0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 12:33 am
It's just that conservatives don't seem to be so prone to paint everything in black and white. I certainly didn't feel any need to condemny everything Bill Clinton did or paint him in devil's scarlet or anything. I thought the man lacked any convictions at all and had no moral center, but I had to admire some of his talents.......in the political field of course. He was good at some things.

There are many ways that I wish George Bush was stronger and I wish he was more obviously interested in certain things, but I do think he has convictions and a moral center and he keeps his campaign promises. That's why I voted for him because his convictions mostly parallel my own. He probably won't go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents, but I think in the long run, history will probably be much more kind to him than the press he gets these days.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 05:57 am
McTag wrote:
A lot of the troops in Iraq are from the poorer southern states, no doubt. I'm wondering how this is affecting morale out there. They won't be able to reach their folks. Theye don't know whether their home is still standing. A very difficult time for all.


This is being addressed by a network of volunteers who have been working nonstop to both gather relevant information and relay it to those affected.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 07:18 am
Foxfyre wrote:
No child needs to have their weaknesses pointed out. THey know their weaknesses. Children need to have their strengths pointed out. They need to know that you believe they can succeed, that failure is a temporary setback and they are capable of doing better. If you think about it you know this in your own heart. Criticism that emphasizes your weaknesses is a poor motivator.


If a child is not doing their homework as much as they should in preparation for their studies and test, then they need to have that pointed out and corrected. The bush administration should have been more prepared after all the preparedness they have supposedly been doing since 9/11. They have been telling us since 9/11 that a major terrorist attack is inevitable. Haven't they been thinking about how they would evacuate a major city in the event of a terrorist attack? Bush declared the gulf coast a natural disaster and at the point whatever plans they had for natural disasters should have been ready to go in place. FEMA is under homeland security so it is their responsibility and they should have been prepared for a natural disaster the same as a major terrorist attack. But it is obvious that they were clueless and had no plans in their heads and had to just make things up as they went along.

I know you are going to disagree. Just call me pessimistic and leave it at that.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 08:16 am
Walter

Thanks for that link. The 'moral hazard' point is key.

It simply does not matter at all how incompetent, deceitful, or even how crony/corrupt this administration demonstrates itself to be, it totally refuses to acknowledge ANY responsibility for its actions or any accountability for the consequences of its actions. Likewise its many of its supporters here and elsewhere.

It becomes a serious question...what would it take to see foxfyre or tico or timber or justgiggles to say "Jesus, we were wrong. Enough is enough, for the good of the US, these guys finally have to go"? What would it take even to see them write something comparable to what David Brooks wrote in his weekend column or stated in the Lehrer discussion?

The problem isn't even that such an admission/acknowledgement would have real consequences. If anyone's future vote might be influenced, the influence would be completely insignificant - whereas in contrast David Brooks writing in the Times may well have such an influence (and he surely knows this).

Iraq could break into civil war or fall quite under the control of Iran. This would not be the administration's failing. The economy could suffer markedly from the huge deficits run up by the war and tax cuts to the wealthy (regardless of natural disasters) and blame would be levied elsewhere. Other coastal regions could be innundated as ocean surface temperatures rise and weather events become more extreme and global warming would be described as "Who would have imagined this might happen?"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 08:20 am
The President declared a national emergency prior to the hurricane hitting. Nobody knew for sure exactly where it would hit, and as hurricanes go, the scope of damage is never known until after the fact. If you think the U.S. government has the manpower and ability to simultanteously evacuate all coastal cities across three states, you certainly have more faith in government than I have. I give them room to be realistic.

The fact that the President declared a national emergency in advance however gave the governors, mayors, and other state officials the go ahead to do what needed to be done to look after their own people. They told the people to get out but did not make that mandatory. They arranged for shelters for those who stayed, but did not arrange for transportation to get the people to those shelters. They could have called out the national guard to be ready to control looting, etc. right then. They were there. The Federal government has some distance to go to get there.

Nobody could foresee the scope or magnitude of the damage before the storm hit. This was an unprecedented event. The levee in New Orleans that broke was one that had already been upgraded. Nobody expected it to break. After the storm hit, there was the problem of getting to people over roads that essentially no longer existed and combating the flood waters.

Did rescue efforts get bogged down in bureaucratic bungling. Of course it did. The President himself, in frustration, told them that their performance was unacceptable. It took too long. But the state officials who didn't seem to take this all that seriously ahead of the storm weren't doing much better. But once they all got things rolling, things are happening fast and the situation is quickly improving. Is the crisis over? No it is not. Will we do better if there's a next time? Yes we will. We learn each time there is one of these things.

Meanwhile there are those Americans pointing fingers, criticizing, and saying how terrible our President and/or our government is. And there are those Americans who are taking in the refugess, writing checks, gathering up supplies and comfort items for the shelters, and helping as they can. I suggest the latter group is the positive one that is contributing to the solution rather than just sit on their kiesters, sniping and condemning.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 08:24 am
As I said.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 08:31 am
Blatham
Foxfyre's unshakable sacred belief in the merits of President Bush and his Republican Party will end up with her throwing her beloved Bush a lifesaver as he flounders in the ocean of his incompetence. Meanwhile, still proclaiming her fealty, Foxfyre will drown as she sacrifices herself to protect Bush's plausible deniability. The last thing she hears is Bush smirking, "I appreciate your support."

BBB
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 08:42 am
People cando both volunteer and hold our government to account. I am sure many have.

Also surely Homeland security is not restricted by state and local governments. Bush declared a natural disaster and at that point it became a federal responsiblity regardless of what state and local government do or not do.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 08:54 am
revel wrote:
Also surely Homeland security is not restricted by state and local governments. Bush declared a natural disaster and at that point it became a federal responsiblity regardless of what state and local government do or not do.


State and local disaster relief is first and foremost the responsibility of the affected State. The governor is in charge of the state's NG operating in that State. From the Washington Post:

Quote:
Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law.

...

Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said.


Read the rest of the article ... HERE.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 09:07 am
BBB seems determined to stick to her negative, anti-anythng-Bush-or GOP outlook on things interspersed with personal insults, rather than addressing the points raised in a post. As she seems typical of the Democrats in charge of their party, I think the GOP is going to keep winning elections into the foreseeable future.. Anyhow, Tico's post makes my point better than I did. The Left doesn't seem to have much going for their point of view.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 09:10 am
Foxfyre
Foxfyre wrote:
BBB seems determined to stick to her negative, anti-anythng-Bush-or GOP outlook on things interspersed with personal insults, rather than addressing the points raised in a post. As she seems typical of the Democrats in charge of their party, I think the GOP is going to keep winning elections into the foreseeable future..


Foxfyre, there you go again. Can't seem to help yourself.

BBB Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 09:35 am
Ticomaya wrote:
revel wrote:
Also surely Homeland security is not restricted by state and local governments. Bush declared a natural disaster and at that point it became a federal responsiblity regardless of what state and local government do or not do.


State and local disaster relief is first and foremost the responsibility of the affected State. The governor is in charge of the state's NG operating in that State. From the Washington Post:

Quote:
Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law.

...

Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said.


Read the rest of the article ... HERE.


While it is true that is the responsiblity of the state first it is not true that the President has to wait until a governor gives permission to send aide to the state once it has been declared a federal disaster area. Even your own link said that.

Quote:
A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.



Also wasn't the national guard in the area just twelve hours after hurricane? If it was then the lame argument that Bush had to wait until the governor said they come in before they could do anything is not logical. The problem was not they were not doing anything at all and was waiting for the go ahead from local and state government, it was that they were not doing enough or very efficiently.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 09:38 am
Thanks for your clear and civil recountings of what you've discovered, revel.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 10:11 am
revel wrote:
While it is true that is the responsiblity of the state first it is not true that the President has to wait until a governor gives permission to send aide to the state once it has been declared a federal disaster area. Even your own link said that.

Quote:
A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.


You acknowledge that the system in the United States provides for the state and local governments to protect their own citizens first, but feel it's necessary to point out that Bush could have invoked the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act? When was the last time that's been used? Has it ever been used to circumvent a state's authority? Bush "could" have invoked it, but "should" he have? You think Bush should have invoked the Insurrection Act, and gone over the head of the Governor of Louisiana ... is that what you are saying? Should Bush have declared martial law also?

Are we to the point where it's obvious that the incompetence of and lack of leadership from Governor Blanco is so clear that in hindsight it appears Bush should have simply ignored her and federalized all clean-up efforts?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 10:39 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Nobody could foresee the scope or magnitude of the damage before the storm hit. This was an unprecedented event. The levee in New Orleans that broke was one that had already been upgraded. Nobody expected it to break.


I couple of Dutch and German (regionals along the coasts) papers printed today pleasurably those plans:


http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/2693/neworleansdeichsystem0it.jpg
source: De Volkskraant, page 4, September 6, 2005


Well, even our inshore river levee systems looks, well, different.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 12:39 pm
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/cartoons/09-06-2005.gif
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 01:15 pm
BBB writes
Quote:
Foxfyre, there you go again. Can't seem to help yourself.


No, usually I can. I gave you the courtesy of a reply to your insulting post referencing me specifically:

Quote:
Foxfyre's unshakable sacred belief in the merits of President Bush and his Republican Party will end up with her throwing her beloved Bush a lifesaver as he flounders in the ocean of his incompetence. Meanwhile, still proclaiming her fealty, Foxfyre will drown as she sacrifices herself to protect Bush's plausible deniability. The last thing she hears is Bush smirking, "I appreciate your support."

BBB (post 1553720)


I did give in an responded with

Quote:
BBB seems determined to stick to her negative, anti-anythng-Bush-or GOP outlook on things interspersed with personal insults, rather than addressing the points raised in a post. As she seems typical of the Democrats in charge of their party, I think the GOP is going to keep winning elections into the foreseeable future.. Anyhow, Tico's post makes my point better than I did. The Left doesn't seem to have much going for their point of view.


But yeah I should have done what I usually do which is ignore the detractors and let them speak for themselves which they do so well. I'll try to stick to my original policy.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 01:48 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
revel wrote:
While it is true that is the responsiblity of the state first it is not true that the President has to wait until a governor gives permission to send aide to the state once it has been declared a federal disaster area. Even your own link said that.

Quote:
A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.


You acknowledge that the system in the United States provides for the state and local governments to protect their own citizens first, but feel it's necessary to point out that Bush could have invoked the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act? When was the last time that's been used? Has it ever been used to circumvent a state's authority? Bush "could" have invoked it, but "should" he have? You think Bush should have invoked the Insurrection Act, and gone over the head of the Governor of Louisiana ... is that what you are saying? Should Bush have declared martial law also?

Are we to the point where it's obvious that the incompetence of and lack of leadership from Governor Blanco is so clear that in hindsight it appears Bush should have simply ignored her and federalized all clean-up efforts?


Can you deny that the national guard was in the area twelve hours after the hurricane? If you can't then it is clear that Bush had the authority to act in the hurricane before getting permission from Governor Blanco.

I am not denying that Governor Blanco and the Mayor of New Orleans should have done more to prepare and should done more once it hit. They should have and they should be held accountable for it.

What I am saying is that we have been preparing for a major terrorist event since 9/11. We should have known what to do and how to evacuate a city. It is clear that we need to do some revisiting of the of homeland security system so that we are not caught so unprepared the next time a major natural disaster hits or Lord forbid, a major terrorist attack hits us.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 02:05 pm
revel wrote:
Can you deny that the national guard was in the area twelve hours after the hurricane? If you can't then it is clear that Bush had the authority to act in the hurricane before getting permission from Governor Blanco.


National Guardsmen were there before, during, and after the hurricane hit. They were mobilizing in memphis prior to the hurricane hitting land. The governor controls a particular state's NG, and when federalized, other state's NG support the local government in disaster relief efforts.

revel wrote:
What I am saying is that we have been preparing for a major terrorist event since 9/11. We should have known what to do and how to evacuate a city. It is clear that we need to do some revisiting of the of homeland security system so that we are not caught so unprepared the next time a major natural disaster hits or Lord forbid, a major terrorist attack hits us.


Indeed.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2005 02:51 pm
It was federalized before the levee in NO broke and flooded when Bush declared Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida a natural disaster area.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-28-katrina-washington_x.htm

Quote:
With forecasters warning of a category five storm, the president made sure the federal response would not be delayed by already declaring emergencies in Mississippi, Florida and Alabama just hours after a similar declaration for Louisiana. Such declarations make federal aid available to assist with disaster relief, but they are rarely made before a storm even hits.


Quote:
In Washington, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was coordinating relief efforts sending water, food and other supplies to staging centers in the Southeast. FEMA was moving supplies from logistics centers in Atlanta and Denton, Texas, to areas closer to where authorities believe the storm will create a need, spokeswoman Nicol Andrews said.

"It's a very dangerous situation at this point," FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews said. "We're ready and awaiting landfall."


I think this saying that Bush could not do anything because of Governor Blanco not asking for help is about lamest excuse I have heard since hearing excuses from this administration yet.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 06:39:53