0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 01:41 am
Meanwhile, the gruesome undead greedily await the sight of bloated, disfigured dead bodies to gleefully use for political argument.

Nevermind the trauma it will cause loved ones.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 02:02 am
But it certainly is okay to show dead undermensch=foreigners from outsite the USA.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 02:33 am
Lash wrote:
Meanwhile, the gruesome undead greedily await the sight of bloated, disfigured dead bodies to gleefully use for political argument.

Nevermind the trauma it will cause loved ones.


Freedom of information. Keep your eyes firmly fixed on the important point.
Those who would suppress information for political ends, those are the ones worthy of your attention.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 06:27 am
Lash writes
Quote:
Meanwhile, the gruesome undead greedily await the sight of bloated, disfigured dead bodies to gleefully use for political argument.

Nevermind the trauma it will cause loved ones.


Amen. The Left accuses the Right of 'suppressing photos for political gain'. There are hours and hours of heartbreaking video footage on television every day along with photos and graphic written accounts for the Left to twist to their own advantage. Yet the photos of the dead they are demanding, for political gain, could cause unimaginable distress to hundreds more, many who are already victims. How heartless is that?

And then there are some--also on the Left--who are contemptuous of a link to a slide show on the REMEMBERING 9/11 thread. Wrong not to show dead bodies that the living may not yet know are dead, but wrong to show photos of the events of 9/11 that have already been in the media? Maybe I'll understand the rationale if I live long enough.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 07:10 am
A little treat for all

Quote:
The bitter lessons of four years
Standing among the wreckage of two national disasters, it is no longer possible to deny the plain truth: Bush and his administration are unfit to wield power.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

Sept. 11, 2005 | It would have been almost impossible to imagine, during the days and weeks that followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that we might someday look back on that depressing time with a tinge of nostalgia. For Americans, and especially for those of us who live in New York City, those autumn memories are filled with rage and horror, fire and smoke, loss and death; but they are also filled with a spirit of courage, community and real patriotism. United we stood, even behind a government of dubious legitimacy, because we knew that there was no other way to defend what we valued.

In a strange way, Sept. 11 -- despite all the instantaneous proclamations that things would never be the same -- represented a final moment of innocence.


Now catastrophe has befallen another American city, with horrors and losses that may surpass the toppling of the twin towers. And while many people in New Orleans have shown themselves to be brave, generous and decent, this season's disaster has instilled more dread than pride, more anger than unity. Why is the mood so different now? At every level, the vacuum of leadership was appalling, but especially among the national leaders to whom all Americans look at a time of catastrophic peril. As rising waters sank the city, summer vacations in Texas and Wyoming, and shoe-shopping on Madison Avenue, appeared to take priority over the suffering on the Gulf Coast.

Four years after 9/11, we know much more than we knew then about the arrogance, dishonesty, recklessness and incompetence of a national government that was never worthy of its power.

We saw how the White House squandered, all too quickly, the uplifting national response to 9/11. Within a few months, Karl Rove was heard telling the Republican National Committee exactly how he planned to betray the Democrats who had unanimously lined up behind President Bush in the aftermath of the attack by using the "war on terror" as a domestic political weapon.

Rove replayed his cynical maneuver at the GOP convention last year, when New York served as the backdrop for more patriotic posturing -- while the Republicans in the White House and Congress refused to provide adequate funding to protect New York from another, possibly even more devastating attack. Disproportionate millions went from the Department of Homeland Security to rural towns that will never be threatened, while city and state officials continue to lack the money and manpower to protect ports, power stations and chemical plants. The same neglectful and perverse priorities withdrew funding from the levees protecting New Orleans.

We learned how the Bush administration misled the nation into invading Iraq to suppress a nonexistent threat from "weapons of mass destruction," while assuring us that the war would be cheap, easy, and almost bloodless. The administration's predictions have proved uniformly false and its prescriptions entirely useless, costing thousands of Iraqi and American casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars. The resulting damage to our national prestige, among both allies and enemies, may well be irreparable. And after all the sorrow and destruction, Iraq may end up as a hellhole of warring ethnic and religious groups, a haven for Islamist terrorists, and an instrument of the mullah regime in Iran.

We found out why the president, the vice president, and their aides wanted no investigation of the circumstances leading to the 9/11 attacks. For nine months they'd ignored the warnings of danger, first from the former officials of the Clinton administration, then from White House national security officials, and finally from the CIA itself in the notorious presidential daily briefing of Aug. 6, 2001.

More recently, we have discovered how they failed to act on an ominous report from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, just weeks before 9/11, that pointed to the grave likelihood of a terrorist attack on New York City -- and of a deadly hurricane destroying New Orleans.

And we can have no doubt now, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, that critical agencies of the United States government are staffed by patronage hacks unable to fulfill the most basic responsibilities of the modern state. The outstanding example, of course, is Michael D. Brown -- apparently known as "Brownie" to the admiring president -- the FEMA chief whose résumé contains nothing to recommend him to one of the most critical positions in government, although he had amply padded it with unearned honors and bogus titles. He claimed, for instance, to have worked as an assistant city manager, when he was actually a glorified intern. (The holder of a degree from an unaccredited law school, Brown's most significant lifetime work experience was as a "commissioner" for a horse show association, a position he departed involuntarily and left off his official biography.)

In his pathetic insufficiency, Brown evidently was not alone at FEMA. The deputies and acting deputies and various other high-ranking pork-choppers -- many of whom had landed at the agency from positions with the Bush-Cheney campaign -- showed up with no experience in the hard work of saving lives and restoring communities.

But the FEMA phonies stand as symbols of far broader trouble in the Bush administration. When the Republicans first took over in 2001, and for many months thereafter, they assured us that they were the "grown-ups," and that they were "in charge." After 9/11, their flacks returned to this self-congratulatory theme, boasting that all Americans felt more secure and protected by Bush than they would if Al Gore were in the Oval Office. Their standard of accountability is to award the nation's highest decoration for public service to George Tenet and Jerry Bremer, as if nobody had noticed their notorious failures.

Pretenders such as these cannot extricate us from a debilitating war, nor can they rebuild the nation they destroyed; they have no idea how to allocate resources against terrorism, nor how to prepare for the disasters that will surely come. What the Republicans in power can do is set up photo ops, repeat spin points, concoct hollow slogans about "compassionate conservatism," and sidestep responsibility by whining about "the blame game."

On this anniversary, surrounded by the wreckage of four years of disastrously bad government, we must confront a profoundly disturbing reality. The performance of George W. Bush as president has proved to be far worse than even his most alienated critics could have predicted. His administration is far less concerned with our security than with its own self-serving ideology and its petty abuses of office.

Four years ago, as we contemplated potential threats from the enemies of civilization, it was impossible to conceive of the vast damage that our own government would inflict upon America before those enemies could strike again. The danger from the perpetrators of 9/11 has not abated, and suddenly we know how vulnerable we remain -- because the federal officials who have sworn to defend us, beginning with the president, have neither the character nor the competence to fulfill that oath.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 07:14 am
Quote:
Toxic chemicals in the New Orleans flood waters will make the city unsafe for full human habitation for a decade, a US government official has told The Independent on Sunday. And, he added, the Bush administration is covering up the danger.

In an exclusive interview, Hugh Kaufman, an expert on toxic waste and responses to environmental disasters at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said the way the polluted water was being pumped out was increasing the danger to health.

The pollution was far worse than had been admitted, he said, because his agency was failing to take enough samples and was refusing to make public the results of those it had analysed. "Inept political hacks" running the clean-up will imperil the health of low-income migrant workers by getting them to do the work...

Mr Kaufman claimed the Bush administration was playing down the need for a clean-up: the EPA has not been included in the core White House group tackling the crisis. "Its budget has been cut and inept political hacks have been put in key positions," Mr Kaufman said. "All the money for emergency response has gone to buy guns and cowboys - which don't do anything when a hurricane hits. We were less prepared for this than we would have been on 10 September 2001."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article311818.ece
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 07:30 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Lash writes ...


Amen. The Left accuses the Right of 'suppressing photos for political gain'. There are hours and hours of heartbreaking video footage on television every day along with photos and graphic written accounts for the Left to twist to their own advantage. Yet the photos of the dead they are demanding, for political gain, could cause unimaginable distress to hundreds more, many who are already victims. How heartless is that?

And then there are some--also on the Left--who are contemptuous of a link to a slide show on the REMEMBERING 9/11 thread. Wrong not to show dead bodies that the living may not yet know are dead, but wrong to show photos of the events of 9/11 that have already been in the media? Maybe I'll understand the rationale if I live long enough.[/quote]

Your 'Amen' and your said opinion is then ... what?

While I really don't think, those photos are necessary, I do believe that US-journalism likes thus generally - as to be seen by watching the reports from FOREIGN disasters.

I'm not sure, if something such memorable, which actually happened in recent history, must be accompanied by a slide site from some gunners site.

I won't start e.g. threads about WWII with Nazi photos, KZ-pictures or those from bombed civilians.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 07:55 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001016.html

weeeee.......
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:01 am
dlowan wrote:
Like the government's response to Iraq.


Do NOT let them see coffins.



Putrescent.


Like the media's reluctance to show the dead bodies caused by the terrorist attacks on 9/11. ... Wouldn't want to inflame the populace.

But if the dead are not caused by terrorists, but by a natural disaster, by all means let's show the dead. Let's go to court to insist on the First A right to show the dead.

But for what purpose?

Bizarre.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:04 am
Walter, is the site a slide show is located so much more important to you than the content of the slide show itself? The site is where it happened to be. It was accompanied by a caption not necessarily recommending it, but offering it for any who might want to see it. And this is somehow offensive to you? Why is that?

My opinion is that the only reason those on the Left are demandng to see pictures of bloated dead bodies pulled from the water is for the political capital they think they might gain from those images. For them to use the lame argument of 'the public's right to know' is so transparent it is ludicrous and hypocritical to the max.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:07 am
Regarding the deep and abiding humanitarian concerns typical of the Bush administration and exemplified by their sensitivity to how photographs from helicopters at several hundred feet of floating bloated black people's backs might seriously mark the psyches of all the black people who have relatives down south...

It is precisely such sincere concern which led to the appointment of one political hack to head FEMA, and then to appoint his college roommate to take over, and then to appoint three or four other Bush campaign workers just beneath good old Brownie...even if none of them had any experience at all in disaster management and relief.

Perhaps the moral-compass equation looks like this:

It is a MORAL WRONG to publish photographs of unrecognizable dead Americans (though all other nations' citizens, recognizable or not, no problem).

It is MORALLY RIGHTEOUS to pack partisan loyalists into critical life/death positions of responsibility though this will with certainty, given acute circumstances, bring about the deaths of those very black people.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:07 am
Everyone agrees.. well most everyone, that we need to talk about the holocaust and regularly bump it up to the front of peoples minds, so it doesn't happen again. Same principal applies with the presidency of gwb and all his sub human crew.

Of course we know this doesn't work, and strong arm murderers will still continue to be responsible for the deaths of Joe lunch boxes all over the world in order to gain, consolidate and keep wealth and power for a select few ( and there's not a dimes difference between them) but we try. What else can we do?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:10 am
Ticomaya wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Like the government's response to Iraq.


Do NOT let them see coffins.



Putrescent.


Like the media's reluctance to show the dead bodies caused by the terrorist attacks on 9/11. ... Wouldn't want to inflame the populace.

But if the dead are not caused by terrorists, but by a natural disaster, by all means let's show the dead. Let's go to court to insist on the First A right to show the dead.

But for what purpose?

Bizarre.


Tico, you're doing it again.

This was not an issue until publication of pictures of drowned people WAS BANNED. Who tried to ban it, and for what purpose? That is the issue.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:12 am
Ill wind may not blow to the Whitehouse

By Newton Emerson

As the full horror of Hurricane Katrina sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if this is the end of George Bush's presidency. The answer is almost certainly yes, provided that every copy of the US Constitution was destroyed in the storm. Otherwise President Bush will remain in office until noon on January 20th, 2009, as required by the 20th Amendment, after which he is barred from seeking a third term anyway under the 22nd Amendment.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if the entire political agenda of George Bush's second term will not still be damaged in some terribly satisfying way.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided that the entire political agenda of George Bush's second term consists of repealing the 22nd Amendment. Otherwise, with a clear Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, he can carry on doing pretty much whatever he likes.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if the Republican Party itself will now suffer a setback at the congressional mid-term elections next November.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided that people outside the disaster zone punish their local representatives for events elsewhere a year previously, both beyond their control and outside their remit, while people inside the disaster zone reward their local representatives for an ongoing calamity they were supposed to prevent. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will suffer a setback at the next congressional election.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if an official inquiry will shift the blame for poor planning and inadequate flood defences on to the White House. The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody admits that emergency planning is largely the responsibility of city and state agencies, and nobody notices that the main levee which broke was the only levee recently modernised with federal funds. Otherwise, an official inquiry will pin most of the blame on the notoriously corrupt and incompetent local governments of New Orleans and Louisiana.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if George Bush contributed to the death toll by sending so many national guard units to Iraq.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody recalls that those same columnists have spent the past two years blaming George Bush for another death toll by not sending enough national guard units to Iraq. Otherwise, people might wonder why they have never previously read a single article advocating large-scale military redeployment during the Caribbean hurricane season.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnist are asking how a civilised city can descend into anarchy.

The answer is that only a civilised city can descend into anarchy.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if George Bush should be held responsible for the terrible poverty in the southern states revealed by the flooding.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody holds Bill Clinton responsible for making Mississippi the poorest state in the union throughout his entire term as president, or for making Arkansas the second-poorest state in the union throughout his entire term as governor. Otherwise, people might suspect that it is a bit more complicated than that.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if George Bush should not be concerned by accusations of racism against the federal government.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody remembers that Jesse Jackson once called New York "Hymietown" and everybody thinks Condoleezza Rice went shopping for shoes when the hurricane struck because she cannot stand black people.

Otherwise sensible Americans of all races will be more concerned by trite, cynical and dangerous political opportunism.

As the full horror of that sinks in, this columnist is simply glad that everybody cares.

Source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:25 am
Thanks JW. This piece is also quite constructive in the face of the mudslinging the Bush haters are throwing out there (emphasis mine):

Jack Kelly: No shame
The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed
Sunday, September 11, 2005

It is settled wisdom among journalists that the federal response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina was unconscionably slow.


Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio ([email protected], 412-263-1476).

"Mr. Bush's performance last week will rank as one of the worst ever during a dire national emergency," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in a somewhat more strident expression of the conventional wisdom.

But the conventional wisdom is the opposite of the truth.

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 2002. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.


Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge have no idea what is involved in moving hundreds of tons of relief supplies into an area the size of England in which power lines are down, telecommunications are out, no gasoline is available, bridges are damaged, roads and airports are covered with debris, and apparently have little interest in finding out.

So they libel as a "national disgrace" the most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history.


I write this column a week and a day after the main levee protecting New Orleans breached. In the course of that week:

More than 32,000 people have been rescued, many plucked from rooftops by Coast Guard helicopters.

The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun pumping water out of New Orleans.

Shelter, food and medical care have been provided to more than 180,000 refugees.

Journalists complain that it took a whole week to do this. A former Air Force logistics officer had some words of advice for us in the Fourth Estate on his blog, Moltenthought:

"We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort were studying engineering.

"The United States military can wipe out the Taliban and the Iraqi Republican Guard far more swiftly than they can bring 3 million Swanson dinners to an underwater city through an area the size of Great Britain which has no power, no working ports or airports, and a devastated and impassable road network.

"You cannot speed recovery and relief efforts up by prepositioning assets (in the affected areas) since the assets are endangered by the very storm which destroyed the region.

"No amount of yelling, crying and mustering of moral indignation will change any of the facts above."

"You cannot just snap your fingers and make the military appear somewhere," van Steenwyk said.

Guardsmen need to receive mobilization orders; report to their armories; draw equipment; receive orders and convoy to the disaster area. Guardsmen driving down from Pennsylvania or Navy ships sailing from Norfolk can't be on the scene immediately.

Relief efforts must be planned. Other than prepositioning supplies near the area likely to be afflicted (which was done quite efficiently), this cannot be done until the hurricane has struck and a damage assessment can be made. There must be a route reconnaissance to determine if roads are open, and bridges along the way can bear the weight of heavily laden trucks.

And federal troops and Guardsmen from other states cannot be sent to a disaster area until their presence has been requested by the governors of the afflicted states.

Exhibit A on the bill of indictment of federal sluggishness is that it took four days before most people were evacuated from the Louisiana Superdome.

The levee broke Tuesday morning. Buses had to be rounded up and driven from Houston to New Orleans across debris-strewn roads. The first ones arrived Wednesday evening. That seems pretty fast to me.

A better question -- which few journalists ask -- is why weren't the roughly 2,000 municipal and school buses in New Orleans utilized to take people out of the city before Katrina struck?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:28 am
George couldn't have done it on his own. He has been an ill-fitting figurehead for a particularly unsavoury crew. Thanks to blatham and Joe Conason for:

Quote:
On this anniversary, surrounded by the wreckage of four years of disastrously bad government, we must confront a profoundly disturbing reality. The performance of George W. Bush as president has proved to be far worse than even his most alienated critics could have predicted


Good article.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:31 am
Mctag writes in praise of Blatham's latest spam:
Quote:
Good article.


Good article as a glaring example of bigoted claptrap. I'll give it that.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:42 am
McTag wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Like the government's response to Iraq.


Do NOT let them see coffins.



Putrescent.


Like the media's reluctance to show the dead bodies caused by the terrorist attacks on 9/11. ... Wouldn't want to inflame the populace.

But if the dead are not caused by terrorists, but by a natural disaster, by all means let's show the dead. Let's go to court to insist on the First A right to show the dead.

But for what purpose?

Bizarre.


Tico, you're doing it again.

This was not an issue until publication of pictures of drowned people WAS BANNED. Who tried to ban it, and for what purpose? That is the issue.


Have you ever seen what a body looks like after it has been under water for a week?
Have you ever seen what a drowning victim looks like?
I have,and its not a sight that anyone should want to see.

Also,lets look at something else.
If you have family members missing in NO,do you want to see pictures of their corpse on the evening news,before you even knew they were dead?

Do you have so little respect for the victims that you want their corpses plastered on the evening news?
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:43 am
The response to Katrina was a governmental failure of historic proportions. The "I do believe, I do believe" crowd can quote obscure columnists from Toledo to Dublin, (Pretty bizarre, huh? Having to dig up apologists from Ohio and Ireland to support their faith-based views LOL) but it won't change the fundamantal fact that the bulk of the blame lies at the feet of the Bush administration, the most incompent administration in our history.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 08:47 am
Quote:
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 2002. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.


Hello??????? The National Guard is under the control of the Governor! There was Guard on duty in NO from day one. Just not enough and all the high water vehicles were in Iraq.
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 0.09 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 12:44:40