Bush supporters' aftermath thread

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9162119/

Before and After satellite pictures of NO.

Good rejoinder. Thoughtful, balanced, insightful.

Some help out in the hurricane relief and some are doing their damndest to make polical points by damning the effort. I am seeing all kinds of evidence that it is backfiring on them.


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nfl.htm

Whoever is even thinking about this at this point in time needs to be taken outside and beaten. A major American city has all but washed away and somebody is actually already thinking about its affect on the next election? Sick. Sick. Sick. Do commentators have nothing else to talk about? Is politics that much more important?

"Oh goody, all the darkies are dying and dispersing, what can the Republican party get out it?" I see why their color is red.

It isn't the Republicans saying this Freeduck. It's the Democrats.

Foxfyre


Foxfyre, what is your Media citation to support your statement?

BBB

Then they should be taken outside and beaten.

Actually Freeduck, I didn't find it that objectionable. The point was raised during discussions of whether New Orleans should be rebuilt on its present site and, even though it was Democrats, they were actually considering the welfare of the people involved. The discussion came up in what impact any demographic shift would have, and the conclusion I think was that it would be negligible for any state other than Louisiana itself.

The discussion was certainly less objectionable to me that these people caterwauling about how the President doesn't care about black people or that the GOP refused to fix the levies even though they knew they would fail yadda yadda.

All the idiots aren't limited to this forum.

BBB I'll hunt up a source as soon as you provide the requested information re the National Guardsmen not being allowed to carry rifles if they are under federal authority.

No, but we have our fair share. Perhaps hunting up the source would help. As you recounted it, it's disgusting.

You don't find those who are mostly blaming George Bush for most of the snafus or who are holding him responsible for the levee breaking, etc. disgusting? Do you honestly think those comments aren't out of ideological expediency and/or to make political hay out of the tragedy?

Respond to that and I'll look for sources later. Have to get to work now.

RE: the levees. Not completed because of insufficient funding. http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html

Did GWB personally bust the levee? No, but it's not unreasonable to hold him responsible for his own budget decisions.



I think they are out of anger at perceived incompetence. People who are already politically active from the left might be louder and might exaggerate more, but it's not an accusation without basis and the anger isn't coming only from the left. It happens to hurt your golden boy politically, so that's why you see it as making political hay.

Do you think that making suggesting to hold a political convention in the destroyed city in order to give the impression of "that we care" is making political hay? What about trashing the Democratic governor and mayor (repeatedly reminding us that they are democrats, as if incompetence has a political affiliation)? What about rejecting every criticism, without investigation, as politcally motivated because it hurts your "side"?

Answer that, and I'd be happy to look at your link.

FreeDuck, Not to worry; the editorial page in today's San Jose Mercury News is full of anger at this administration for failing their responsibilities. People like Fox will defend Bush till hell freezes over, but Bush's performance rating is dropping like a ten-ton sinker. There's no way for him or his administration to get back what's been lost for good. They're a bunch of losers, and more people are beginning to realize it. Fox will sink with Bushco.

Foxfyre


My original quote was from the Governor's statement to the Media, which I don't have. But I researched the basis of her statement:

CITATION: There was, and is still, an important distinction between the state and national guards. The state guard has a domestic law enforcement role (posse comitatus). That disappears when its members are called to federal duty. U.S. law prohibits the Army or Air Force from engaging in domestic law enforcement.

CITATION: Posse comitatus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

ADDITIONAL CITATIONS: The U.S. Supreme Court decided the case in June 1990. It ruled that, "Article I's plain language, read as a whole, establishes that Congress may authorize members of the National Guard of the United States to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States, without either the consent of a State Governor or the declaration of a national emergency." Moreover, "since the original gubernatorial veto was not constitutionally compelled, its partial repeal by the Amendment is constitutionally valid".

However, the Court did decide that governors retained the right to reject deployment if they could prove that it significantly affected the ability of the state guard to carry out its state activities. "The Minnesota unit, which includes about 13,000 members, is affected only slightly when a few dozen, or at most a few hundred, soldiers are ordered into active service for brief periods of time. Neither the State's basic training responsibility, nor its ability to rely on its own Guard in state emergency situations, is significantly affected. Indeed, if the federal training mission were to interfere with the State Guard's capacity to respond to local emergencies, the Montgomery Amendment would permit the Governor to veto the proposed mission."

The Court added, "The Governor and the United States agree that if the federalization of the Guard would interfere with the State Guard's ability to address a local emergency, that circumstance would be a valid basis for a gubernatorial veto".

The Court also noted, "Congress has provided by statute that in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces".

How has the massive mobilization of the Guard in recent months affected the states? Skilled Guards are in high demand for overseas missions and homeland security. For example 70 percent of enhanced brigades and 75 percent of divisional combat battalions, frequently called on by state governors to respond to natural disasters, were deployed overseas between September 2001 and March 2004.

National Guard forces are increasing their role in Iraq because the active-duty Army is not large enough. When the next rotation of soldiers moves into Iraq late in 2004, up to 50 percent could be Guard and Reserve, compared to 39 percent in July and 25 percent in 2003. This means even more Guard members will not be available to respond to natural disasters or terrorist threats. Both the conservative Heritage Foundation and the liberal Center for American Progress agree that the National Guard must be available to assist with homeland security even if it requires expanding the size of the standing Army and rethinking the Total Force concept.

Governors of both political parties are wondering if they will be short-handed in cases of domestic emergencies. Major General Timothy Lowenberg, Commander of the Washington State National Guard, after attended a meeting of meeting of governors and Pentagon officials, said, "There are absolutely no partisan patterns to the concerns being raised. They are being articulated by governors of both parties."

Some states, like Texas and Nevada, have only a modest share (12 percent) of their guard currently stationed overseas. But a number of states have much higher proportions. New Jersey has 60 percent of its state Guard forces on federal active duty. More than 40 percent of New York's Guard has been alerted or mobilized for federal duty, meaning neither they nor their units' equipment are available for homeland security. In Washington 62 percent of the state's Army Guard soldiers have been deployed; in Idaho the number is 80 percent.

Virginia, North Carolina and the rest of the southeastern coast are facing hurricane season, a time when the Guard traditionally plays a crucial role in clean up and relief efforts. The center of the country, especially Missouri, is concerned about flooding. Western states worry about wildfires. Oregon's National Guard, for example, has half its usual number of firefighters because of federal call-ups.

There is also a financial impact on states from the call up of the guard. In Montana and California the Guard has withdrawn its Black Hawk helicopters from the job of responding to small fires that can flare into forest fires, forcing the states to contract with private companies to do the job. More than 130 Arizona prison guards are serving overseas, contributing to problems in crowded prisons. Tennessee has seen its rural police and sheriff's departments depleted by call-ups.

If the massive posting of reservists and guard members abroad continues it could spawn renewed lawsuits. At least one has been filed, in August of 2004, by a sergeant in the Army National Guard who viewed as unconstitutional the Army's "stop-loss" orders that prevent reservists from leaving the military when their enlistment periods end.

It is also possible that states could once again refuse to send guards abroad, citing the 1990 Supreme Court decision that gave them that right if deployment would "significantly affect" their ability to satisfy their traditional functions.

CONTROL OF THE MILITARY

I've stayed away from this thread to let the Bush supporters have their say but the time has come to face facts:

CHRONOLOGY.... Here's a timeline that outlines the
fate of both FEMA and flood control projects in New
Orleans under the Bush administration. Read it and
weep:

January 2001: Bush appoints Joe Allbaugh, a crony
from Texas, as head of FEMA. Allbaugh has no
previous experience in disaster management.

April 2001: Budget Director Mitch Daniels announces
the Bush administration's goal of privatizing much
of FEMA's work. In May, Allbaugh confirms that FEMA
will be downsized: "Many are concerned that federal
disaster assistance may have evolved into both an
oversized entitlement program...." he said.
"Expectations of when the federal government should
be involved and the degree of involvement may have
ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level."

2001: FEMA designates a major hurricane hitting New
Orleans as one of the three "likeliest, most
catastrophic disasters facing this country."

December 2002: After less than two years at FEMA,
Allbaugh announces he is leaving to start up a
consulting firm that advises companies seeking to do
business in Iraq. He is succeeded by his deputy,
Michael Brown, who, like Allbaugh, has no previous
experience in disaster management.

March 2003: FEMA is downgraded from a cabinet level
position and folded into the Department of Homeland
Security. Its mission is refocused on fighting acts
of terrorism.

2003: Under its new organization chart within DHS,
FEMA's preparation and planning functions are
reassigned to a new Office of Preparedness and
Response. FEMA will henceforth focus only on
response and recovery.

Summer 2004: FEMA denies Louisiana's pre-disaster
mitigation funding requests. Says Jefferson Parish
flood zone manager Tom Rodrigue: "You would think
we would get maximum consideration....This is what
the grant program called for. We were more than
qualified for it."

June 2004: The Army Corps of Engineers budget for
levee construction in New Orleans is slashed.
Jefferson Parish emergency management chiefs Walter
Maestri comments: "It appears that the money has
been moved in the president's budget to handle
homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose
that's the price we pay."

June 2005: Funding for the New Orleans district of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is cut by a record
$71.2 million. One of the hardest-hit areas is the
Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project,
which was created after the May 1995 flood to
improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St.
Tammany parishes.

August 2005: While New Orleans is undergoing a slow
motion catastrophe, Bush mugs for the cameras, cuts
a cake for John McCain, plays the guitar for Mark
Wills, delivers an address about V-J day, and
continues with his vacation. When he finally gets
around to acknowledging the scope of the unfolding
disaster, he delivers only a photo op on Air Force
One and a flat, defensive, laundry list speech in
the Rose Garden.

A crony with no relevant experience was installed as
head of FEMA. Mitigation budgets for New Orleans
were slashed even though it was known to be one of
the top three risks in the country. FEMA was
deliberately downsized as part of the Bush
administration's conservative agenda to reduce the
role of government. After DHS was created, FEMA's
preparation and planning functions were taken away.

Actions have consequences. No one could predict
that a hurricane the size of Katrina would hit this
year, but the slow federal response when it did
happen was no accident. It was the result of four
years of deliberate Republican policy and budget
choices that favor ideology and partisan loyalty at
the expense of operational competence. It's the
Bush administration in a nutshell.

Henry Breitrose
Professor of Communication
Stanford University

foxfyre said:

"To make political hay"

Tomorrow, the Pentagon and administration will stage a big Sept 11 hoedown. Yesterday, Bush predictably tried to tie Katrina and Sept 11 together.

All of this represents just the very latest examples of how the Bush administration has continually and purposively whored the tragedy of Sept 11 over three years for political advantage and for ideological expediency. None of us in our lifetimes have witnessed such a morally depraved use of civic tragedy for partisan political ends.

"Blaming George Bush"

What is truly disgusting here for it's moral bankruptcy is the utter refusal of this administration to take responsibility for anything at all and for its supporters such as yourself to refuse to assign it.

Ideological extremism in domestic and foreign affairs, deceits and outright lies on nearly a daily basis to American citizens, incompetence which has lead to:

1) America's reputation across the world at its lowest point ever, and that is 'ever'!

2) the largest fiscal deficits (following a huge surplus) ever, and that is 'ever'!

3) policies so arrogant and blind and foolish that now there are now more anti-western and anti-American youth enrolling in terrorist causes and there are more terrorist attacks worldwide against western targets than we have ever seen, and that is 'ever'!

4) the broad use of torture by American military forces and by Americans under hire by the US government.

5) the evisceration of scientifically determined policies and rules in numerous spheres out of ideological distaste for rules and out of absolutely amoral political calculation and out of what can only be described as oligarchic cronyism.

6) a Presidency which is protected from public view/investigation by a massive PR bureaucracy which scripts nearly every word that issues from the President's mouth, which forcefully disallows anyone not ideologically aligned from all public meetings, which deceitfully pays taxpayer money to individuals in the media to spout propaganda, which disallows and stonewalls any and all attempts by congress and the press and individuals to gain access to any and all government data which may compromise the PR standing of the administration regardless of what is true and regardless of what is in the broad public interest.

7) and much much more.

This is such an incompetent and deceitful administration - and has shown itself to be so continually since taking office - that it ought not merely to be chastised and criticized at every appropriate opportunity by anyone who cares about honesty and American values but that it also ought to be, in the many cases where warranted, held to account before the legal system.

And people like you, who rent out your soul each day simply to deny that you could have gotten it so wrong for so long, ought to be ashamed.

Blatham
Blatham

BRAVO!

It seems you've recovered from your heart attack and are back in fighting condition again and, without any damage to your wonderful brain.

BBB

Not in general. What ideological incentive would New Orleans' mayor Nagin, a Republican, have to diss president Bush, also a Republican?

Nagin is not a Republican, Thomas. He's a Democrat, as is the Governor of La.

Oooooo!! I had no idea that Nagin was a Republican until shortly before the 2002 mayoral election when he switched parties. Interesting...