0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 09:25 am
How many of you believe what Bush said from Jackson Square in NO? Please raise your hands.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 09:32 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Looks like a little bit more than zero to me.

How does that refute what George said? He explicitly answered "no" to your question if there were no pollutants in the water.

FreeDuck wrote:
After 911, we were told that the new DHS make us better at responding to catastrophe. Clearly, that's not the case.

If you believed what you were told them, you deserve to be punished for your naivité. By starting up the Department of Homeland Security, Bush took a handful of limping agency tied them together, and told everybody that this would make them walk. I can't believe that so many Americans were buying this crap.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 09:34 am
Quote:
I can't believe that so many Americans were buying this crap.

And here lies the question of these times.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 09:41 am
Before anyone gets on your case for not leaving a link I thought I would do it for you

here

About your question he might be sincere, after all his ratings is in the dumps and he has got to do something. The trouble is that he has to balance keeping his base happy by not raising or taking away those tax giveaways to the corporations. As usual it is the poor that is going to foot the bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/17/national/nationalspecial/17bush.html

Quote:
Bush Rules Out Raising Taxes for Gulf Relief

By DAVID E. SANGER and EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 - President Bush said Friday that rebuilding the Gulf Coast would "cost whatever it costs," that he would not raise taxes to pay for the recovery and that at least some of the expense would have to be offset by budget cuts in other programs.

His call for some sacrifices in the federal budget came just a day after he addressed the nation in prime time from an outdoor lectern in New Orleans, where he promised to rebuild the city and the surrounding Gulf Coast, heavily damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Bush used a national day of remembrance for the storm victims on Friday to expand on the themes of racial injustice that he touched upon the night before, telling a packed service at the National Cathedral, "As we clear away the debris of a hurricane, let us also clear away the legacy of inequality."

Taken together with his speech in Jackson Square on Thursday night, Mr. Bush's comments were part of an effort to shift the focus to promises of rebuilding and recovery and away from criticism that the White House had been callous in its slowness in helping the storm victims, many of them black.

The White House on Friday also offered a few more details about the president's proposals to provide incentives for rebuilding and to assist displaced residents with homesteading land and money for job retraining. The Gulf Opportunity Zone program he outlined on Thursday would offer special tax breaks to businesses and would cost about $2 billion; school vouchers, worth up to about $7,000 for displaced students, could be used for private as well as public schools. Administration officials are also considering a suspension of the steep import tariffs now imposed on cement from Mexico, lumber from Canada and numerous forms of steel.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 10:06 am
Revel
Revel, your comment is exactly what I was opining on this post on another thread. ---BBB

I think we and the Media have missed something important in Bush's speech.

Some called it pandering, and it was. But I'm beginning to think it was clever pandering. Remember what Molly Ivins said about Bush? He's good at politics but stinks at governing.

Remember what is upper most in Bush mind. Protect and enhance his presidential legacy.

Could it be that Bush's over the top pandering is deliberate. Is he certain that the fiscal conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, will not vote to approve the hundreds of billions of dollars that his proposals would cost?

Has he and Karl Rove figured out a way to win no matter which way the Congress votes?

If Congress refuses to approve the funding, Bush wins because he then can blame the congress. Once again it's not his fault.

If Congress approves the funding, Bush wins. But if Congress requires that a lot of programs be eliminated to create the money to fund Bush's proposal, then Bush will win again. He will be successful in getting rid of more of the New Deal programs that has been his goal all along---all in the name of helping the hurricane victims. He will win by wrapping himself in pity for them.

The Republicans will be resistant to reversing Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy, which will put even more pressure on Congress to eliminate programs due to the financial crunch. Republicans never want to raise taxes; it is the kiss of death.


If Congress votes to add the costs to the deficit rather than cut programs and keep the current tax cuts and it leads to rapid inflation and a recession or depression, then Bush can blame the Congress and it's not his fault.

Bush wins no matter what and people won't blame him. After all, he tried to help them per his speech. Blame everyone else for letting them suffer.

Damn smart politically. Amoral as President.

BBB
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 10:23 am
BBB, It's really sad that so many Americans are so stupid! They refuse to see through this president's rhetoric against the background of what is reality in the world of fiscal responsibility.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 10:38 am
Foxfyre
Foxfyre wrote: "Just about the time I think I can find a way to hate the British, I run across a piece like the following."

Foxfyre, why do you hate the British?

BBB
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 10:42 am
FreeDuck wrote:
[Let's see them, then. Show me how the feds were on the job. If it had been a terrorist attack and they didn't show up for days, or didn't fill out the necessary paperwork to allow New Mexico's national guard to help, or didn't even know where people were taking shelter, would you still say they did a great job? Have a look at the National Response Plan on the DHS site and tell me that they followed it. The point about local and state governments being first responders is moot in cases where they have indicated that they don't have the resources to respond. In such cases, what do you suggest the rest of the country do, stand back and watch them flounder?

After 911, we were told that the new DHS make us better at responding to catastrophe. Clearly, that's not the case.


Nonsense, hyperbole, and sophistry.

The Federal Government's primary role in combatting terrorisn is the PREVENTION and deterrance of an attack. So far the Administration has been remarkably successful at that.

The fact that local government doesn't have the needed resources is the result of exactly two distinct factors: (1) The scale of the natural disaster overwhelmed the back up resources prudently and reasonably available; and (2) The government agencies themselves were derelict in their responsibilities before the event in establishing sufficient redundancy in infrastructure systems, stockpiled materials and organizational readiness. The first of these causes appplies equally to both local and national governments. In the case of the second the lapses of local government in Louisiana dwarf those of the Federal government.

The fact that the stormwater pumping stations in New Orleans failed when the electrical power grid went down, but those in adjacent Jefferson Parish kept operating, opens an interesting question. Why, in a city that is below mean sea level and which is utterly dependent on these pumping systems, was there not a reliable back up power supply system in place with in place reserve fuel, constructed at a level above maximum flood surges? This, it seems to me is an utterly inexcusable failure on the part of the city. Why did the entire city communications system break down at the same time? These two failures were the direct cause of a large portion of the unnecessary damage and delay in response by local government and they seriously compounded numerous unrelated recocery efforts by all levels of government.

It is very easy to fault government bureaucracy at all levels. We want our government to be fair, not efficient. My experience has been that, in general, Federal bureaucracies function marginally better than do those of most states. More or less by definition bureaucracies are as interested and focused on their own internal rules and procedures as they are on the service or outcome they are intended to deliver. This is, of course, a good reason to prefer smaller government and private & individual solutions to our problems over government ones.

The pieces here quoted and pasted by Cicerone and others appear to involve a high degree of selective reporting of material all laced with quotes and excerpts offered without context or background. No serious person should take them as representative of the truth of the matters reported. In war and in natural disasters initial reports are almost always wrong or replete with error and misinformation. Most of the critics are quoted as loudly demanding that the Federal government solve their proiblems right now. While we all wish to do all that is possible to relieve the suffering of the people affected by this disaster, it just isn't possible in this or any country to simply use government to instantly solve everyone's problems. Moreover such a government would find a way to make itself intolerable in other areas of our lives. This is the United States of America - we have prospered based on the principles of self-reliance, local government and individual freedom. We don't need or want a nanny government "protecting" us from all of life's ills - and generally doing so at the cost of our freedom. The fact is that the individual actions of generous people and groups across the country are already doing a remarkable job in assisting the victims of this disaster. This, of course, is as it should be.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 10:45 am
georgeob1 wrote:
The disaster in New Orleans was not the result of an external threat or attack - elements for which the Homeland Security Department was created.

You suggest that the responsibilities of the DHS stop when there is no external threat or attack involved. That is simply far from true. The DHS includes FEMA after all, which has always been responsible for natural disasters of national magnitude. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security self-presentation on its webpage proudly proclaims:

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort.

georgeob1 wrote:
nimh wrote:
As soon as a disaster is declared an Incident of National Significance, the coordination of management operations shifts to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Department's head, Chertoff declared it such an incident on 30 August.

As FreeDuck has laid out in painstaking detail HERE, Chertoff had both the authority and the information to do so three days earlier already, when Governor Blanco wrote her State of Emergency letter to President Bush.

By August 30 the failures of the State and City Governments in New Orleans to deal properly with the execution of their disaster & evacuation plans and to order and carry out the required measures - items that are their exclusive responsibility - the problem had already been created.

But Gov. Blanco already wrote her State of Emergency letter three days before that. There was no need for the DHS to wait until, three days later, the problem had already been so much further escalated.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 10:49 am
The Department assigns itself the "primary responsibility" when it comes to "providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort". It's not a question of big-government ideology: it's its self-chosen mission statement.

Now the question is, does anybody seriously believe that the Department succesfully provided a "coordinated, comprehensive response" to Katrina, in that it "mounted a swift and effective recovery effort"?

Why shouldn't we judge their efforts by their self-chosen yardsticks?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 10:57 am
georgeob1 wrote:
The Federal Government's primary role in combatting terrorisn is the PREVENTION and deterrance of an attack. So far the Administration has been remarkably successful at that.


Quote:
The NYPD's War On Terror
Frustrated by the lack of help from Washington, police commissioner Ray Kelly has created his own versions of the CIA and the FBI within the department. So how will we know if he has succeeded? If nothing happens.


new york

New York mag has been writing a far bit about this lately. Seems the Feds aren't really doing that good a job.

Quote:
So Kelly has plenty of reasons to want to make his mark this time. Even so, isn't combating terrorism primarily a federal responsibility?

When I ask Kelly this question, he looks at me long and hard. He is a man who knows his way around Washington. In addition to his time in the mid-nineties as undersecretary of the Treasury, he was head of the Customs Service. He also worked for Interpol and was a special State Department envoy in Haiti where he was sent to establish and train a police force.

"I knew we couldn't rely on the federal government," Kelly says finally. "I know it from my own experience. We're doing all the things we're doing because the federal government isn't doing them. It's not enough to say it's their job if the job isn't being done. Since 9/11, the federal government hasn't taken any additional resources and put them here."


The question of whether the Feds should be doing more is an entirely separate question.

~~~~~~~~

From another issue on the same general issue (NYC/terrorism)

Al Qaeda's New York
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 11:15 am
nimh wrote:
The Department assigns itself the "primary responsibility" when it comes to "providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort". It's not a question of big-government ideology: it's its self-chosen mission statement.

Now the question is, does anybody seriously believe that the Department succesfully provided a "coordinated, comprehensive response" to Katrina, in that it "mounted a swift and effective recovery effort"?

Why shouldn't we judge their efforts by their self-chosen yardsticks?


You misunderstand the structure of our government. The phrase "primary role" is with reference only to other ahencies of the Federal government. It does not at all trump the powers and resoponsibilities of state and local governments in their domains of law enforcement, land use, public safety and infrastructure. Our constitution specifies and limits the powers of the national government, resweving all others to the states. The Federal Government does not have the authority to direct the activities of local police or emergency services, unless that authority is expressedly and lawfully given by the state government.

You are also focusing on documents of - at best - secondary significance. President Bush had authorized FEMA's assistance even before the storm passed new Orleans in his initial disaster area declaration.
The issue you raise don't make it to page 5 of the real list of what went wrong.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 03:33 pm
Open letter to President Bush from Bill Mahrer.

Quote:
Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished.

Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President could involve yourself in. Please don't. I know, I know. There's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.

But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side.

So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.'
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 03:57 pm
You can't spell "urine" without U-N ...

Quote:
Bush Urinating on Company Time

A new scandal is rocking the White House, one sure to leave a bright yellow stain on the peeResidency for years to come - and this time the digital brownshirts won't be able to spin it under the rug like they did with the Texas National Guard memos. According to newly released photographic evidence, Bush attempted to interrupt a UN Security Council meeting with a taxpayer-funded bathroom break.

It's bad enough that the Shrub vacations for 9 months out of the year, but does he have to urinate on my dime as well? Do the math, folks. Bush's salary is $400,000 a year, or 76 cents a minute. Let's say he takes six pee breaks a day at three minutes each - five minutes if he pees sitting down like Oliver Willis. Perhaps we should ask ourselves if we can really afford to continue the war in Iraq, AND pay Bush over $7,000 a year to use the loo.

Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but he never allowed his natural urges to interfere with his job. Al Gore hasn't had a bowel movement in over 17 years. Yet Bush apparently thinks he can piss away our hard earned money whenever nature calls.

Well, I say enough is enough. 3,000 American died because the Shrub was too busy reading about a pet goat to do his job. Another 10,000 have gone missing in New Orleans, most likely because Bush was taking a "bathroom break" when Mayor Nagin called begging for help. I stand with Senator Biden's call for an immediate congressional investigation into the Tinklegate scandal. Bush must be held accountable for his bodily functions, before any more innocent lives are lost.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 03:58 pm
Quote:
To ABC's Surprise, Katrina Victims Praise Bush and Blame Nagin
Posted by Brent Baker on September 16, 2005 - 00:50.

ABC News producers probably didn't hear what they expected when they sent Dean Reynolds to the Houston Astrodome's parking lot to get reaction to President Bush's speech from black evacuees from New Orleans. Instead of denouncing Bush and blaming him for their plight, they praised Bush and blamed local officials. Reynolds asked Connie London: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?" She rejected the premise: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in." She pointed out: "They had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."

Not one of the six people interviewed on camera had a bad word for Bush -- despite Reynolds' best efforts. Reynolds goaded: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?" Brenda Marshall answered, "No, I didn't," prompting Reynolds to marvel to anchor Ted Koppel: "Very little skepticism here."

Reynolds pressed another woman: "Did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?" She affirmed: "Yes, he was." Reynolds soon wondered who they held culpable for the levee breaks. Unlike the national media, London did not blame supposed Bush-mandated budget cuts: "They've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do."

....

Immediately after Bush finished his speech from Jackson Square in New Orleans, at about 8:26pm local CDT, Ted Koppel, anchor of ABC's hour-long coverage, went to Dean Reynolds who was outside in a parking lot with a group of black people from New Orleans who are living at the Reliant Center next to the Astrodome.

(No names were provided on-screen for those interviewed, so I only have first names for two, and no name for one, of the six.)
    Reynolds elicited reaction from the group sitting in chairs: "I'd like to get the reaction of Connie London who spent several horrible hours at the Superdome. You heard the President say retpeaedly that you are not alone, that the country stands beside you. Do you believe him?" Connie London: "Yeah, I believe him, because here in Texas, they have truly been good to us. I mean-" Reynolds: "Did you get a sense of hope that you could return to your home one day in New Orleans?" London: "Yes, I did. I did." Reynolds: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?" London: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs." Reynolds: "And they weren't?" London: "No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn't. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people." Reynolds: "Now, Mary, you were rescued from your house which was basically submerged in your neighborhood. Did you hear something in the President's words that you could glean some hope from?" Mary: "Yes. He said we're coming back, and I believe we're coming back. He's going to build the city up. I believe that." Reynolds: "You believe you'll be able to return to your home?" Mary: "Yes, I do." Reynolds: "Why?" Mary: "Because I really believe what he said. I believe. I got faith." Reynolds: "Back here in the corner, we've got Brenda Marshall, right?" Brenda Marshall: "Yes." Reynolds: "Now, Brenda, you were, spent, what, several days at the Superdome, correct?" Marshall: "Yes, I did." Reynolds: "What did you think of what the President told you tonight?" Marshall: "Well, I think -- I think the speech was wonderful, you know, him specifying that we will return back and that we will have like mobile homes, you know, rent or whatever. I was listening to that pretty good. But I think it was a well fine speech." Reynolds: "Was there any particular part of it that stood out in your mind? I mean, I saw you all nod when he said the Crescent City is going to come back one day." Marshall: "Well, I think I was more excited about what he said. That's probably why I nodded." Reynolds: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?" Marshall: "No, I didn't." Reynolds: "Good. Well, very little skepticism here. Frederick Gould, did you hear something that you could hang on to tonight from the President?" Frederick Gould: "Well, I just know, you know, he said good things to me, you know, what he said, you know. I was just trying to listen to everything they were saying, you know." Reynolds: "And Cecilia, did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?" Cecilia: "Yes, he was." Reynolds: "Do you think this is a little too late, or do you think he's got a handle on the situation?" Cecilia: "To me it was a little too late. It was too late, but he should have did something more about it." Reynolds: "Now do you all believe that you will one day return to your homes?" Voices: "Yes" and "I do." Reynolds: "I mean, do you all want to return to your homes? We're hearing some people don't even want to go back." Mary: "I want to go back." Reynolds: "You want to go back." Mary: "I want to go back. That's my home. That's all I know." Reynolds: "Is it your home for your whole life?" Mary: "Right. That's my home." Reynolds: "And do you expect to go back to the house or a brand new dwelling or what?" Mary: "I expect to go back to something. I know it ain't my house, because it's gone." Reynolds: "What is the one mistake that could have been prevented that would have made your lives much better? Is it simply getting all of you out much sooner or what was it?" Mary: "I'm going to tell you the truth. I had the opportunity to get out, but I didn't believe it. So I stayed there till it was too late." Reynolds: "Did you all have the same feeling? I mean, did you all have the opportunity to get out, but you were skeptical that this was the really bad one?" Unnamed woman: "No, I got out when they said evacuate. I got out that Sunday and I left before the storm came. But I know they could have did better than what they did because like they said, buses were just sitting there, and they could have came through there and got people out, because they were saying immediate evacuation. Some people didn't believe it. But they should have brung the force of the army through to help these people and make them understand it really was coming." London: "And really it wasn't Hurricane Katrina that really tore up the city. It was when they opened the floodgates. It was not the hurricane itself. It was the floodgates, when they opened the floodgates, that's where all the water came." Reynolds: "Do you blame anybody for this?" London: "Yes. I mean, they've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do." Reynolds: "All right. Well, thank you all very much. I wish you all the best of luck. I hope you don't have to spend too much more time here in the Reliant Center and you can get back to New Orleans as the President said. Ted, that is the word from the Houston Astrodome. And as I said, when the President said that the Crescent City will rise again, there were nods all around this parking lot."
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 04:05 pm
Yea, I am sure those interviewed were randomly picked and Reynolds was really trying to get people to say something bad about Bush.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 04:09 pm
revel wrote:
Yea, I am sure those interviewed were randomly picked and Reynolds was really trying to get people to say something bad about Bush.


Its obvious you didnt watch the piece.
ABC picked the people to interview,and Reynolds was trying to lead the interviewees with his questions.

If you had watched it you would have known that.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 04:14 pm
Your right I didn't watch it, I guess I shot too soon.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 04:16 pm
mysteryman wrote:
revel wrote:
Yea, I am sure those interviewed were randomly picked and Reynolds was really trying to get people to say something bad about Bush.


Its obvious you didnt watch the piece.
ABC picked the people to interview,and Reynolds was trying to lead the interviewees with his questions.

If you had watched it you would have known that.


I didn't see the piece. but in reading the transcript, it is irrefutable that Reynolds was asking leading questions. In a court of law virtually all of these questions would be disallowed. What his motivation might have been is open to conjecture, but that he was strongly steering the interviews is not.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 04:27 pm
I stand guilty of not reading completely tico's post and not watching the interview and of jumping to unwarranted conclusions. I am embarrassed and wish that I didn't respond. I just glanced at the first few sentences and took it from there. I hope this teaches me a lesson. Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed You guys are right he was leading in his interview and those he asked didn't blame Bush but rather Nagin.
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 0.05 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 02:33:33