and its director, Michael Brown: "Again, I want to thank you all for -- and, Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. The FEMA Director is working 24 -- (applause) -- they're working 24 hours a day."

When a general greets the troops on a battle field, he doesn't tell them they are tired, smelly and all going to die, he tells them "they're doing a heck of a job".

Especially when moving FEMA to Homeland Security was supposed to make it better? Definately a cockup, but aren't all Bureaucratic agencies cocked up... especially new ones created by shifting old ones around?
Especially when this is supposed to be the "I'll make you safer" President.When a single man can "make me safer" from a Category 5 storm I insist on standing in the middle of, whilst at the bottom of a barely pumped out lake surrounded by water, I'll be ready to take up a new religion.

Governors and Mayors don't have subordinates?

All I'm asking is that you apply the same standard to everyone.

Oh I am. That's why I call for the resignation of both Governor Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin. And they should also apologize to their constituents they failed to protect.

in context:

Friday Sept 2: President Bush tours Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana to survey Katrina's damage. He describes the result of relief efforts up to that point as "not acceptable."

10:35 am CDT.: While visiting Mobile, President Bush says about the efforts of FEMA and its director, Michael Brown: "Again, I want to thank you all for -- and, Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. The FEMA Director is working 24 -- (applause) -- they're working 24 hours a day."

When a general greets the troops on a battle field, he doesn't tell them they are tired, smelly and all going to die, he tells them "they're doing a heck of a job".

Definately a cockup, but aren't all Bureaucratic agencies cocked up... especially new ones created by shifting old ones around?
When a single man can "make me safer" from a Category 5 storm I insist on standing in the middle of, whilst at the bottom of a barely pumped out lake surrounded by water, I'll be ready to take up a new religion.

Where is Moses when you need him?

Oh I am. That's why I call for the resignation of both Governor Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin. And they should also apologize to their constituents they failed to protect.

Fair enough. Then I assume you're asking the same of Bush?

Fair enough. Then I assume you're asking the same of Bush?

No, didn't you get it. The fault extends through all levels of government (apparently) and everyone should resign (apparently) except for Bush, who is somehow immune.

And when you point out this inconsistency you'll be attacked.

Thats what i've noticed from these threads, anyway.

Fair enough. Then I assume you're asking the same of Bush?

Absolutely.. not. Bush actually did an adequate job in the handling of this. But for me, adequate is merely okay. He could of done a better job, but by no means should he resign. Ray Nagin and Governor Blanco did a horrible job in my humble opinion.

Where is Moses when you need him?
I said "New" not Neolithic. :rolleyes:

Besides, Moses got in trouble for false attribution of power anyway (thus the Forum... er "Promised Land" ban.)

I stand by my statement :D

Absolutely.. not. Bush actually did an adequate job in the handling of this. But for me, adequate is merely okay. He could of done a better job, but by no means should he resign. Ray Nagin and Governor Blanco did a horrible job in my humble opinion.

Oh please. If Clinton had been Prez, you'd be calling for his head. You'd probably be calling the Katrina disaster treasonous, somehow.

Oh please. If Clinton had been Prez, you'd be calling for his head. You'd probably be calling the Katrina disaster treasonous, somehow.

No I wouldn't. In fact if he was I'd say the same thing, that is if he responded in a similiar manner.

So stop putting words in my mouth.

No I wouldn't. In fact if he was I'd say the same thing, that is if he responded in a similiar manner.

So stop putting words in my mouth.

admittedly, my situation is hypothetical. Still, you hold Bush to a lower standard than you do the Governor or the Mayor.

You simply can't argue that Bush's plan to bury FEMA in Homeland Security and appoint (not just "Brownie") a whole gaggle of inexperienced hangers on to FEMA as well wasn't directly responsible for some of the problems and deaths in LA.

No, didn't you get it. The fault extends through all levels of government (apparently) and everyone should resign (apparently) except for Bush, who is somehow immune.
Um, no. The ones that should resign are the ones with the most responsibility. The job of the President is basically to sign a cheque, which he did as asked, when asked. That the agencies below him failed to act in the way you would like is the fault of the agency and its head. While Bush retains ancillary blame for the nomination of said head, this was the first time EVER that ANYTHING has been declared an 'Incident of National Significance', "triggering for the first time a coordinated federal response to states and localities overwhelmed by disaster."

This Declaration is first use of DHS National Response Plan.

It would have been a miracle if it weren't cocked up.
And when you point out this inconsistency you'll be attacked.Nope, I attack fallacious points. That's caled Debate.
Thats what i've noticed from these threads, anyway.Then you haven't read enough of them.

Um, no. The ones that should resign are the ones with the most responsibility. The job of the President is basically to sign a cheque, which he did as asked, when asked. That the agencies below him failed to act in the way you would like is the fault of the agency and its head. While Bush retains ancillary blame for the nomination of said head, this was the first time EVER that ANYTHING has been declared an 'Incident of National Significance', "triggering for the first time a coordinated federal response to states and localities overwhelmed by disaster."

This Declaration is first use of DHS National Response Plan.

It would have been a miracle if it weren't cocked up.
Nope, I attack fallacious points. That's caled Debate.
Then you haven't read enough of them.

Bush's responsibility extends to the policies that weakened FEMA when he's supposed to be the president that is supposed to keep us safe in Emergencies. His policies directly lead to the results we saw.

admittedly, my situation is hypothetical. Still, you hold Bush to a lower standard than you do the Governor or the Mayor.Absolutely. He was in no way in any position to evacuate the people of New Orleans. They were.
You simply can't argue that Bush's plan to bury FEMA in Homeland Security and appoint (not just "Brownie") a whole gaggle of inexperienced hangers on to FEMA as well wasn't directly responsible for some of the problems and deaths in LA.Can you tell me how FEMA was "directly responsible for some of the problems and deaths in LA"? The problems arose mostly from not getting the poor, lower and criminal classes out of the city before it was inaccessible to anything but Bayou Air Boats... and that was somthing FEMA could not do because it needed to have happened BEFORE the Governor wrote for help. Evacuating the Prisons (safely, rather than opening the cages and letting the animals out) was the State's job. Getting the innocent Poor onto schoolbusses and out of harm's way was the City & State's job. Shooting anyone who stayed back to pillage was the Police's job.

Helping relocate/feed refugees that had been Evacced is FEMA's job.
Coordinating immediate-term cleanup and Health/Sanitation issues is FEMA's job.
Figuring out allocation of Federal Funds is FEMA's job.

FEMA's job would not have been as difficult if the State and City had done theirs. It's that simple.

And No, I would not have blamed Clinton for this either.

admittedly, my situation is hypothetical. Still, you hold Bush to a lower standard than you do the Governor or the Mayor.

You simply can't argue that Bush's plan to bury FEMA in Homeland Security and appoint (not just "Brownie") a whole gaggle of inexperienced hangers on to FEMA as well wasn't directly responsible for some of the problems and deaths in LA.

No I don't. I hold everyone to the same standard here.

You really have issues with the facts, and you didn't even formulate an argument in this regard. Take Syniks. He should be hired for an investigation into the matter by the congress. Heh.

No I don't. I hold everyone to the same standard here.

You really have issues with the facts, and you didn't even formulate an argument in this regard. Take Syniks. He should be hired for an investigation into the matter by the congress. Heh.


(yawns) I notice you still haven't put your money where your mouth is.

Seeing as Bush isn't worried about re-election or anything as such, and even many democrats are relieving him of whatever blame might be there, this is a classy move. Not to say so many others were drunken, un-thought out moves, but he redeemed a few points.

Not everyone who supports Bush is a flat out right winger. See that's your problem, alienate everyone you can.
Sorry, I was away for a while. You're right, you could just as easily be Leon Trotsky Jr., for all I know. So let me rephrase:

Why do the people who like Bush, like him so very, very much?

Why do *you* like him so much?

You admit he did a substandard job in the response to Katrina, but you get very angry at people's insistence that he be called to account for it. Yes, the mayor and gov are responsible for their failings, but Bush should also be responsible for his failings.

Clearly you don't think he has no failings, because you said earlier that you only agree with him 60% of the time -- or the other way around. I haven't mastered the boxing several quotes thing yet. Anyway, you don't agree with him 100%. So what can't he do/hasn't he done that a president should do, in your opinion?

Actually, you, like many Bush supporters, seem to get extremely emotional whenever anyone criticizes Bush. You seem to take it personally. Why? What possible difference can it make to you if I don't like him? Yet when people in a thread start to criticize the government, you are sure to come in with attacks against the criticisms more than the topic of thread itself. Have you felt this same attachment to other presidents, or just this one? Why?

I'm asking you seriously, Mesatecala. I really want to know why you react this way. Do you understand that your emotionalism is just downgrading debate into argument? When you respond with anger, insults, accusations, others give back the same. It also turns analysis of facts into a did/didn't/did,too circlejerk that goes nowhere.

Please try to understand. When I was a kid, I was taught that it is every American's duty to watch and judge their government and if they think it is doing wrong to speak out about it. Nowadays, I find myself being attacked in often very personal terms for doing just that. So I'd like to know why, and why now and not when I was younger.


ADDITION: I'm not saying it's just you. Syniks and several others on the forums react similarly. But this is my second go-round with you, so I'm asking you.


[ps: How's that for sucking the air out of a good fight? :p )

No I don't. I hold everyone to the same standard here.

You really have issues with the facts, and you didn't even formulate an argument in this regard. Take Syniks. He should be hired for an investigation into the matter by the congress. Heh.
Frankly, I would like to be hired to investigate almost everything this and previous administrations have done. I'm sure I could root out plenty of blame to go around to both parties. :rolleyes:

But, as Grymoor complains about not seeing the NG reg posted, (I believe he's correct BTW) neither have I seen any sort of logical explination of how FEMA (and by extention, Bush) could be responsible for evacuations that should have happened well before the hurricane hit - i.e. starting just about the time Blanco was drafting her request for relief under Stafford.

After the 29th when FEMA was ostensibly in charge? Well, Please tell me how FEMA could have gotten people out faster - with insufficient boats and helicopters (there weren't enough in the entire US) - particularly while being shot at.

The many failures of FEMA do NOT include the deaths of people who shouldn't have been there in the first place. And Calling FEMA/Bush complicit in those deaths is pure partasian hackery.

<snip>
Actually, you, like many Bush supporters, seem to get extremely emotional whenever anyone criticizes Bush. You seem to take it personally. Why? What possible difference can it make to you if I don't like him? Yet when people in a thread start to criticize the government, you are sure to come in with attacks against the criticisms more than the topic of thread itself. Have you felt this same attachment to other presidents, or just this one? Why?<snip>

ADDITION: I'm not saying it's just you. Syniks and several others on the forums react similarly.Whurf?

Actually, there's more about Bush that I dislike than like. What I take exception to are the "bushitler=evil" posts - posts which are usually mighty thin on data and thinner on logic. Show me somthing that Bush is genuinely responsible for (like the idiotic Patriot act and Homeland Insecurity) and I will agree accordingly.

I have even, on occasion, when warranted, supported Clinton's policies. I certainly admired his acumenn. But I also never said anything remotely as vitreolic against Clinton as I see here about Bush.

I also take exception to the "US=Hegemonic Imperialists" posts mainly because the very thought is silly, though the posters are usually vitreolic about it.

I suppose I do have a prejudice against vitreol (and around here it seems focused mostly at Bush), but I would react the same towards most vitreolic comments.

But attack the criticisim and not the logic behind it? You wound me. :(

(You pinko-commie-liberal-democrat skumbag :p ;) )

Sorry, I was away for a while. You're right, you could just as easily be Leon Trotsky Jr., for all I know. So let me rephrase:

Why do the people who like Bush, like him so very, very much?

Why do *you* like him so much?

If you would of even bothered reading my posts, I said I agree with him 60% of the time. I don't like him so very much.


You admit he did a substandard job in the response to Katrina, but you get very angry at people's insistence that he be called to account for it. Yes, the mayor and gov are responsible for their failings, but Bush should also be responsible for his failings.

You already been refuted on several things, including these supposed failings.

Actually, you, like many Bush supporters, seem to get extremely emotional whenever anyone criticizes Bush. You seem to take it personally. Why? What possible difference can it make to you if I don't like him? Yet when people in a thread start to criticize the government, you are sure to come in with attacks against the criticisms more than the topic of thread itself. Have you felt this same attachment to other presidents, or just this one? Why?

More nonsense. How do you know if I'm no more then a reluctant Bush supporter? I would easily support a more moderate republican over him. So please, understand the facts and stop personally attacking me.

When you respond with anger, insults, accusations, others give back the same. It also turns analysis of facts into a did/didn't/did,too circlejerk that goes nowhere.

Excuse me? I responded with solid evidence and proper arguments. I'm not the one being a partisan and throwing mud.


ADDITION: I'm not saying it's just you. Syniks and several others on the forums react similarly. But this is my second go-round with you, so I'm asking you.

Unlike you, Syniks has provided a very sound legal argument. I find you are nothing more then a partisan who is trying to sling mud at people who formulated proper arguments.

Frankly, I would like to be hired to investigate almost everything this and previous administrations have done. I'm sure I could root out plenty of blame to go around to both parties. :rolleyes:

But, as Grymoor complains about not seeing the NG reg posted, (I believe he's correct BTW) neither have I seen any sort of logical explination of how FEMA (and by extention, Bush) could be responsible for evacuations that should have happened well before the hurricane hit - i.e. starting just about the time Blanco was drafting her request for relief under Stafford.

After the 29th when FEMA was ostensibly in charge? Well, Please tell me how FEMA could have gotten people out faster - with insufficient boats and helicopters (there weren't enough in the entire US) - particularly while being shot at.

The many failures of FEMA do NOT include the deaths of people who shouldn't have been there in the first place. And Calling FEMA/Bush complicit in those deaths is pure partasian hackery.

You're right. FEMA is not responsible for the botched evacuation. What FEMA is responsible for is the lag in their getting the needed supplies (much of which they had at the ready...but which went untapped for days,) to NO in order to help some of the saveable. FEMA is also responsible for not being aware of the unrest in the city and stranded evacuees...when regular people watching the news knew full well what was going on.

The FED gov't had a huge amphibious launch ship just off the coast with hospital facilities, a helicopter landing deck and room for 100's...which went untapped for days.

Basically, FEMA was too unready and disorganized to do their job properly after Katrina hit.

As to there not being enough helicopters in the U.S., I wonder why? Maybe they're busy elsewhere?

If you would of even bothered reading my posts, I said I agree with him 60% of the time. I don't like him so very much.



You already been refuted on several things, including these supposed failings.



More nonsense. How do you know if I'm no more then a reluctant Bush supporter? I would easily support a more moderate republican over him. So please, understand the facts and stop personally attacking me.



Excuse me? I responded with solid evidence and proper arguments. I'm not the one being a partisan and throwing mud.



Unlike you, Syniks has provided a very sound legal argument. I find you are nothing more then a partisan who is trying to sling mud at people who formulated proper arguments.
Okay. Here's what I see:

My questions did not contain any judgmental or hostile words, but rather than answer any of them, you instead dismiss me as not bothering to read posts that I quoted, talking nonsense, personally attacking you, being a partisan, and throwing mud. That's a pretty good haul for one response. You also don't like that questions about feelings/attitude were not in legal language. I don't quite follow you on that one.

I conclude that you have no interest in communicating with others, but would rather just try to drown out dissent by shouting and intimidation. Oh, well. I don't like that kind of game, so, I won't be playing it with you.

Good night for now, all. A domani. :)

Whurf?

Actually, there's more about Bush that I dislike than like. What I take exception to are the "bushitler=evil" posts - posts which are usually mighty thin on data and thinner on logic. Show me somthing that Bush is genuinely responsible for (like the idiotic Patriot act and Homeland Insecurity) and I will agree accordingly.

I have even, on occasion, when warranted, supported Clinton's policies. I certainly admired his acumenn. But I also never said anything remotely as vitreolic against Clinton as I see here about Bush.

I also take exception to the "US=Hegemonic Imperialists" posts mainly because the very thought is silly, though the posters are usually vitreolic about it.

I suppose I do have a prejudice against vitreol (and around here it seems focused mostly at Bush), but I would react the same towards most vitreolic comments.

But attack the criticisim and not the logic behind it? You wound me. :(

(You pinko-commie-liberal-democrat skumbag :p ;) )

Well, in that case, I beg your pardon, and I'll refrain from telling you now what I think of Bush personally. At least on a policy by policy basis, we may have a lot in common. But don't blame me if you stumble on one of my rants somewhere else. ;)

(And I'll have you know I never wear pink.)

Bush takes blame for What Went Wrong (http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW09-14-05.jpg), how long before he goes on another vacation?

Okay. Here's what I see:

My questions did not contain any judgmental or hostile words, but rather than answer any of them, you instead dismiss me as not bothering to read posts that I quoted, talking nonsense, personally attacking you, being a partisan, and throwing mud. That's a pretty good haul for one response. You also don't like that questions about feelings/attitude were not in legal language. I don't quite follow you on that one.

Your questions contained judgemental tone. Remember, when you word something you can be very judgemental without having hostile wording. I do believe you are a partisan and you are swinging mud by calling everyone a Bush supporter who does not agree with you. That's pretty much a pathetic way to get back at someone.

I conclude that you have no interest in communicating with others, but would rather just try to drown out dissent by shouting and intimidation. Oh, well. I don't like that kind of game, so, I won't be playing it with you.


Actually your problem is, you are gravely mistaken. I have been talking with people and formulating an argument. All you managed to do is call me a Bush supporter as if it were a personal insult.

You're right. FEMA is not responsible for the botched evacuation. What FEMA is responsible for is the lag in their getting the needed supplies (much of which they had at the ready...but which went untapped for days,) to NO in order to help some of the saveable. FEMA is also responsible for not being aware of the unrest in the city and stranded evacuees...when regular people watching the news knew full well what was going on. True. And those supplies would not have been needed in the quantity FEMA was unable to distribute had Louisania done its job.
The FED gov't had a huge amphibious launch ship just off the coast with hospital facilities, a helicopter landing deck and room for 100's...which went untapped for days.

Basically, FEMA was too unready and disorganized to do their job properly after Katrina hit.Again, true, but again, had LA/NO done its job, even a disorganized FEMA, using a new set of guidelines for the first time could have been more effective and fewer people would have died.
As to there not being enough helicopters in the U.S., I wonder why? Maybe they're busy elsewhere?Point almost taken - if by that you mean that we didn't have sufficient Apaches and Cobras handy to appropriately deal with looters.

The military in no way has the ability to undertake mass troop (or evacuee) movement by helicopter. Also, have you ever tried to board a flying helecopter? Without some fairly stringent controls, a person attempting to board a helecopter hovering over water can easily be electrocuted by massive static discharge - not to mention freaking out and falling off if asked to climb a ladder a'la James Bond. No, Helecopters are great for evaccing a half dozen trained personnel or a couple of stretcher-bound civvies, but they are certainly NOT appropriate for mass evac. As for the Ship? I thought it was a hospital ship with little small-craft (shallow draft) capability. If it was an LST, then there was a tremendous cockup, but even then, I'm not sure amphibious landing craft would have been particularly useable for rescue ops. I'm not a Squid, so I have to go look it up.

Bush takes blame for What Went Wrong (http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW09-14-05.jpg), how long before he goes on another vacation?
Well Dobbs, I guess you're right. Bush is TOTALLY at fault. He utterly failied to understand how inept, incompetent and/or corrupt the local Louisiana Machine was and failed to declare Martial Law before the storm hit - which would have enabled him to ride in on a white horse and save all those people personally.

Yep. I take it back. It's all Bushitler's fault. :rolleyes:

No, didn't you get it. The fault extends through all levels of government (apparently) and everyone should resign (apparently) except for Bush, who is somehow immune. <snip>
Among those "leaders of our country" to "be held accountable" for the flooding of New Orleans, would you include the Sierra Club? The levees that failed in New Orleans would have been raised higher and strengthened in 1996 by the Army Corps of Engineers were it not for a lawsuit filed by environmentalists led by the Sierra Club. How about the Save the Wetlands stalwarts? According to a recent report in the Los Angeles Times, a 1977 lawsuit filed by Save the Wetlands stopped a congressionally-funded plan to protect New Orleans with a "massive hurricane barrier." A judge found that New Orleans' hurricane barrier would have to wait until the Army Corps of Engineers filed a better environmental-impact statement.

Gee. I guess we have Carter (1977-1981) and Clinton (1993-2001) to blame for the kowtowing to Envionmentalists that lead to not having appropriate Hurricane barriers in NO eh?

(No, I don't blame them... I blame the Enviornmentalists. I'm hoping you see how silly it is to blame a President - any president - for the death and destruction caused by a natural disaster.)

Your questions contained judgemental tone. Remember, when you word something you can be very judgemental without having hostile wording. I do believe you are a partisan and you are swinging mud by calling everyone a Bush supporter who does not agree with you. That's pretty much a pathetic way to get back at someone.



Actually your problem is, you are gravely mistaken. I have been talking with people and formulating an argument. All you managed to do is call me a Bush supporter as if it were a personal insult.
You felt that my questions were judgmental on their own. I accept that, even though I didn't mean them that way. I'm sorry to have offended you, and I hope you'll believe me that it was not on purpose.

I thought that your statements were very angry, as if you felt personally offended by what people were posting. I'd like to know if you really feel that way and, if so, why?

If you're not a Bush supporter, okay, I'll stop describing you that way, but I don't see how "Bush supporter" is an insult, if one does support him. Some people call me a liberal as an insult, but I am a liberal and proud of it, so I don't mind being called that.

BTW, if you don't want to give me any credit for it, fine, but I go to a lot of effort to express my points/arguments clearly, and I believe I even succeed sometimes. My arguments tend to be more analyses of statements/situations than fact-jousting because (a) I'm more interested in the way people think and (b) I do this mostly at work and don't have time to hunt down links to support factual claims, which I therefore avoid making. I state my opinions of facts presented by others. I'm not trying to dispute the *facts*. I'm trying to work out differences of *opinion*.