Bush supporters' aftermath thread

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090105L.shtml

"No One Can Say They Didn't See It Coming"
By Sidney Blumenthal
Salon.com
Wednesday 31 August 2005
In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I see the liberals are already blaming Bush for the effects of the Hurricane. Any thoughts as to why the levees weren't improved pre-9/11 under Clinton's watch?

And does the Louisiana State Government have any roll in fixing their own problem? Nah, just Bush.

One month ago-

LA National Guard Wants Equipment to Come Back From Iraq

http://abc26.trb.com/news/natguard08012005,0,4504131.story?coll=wgno-news-1

Nice link McTag. Perhaps Tico should take a look at the facts before he spouts off about something he clearly knows nothing.

Additionally Tico, you were right about my bullshit detector, and it's clanging away right now. Are you saying that because Clinton didn't fix the levees over 4 years ago, that relieves Bush from any current responsibility to attend to the best interest of the people he represents? Because Clinton didn't fix them four years ago, that gives the Bush administration the right to slash the funding meant to fix them now? He removed the Lousiana Guard that would be doing the work, he took the equipment that would be used to complete the work, and he ripped off the money intended to complete the work. Now something that would have taken a few hundred million to fix, is now being replaced by TEN BILLION Dollars for relief. An American treasure like New Orleans has basically been erased. The Republican Speaker of the House Hastert thinks we should just bulldoze the city.

All because Bush, yes BUSH, has diverted the equipment, the labor, and the money.

Yes, my Bullshit detector has taken off, and it is you who set it off in grand style.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Come on, guys.
Come on and defend your miserable criminal of a president and his damaging policies.

Bring it on.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

LM writes

Quote:
To KW:
I'm not going to continue this most recent exchange with you because you're all over the map and you keep making it all about the messenger even if you have to embroidery, elaborate, or distort the message to do it. If you want to try a discussion that is not a circular argument, I'll be happy to participate.

There is nothing circular about my comments.

Your argument rests on a single quote from Dean, where he said he partially relied on his interpretation of Christianity in deciding the civil unions issue, (his primariy reason was scientific). From this, you found a double standard because Bush has never come out and said his religious beliefs affected a specific policy decision.

My response, and it is not circular, is that if you evaluate Bush's actions since the beginning, he has done everything possible to try to convince the Religious Right movement that he speaks for them. On several positions, such as stem cell research, his emphasis on supplying public funds for religious based social intitatives, etc, the only supporters for the position were the Religious Right. When one makes the Herculean efforts that Bush has to convince the Religious Right that he reperesents them, does it actually matter that he has never come out and said that his religious views were relied on in making a decision?

Or, to break it down, Dean proclaimed his own religious belief was a secondary reason for making one policy decision. Bush has clearly made the Religious Right's religious beliefs the primary reason he made perhaps a dozen policy decisions. And from this, you have decided that there is a double standard-in favor of Dean?

I think not.

0 Replies

KW writes

Quote:

There is nothing circular about my comments.

What makes them circular is that no matter what the topic or discussion, those on the Left--you are sometimes also guilty--will sidestep the immediate topic and bring it back to an urelated something you consider damning which mostly consists of the 'sins' of George Bush or the Right.

KW writes

Quote:

Your argument rests on a single quote from Dean, where he said he partially relied on his interpretation of Christianity in deciding the civil unions issue, (his primariy reason was scientific). From this, you found a double standard because Bush has never come out and said his religious beliefs affected a specific policy decision.

My response, and it is not circular, is that if you evaluate Bush's actions since the beginning, he has done everything possible to try to convince the Religious Right movement that he speaks for them. On several positions, such as stem cell research, his emphasis on supplying public funds for religious based social intitatives, etc, the only supporters for the position were the Religious Right. When one makes the Herculean efforts that Bush has to convince the Religious Right that he reperesents them, does it actually matter that he has never come out and said that his religious views were relied on in making a decision?

We weren't discussing Stem Cell research or who was catering to what constituency. We were discussing a double standard--one is condemned for having a religious faith and evoking it at times in his speeches. The other can blatantly say he based a policy decision on his religious faith and there is never a murmor. You went the circular route to bring the discussion to what you perceived to be attackable rather than deal with the specific issue raised.

Quote:

Or, to break it down, Dean proclaimed his own religious belief was a secondary reason for making one policy decision. Bush has clearly made the Religious Right's religious beliefs the primary reason he made perhaps a dozen policy decisions.

Again you again evoke your psychic powers to know what either one meant or does with zero evidence to back it up. And you again use the same old tired circular argument to attack Bush on what you perceive his motives are when there is no evidence to support them.

KW writes

Quote:

And from this, you have decided that there is a double standard-in favor of Dean? I think not.

Well, you've certainly haven't made any kind of case or provided any evidence that there isn't.

0 Replies

Foxy - yer gonna have to order those cluebats in XXL, methinks Smile

0 Replies

lastmoderate wrote:

McTag wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

I see the liberals are already blaming Bush for the effects of the Hurricane. Any thoughts as to why the levees weren't improved pre-9/11 under Clinton's watch?

And does the Louisiana State Government have any roll in fixing their own problem? Nah, just Bush.

One month ago-

LA National Guard Wants Equipment to Come Back From Iraq

http://abc26.trb.com/news/natguard08012005,0,4504131.story?coll=wgno-news-1

Nice link McTag. Perhaps Tico should take a look at the facts before he spouts off about something he clearly knows nothing.

Instead of referencing "the facts" you think I'm not aware of in the link provided by McTag, perhaps you would be so kind as to state what facts you are referring to. You made an earlier comment about a lot of thinking being done with the heart and not the brain here. Bear that in mind and try and make your next post relate with specificity if you are going to make a charge such as you did. All I can do is try and guess as your meaning unless you come back and clarify.

McTag's latest article relates the the La Nat. Guard wanting equipment back. That equipment is needed overseas, and Mississippi, Alabama and Florida all agreed to provide mutual aid in the event of a natural disaster such as occurred.

But the entire point I was making did not relate to the need for equipment in La to clean up after a hurricane. It was in response to the implication in McTag's prior article that it was the Bush Administration that was solely to blame for the breech of the levees because of lack of funding to an Army Corp of Engineers project. Why would any reasonable person assessing the situation think it was the role of the Federal government to fix Louisiana's levees? If these people want to live in a city that's below sea level, they ought to pony up the money to provide for levees that will protect them. Why should the entire country pay for that? So the point Im making is two-fold: If people want to point the finger of blame at the Bush Administration, these people need to also blame prior administrations, including Clinton's. And instead of blaming just the Federal government, one must ask why the State of Louisiana didn't allocate funding to improve the levee project if it was such a priority for them.

Obviously my point had nothing to do with Louisiana's National Guard wanting equipment back, or the state they find themselves in now. If you are going to spout off, you should at least relate apple to apples.

Quote:

Additionally Tico, you were right about my bullshit detector, and it's clanging away right now.

So is mine, lastmoderate ... if that is indeed your real name.

Quote:

Are you saying that because Clinton didn't fix the levees over 4 years ago, that relieves Bush from any current responsibility to attend to the best interest of the people he represents?

I'm making much the same point I did when all the Liberals claimed it was Bush who was to blame when 9/11 happened 8 months into his first term, ignoring the plain fact that Clinton had 8 years within which to take some action against al Queda, and didn't.

My bullshit has been set off also, LM. Welcome to the frey. A2K needed another liberal anti-Bush poster.

0 Replies

I will remind certain others that this is the Bush supporters thread and there is a plethora of threads out there that you can bash Bush or anybody or anything else on the Right to your hearts content.

But one of those clues relates to the double standard that KW has been dismissing on another front, and which I clearly see:

1) Clinton never asked for any funding to shore up Louisana levees, nor was that any obvious concern of his. I presume if a Democrat is in office there is no danger of hurricanes hitting the Gulf Coast? It's just assumed that he felt their pain and had their deepest concern at heart even though nothing was ever said?

2) Bush did ask for funding to shore up Louisiana levees and the money was not cut, but it was not allocated. There was nothing in the papers or on the evening news that I saw that this was a concern of the Louisiana governor or the New Orleans mayor or any news that the levees were in imminent danger of failure. If I am wrong, please provide a link. Show me the headlines. Show me the protests from Louisiana elected officials.

3) My heart goes out to the terrible tragedy that has befallen the people of New Orleans, and I and mine are devoting time and treasure to the relief effort. But where is it written that it is the Federal government's responsibility to build and maintain a levee system so that a half million people can choose to live below sea level and below the level of an enormous adjacent lake? It wasn't George Bush doling out the building permits or designing infrastructure for ever expanding residential neighborhoods.

If New Orleans had taken a direct hit from a Category 5 hurricane--a distinct possibility at one time--the effect would likely have been the same as the broken levee. Would that have been George Bush's fault too? Is it George Bush's fault that Gulfport, Biloxi, Mobile took it on the chin too?

I don't think even size XXL would work JW. I think we have to go all the way up to "Ye Gods' size clues for some of these people.

I suggest that the Left put a cork in it for now and pitch in with the Right to help as many people as we can. Write your checks to the Salvation Army or the Red Cross or some other relief effort; call to volunteer to man the phones; ask what else you can do to help. That would actually be beneficial and constructive.

0 Replies

It is the duty of any president to

Maintain the nation's security
Protect the nation's treasure
Enhance the nation's international standing
Protect the people and their wellbeing

So that's zero out of four for the criminal.

0 Replies

McTag, I know you're upset but, really, calling Clinton a criminal?

Crummy husband, yes. But that's most likely because he has such a crummy wife Smile

Still, criminal might fit him....carry on.

0 Replies

Some comment from around the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4207542.stm

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

McTag, I know you're upset but, really, calling Clinton a criminal?

Crummy husband, yes. But that's most likely because he has such a crummy wife

Still, criminal might fit him....carry on.

You're exactly right, JW. He deliberately lied under oath, but was never convicted of perjury, just found in contempt of court. He might be a criminal, but he's not a convicted criminal.

0 Replies

Whereas GWB perpetrated a major war crime, which you refuse to see.

You have taken "my country, right or wrong", which is a disgraceful dictum, and perverted it into "my president and party, right or wrong"

Mostly wrong at the moment, very badly wrong.

History will judge, even if you're too craven to.

Make a silly joke about that, too.

0 Replies

"History will judge..."

Yes. Yes, it will, which is why I'm hoping those in charge of such things are busy with redesigning Mt. Rushmore to include Bush43 Smile

That oughtta tick off a few Libbies Smile

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

History will judge, even if you're too craven to.

Yes, history will judge, McT. Not you and your friends.

0 Replies

Oh, I'm so outraged at the very notion of W on Mt. Rushmore!

(Actually, given the current situation at home and around the world, it's kind of an amusing notion...)

0 Replies

Ticomayo, There's thinking led by the heart. There's thinking with the brain, and then there is not thinking at all. Sounds to me like you're guilty of the the last example. You have missed My point. You cannot blame Clinton for actions that Bush has taken in the last four years to make the situation untenable. For you to say you knew of the article, and then say what you did just shows that you ignore the facts and spout off anyway. Even worse than being ignorant.
You say Louisana should take responsibility for their levee system. You in your enlightenment, ignore the fact that the Louisana National Guard is in Iraq, not due to return until October. Likewise, the equipment that they would use in Lousiana is in Iraq, and weren't scheduled to get it back until much later. Federal money that was budgeted for the levee work was taken away. Mr. Bush and his brain trust were warned that New Orleans was a disaster that was one of the top three things on the list to happen. Yet, Bush, chose to ignore all that because the surrounding states would help. I hate to point this out to you, but the surrounding states have all been hit, and their resources are shot. They can't even take care of themselves let alone help New Orleans. Last of all, Bush himself admits the Federal response has been "inadequate.
Bush is addressing a need for you that makes you blind to his screwups. You really don't care what he does wrong, because he is scratching some itch you have, and that is enough for you to turn blind to all the horrible decisions he has made.

I am a moderate. The reason you can't see it is because you are just another extremist right wing fanatic. I am no particular fan of Clinton, so tough luck buddy, you can't say I'm out to protect Clinton.

I am a moderate, which means I look at both sides of the question, something you have shown an inability to do.

As far as us all paying for the New Orleans levee system, how do you feel about the TEN BILLION DOLLARS that the government is now putting up for the relief effort? Do you think the levee repair would have cost even close to that? Nooooo! We are all going to pay the 10B also. Here's a math question for you. Which would you rather pay, 10B, or several hundred million to fix the problem. Forget the misery that Bush has caused the people of New Orleans, for the loss of an American treasure, just think of the money that genius Bush has cost us.

I am a moderate, which allows me to see the obvious. I can do simple math. 10B is much more than several hundred million. You complain about us all paying for their levees. The government pays for a lot of "local projects". Just take a look at the pork wagon that Bush has been driving the last four years.

His most oustanding feat being the installation of an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq, which is extremely close to Iran. Take a look at the new Iraqi constitution and read how Islam is now the law of the land. Iran is tickled pink with it's new Shiite partnership, That stroke of genius has cost us 300B, 1800 plus dead, and filled our hospitals with wounded military. His pipedream about giving the Iraqi's freedom and democracy is yet another major fubar by this administrations brilliant thinktank.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Oh, I'm so outraged at the very notion of W on Mt. Rushmore!

(Actually, given the current situation at home and around the world, it's kind of an amusing notion...)

Laughable. I thought they wanted Reagan up there too. It's too funny, and I can see it now. Good old W, the Howdy Doody of Mad magazine. "What, me worry"? I love it. The only real decision is whether to use the image of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman. They both apply all so well.

0 Replies

I can guarantee the negative nabobs here of some things that are certain. "Moderate" (if that's his real name) might say its thinking with the heart, but again if you dispute it, show me the headlnes.

a) The Clnton administration had the same information re the state of Louisiana levees as the Bush administration did. The Clinton administration allocated zero funds nor did he request any such funds of any Congress during his term of office. The Congress duiing the Bush administration budgeted some millions for levee maintenance though the money had not been allocated at the time Hurricane Katrina hit. Mind you it is Congress who budgets and allocates the funds. Check to see if the Louisiana delegation did any fighting to have those funds allocated. I am 99% certain they did not.

b) Had Bush been able to allocate those funds and the levees failed anyway--a distinct possibility--you negative nabobs would be saying that not enough monies was allocated; it was not allocated soon enough; the President failed to put on his hard hat and go out to supervise the repairs, etc. etc. etc.

c) Had there been no hurricane and levee failure, and the monies had been allocated for levee maintenance, we would now be hearing about wasteful pork barrel spending and misappropriation of funds when they were desperately needed elsewhere. Where are the president's priorities after all, yadda yadda. This would have been much exaggerated if LA had a major earthquake with infrastructure failures--why didn't Bush shore up the interstates?--or a F-5 tornado taking out the Chicago transit system--why wasn't in reinforced better, yadda yadda.

Again show me the headlines where the Louisana governor, New Orleans mayor, or any of their Congressional delegation had stated that the levees were at unusually high risk. I can show you where people had been warned for years that New Orleans was subject to terrible devastation and loss of life in the event of a direct hit from a hurricane. That warning has been in place for decades while the local government kept passing out building permits and the city doubled in population.

Also you people so willing to condemn and so unwilling to do anything that might help, make a list right now. Identify every worst case scenario that could happen in this country, affix a cost to eliminate all hazards to life or property associated with those scenarios, prioitize them, and post them for our edification.

Unlike one person who shall remain nameless here, all people, especially all Americans, don't look to the government to protect us from every stupid thing people do nor do we expect the government to provide our every want or need. Some of us take responsibility for the choices we make and know that a government big enough to provide everything and protect us from everything is big enough to own us and it would.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know