1
   

Who forgot to say the magic word?

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:19 pm
I'd agree with that but would add that a major factor in the article I linked to is that stuff that could have saved lives was not done because they were worried about how it would look/ political fallout.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:32 pm
Right.

Also, something I read yesterday mentioned that the red cross was not let in to (which, superdome or convention center?) because then more people would come... a decision by (whom? my memory is that it was something like Louisiana Homeland Security - I'd have to look it up before hurling blame.) The mechanics of lack of help to people for days is what is my primary interest, although I am also interested in the whole Mississippi delta history, not so much for blame as for understanding. Several a2kers have been excellent on providing info on that aspect.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:53 pm
Yeah, there's that too, soz. But honestly, with these folks, that's sort of old hat and, sadly, expected. But very important just as it was with the 9/11 response. What's more important, the country, or saving face?
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:29 pm
Politics is more important for lots of folk.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 02:44 pm
There's a audio timeline here, on all things considered (NPR): Unexecuted Plans

And an exploration of misdirected aid HERE
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 03:40 pm
Now that the waters are receeding, there are all sorts of dead bodies being discovered--and documented.

I'm not happy about media excess, but since Katrina blew ashore, tv, radio, newpaper and magazine people have all been working overtime to inform the public.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 04:57 pm
I have been very impressed with the media coverage - or what coverage I've tuned into.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 05:22 pm
ossobuco wrote:
Right.

Also, something I read yesterday mentioned that the red cross was not let in to (which, superdome or convention center?) because then more people would come... a decision by (whom? my memory is that it was something like Louisiana Homeland Security - I'd have to look it up before hurling blame.) The mechanics of lack of help to people for days is what is my primary interest, although I am also interested in the whole Mississippi delta history, not so much for blame as for understanding. Several a2kers have been excellent on providing info on that aspect.


That info is posted on the red cross website.
It was the La homeland security that decided that the red cross could NOT go into the convention center,even though they had food,water,and medical supplies.
The La officials didn't want more people to go to the convention center,they wanted everyone to leave.

Someone mentioned earlier something about FEMA being folded into the DHS,and the screwups that have followed.
I don't want to make this any more political then it already is,but lets remember that it was the dems,including Hillary,that demanded the formation of the DHS.
Remember,Bush originally opposed the idea.
Now,the dems are running around blaming Bush for the failures of a beurocracy they created.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 05:28 pm
ossobuco wrote:
I'm not without anger about all this. I am apt to, in the end, place some of my anger at the electorates at all levels. I am still trying to understand some of the mechanics underlying the wretched situation.


The next day I'm sorry I said that, it was hyperbole. I wasn't then and am not now - as yet - convinced by commentary against the LA governor or the NO Mayor.

I do think we get what we vote for, in terms of a dismantling coalition in the national administration; that local situations like recent building in especially vulnerable low lying areas are local stupidities or possibly local venalities; and longtime hubris and/or sense of man over nature - not always a negative, I'll agree - have had consequences re what has happened to a city so positioned.

My continuing confusion on why people weren't helped has had some sad new knowledge, a piece by Thomas Savino quoted by McTag in the Katrina and politics thread... and that brings a local component into my search for causes.

edit - that piece wasn't by Thomas Savino, but by two paramedics from San Francisco, links elsewhere on other threads to a AP report on it, and columns by others.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 08:59 pm
mysteryman wrote:

I don't want to make this any more political then it already is,but lets remember that it was the dems,including Hillary,that demanded the formation of the DHS.
Remember,Bush originally opposed the idea.
Now,the dems are running around blaming Bush for the failures of a beurocracy they created.


Just for the record... here are the bills to establish the Department of Homeland Security from the Senate and the House.

Aren't Phil Gramm and Dick Armey both republicans? Aren't almost all these co-sponsors republicans?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN02794:@@@P
Quote:
S.2794
Title: A bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Gramm, Phil [TX] (introduced 7/25/2002) Cosponsors (36)
Related Bills: H.R.5005
Latest Major Action: 7/25/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Note: For further action on establishing a Department of Homeland Security, see H.R. 5005, which became Public Law 107-296 on 11/25/2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(36), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] - 8/1/2002 Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 8/1/2002
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 8/1/2002 Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] - 8/1/2002
Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT] - 8/1/2002 Sen Campbell, Ben Nighthorse [CO] - 8/1/2002
Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] - 8/1/2002 Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 8/1/2002
Sen DeWine, Mike [OH] - 8/1/2002 Sen Ensign, John [NV] - 8/1/2002
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 8/1/2002 Sen Frist, William H. [TN] - 8/1/2002
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 8/1/2002 Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] - 8/1/2002
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] - 8/1/2002 Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 8/1/2002
Sen Helms, Jesse [NC] - 8/1/2002 Sen Hutchinson, Tim [AR] - 8/1/2002
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 8/1/2002 Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 8/1/2002
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 8/1/2002 Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 8/1/2002
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] - 9/4/2002 Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 8/1/2002
Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 7/25/2002 Sen Miller, Zell [GA] - 7/25/2002
Sen Murkowski, Frank H. [AK] - 8/1/2002 Sen Nickles, Don [OK] - 8/1/2002
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] - 8/1/2002 Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] - 8/1/2002
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] - 8/1/2002 Sen Smith, Bob [NH] - 8/1/2002
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] - 8/1/2002 Sen Thomas, Craig [WY] - 8/1/2002
Sen Thurmond, Strom [SC] - 8/1/2002 Sen Warner, John [VA] - 8/1/2002



THE BILL THAT MADE HOMELAND SECURITY INTO LAW:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR05005:@@@P

Quote:
H.R.5005
Title: To establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Armey, Richard K.
[TX-26] (by request) (introduced 6/24/2002) Cosponsors (118)
Related Bills: H.RES.502, H.R.4635, H.R.4660, H.R.5506, H.R.5710, S.1534, S.2452, S.2546, S.2554, S.2794
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 107-296 [GPO: Text, PDF]
House Reports: 107-609 Part 1
Note: On 11/19/2002, S.Amdt. 4901 substituted text essentially the same as H.R. 5710 in H.R. 5005. The House agreed to the Senate amendment on 11/22/2002. Other earlier bills included H.R. 4660, S. 1534, S. 2452, and S. 2794.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(118), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 6/24/2002 Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 6/24/2002
Rep Ballenger, Cass [NC-10] - 6/24/2002 Rep Barr, Bob [GA-7] - 6/24/2002
Rep Bass, Charles F. [NH-2] - 6/24/2002 Rep Bereuter, Doug [NE-1] - 6/24/2002
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 7/12/2002 Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] - 6/24/2002
Rep Boehlert, Sherwood [NY-23] - 6/24/2002 Rep Bonilla, Henry [TX-23] - 6/24/2002
Rep Bono, Mary [CA-44] - 6/24/2002 Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 6/24/2002
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 6/24/2002 Rep Burton, Dan [IN-6] - 6/24/2002
Rep Buyer, Steve [IN-5] - 6/24/2002 Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-43] - 6/24/2002
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 6/24/2002 Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 6/24/2002
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 6/24/2002 Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 6/24/2002
Rep Chambliss, Saxby [GA-8] - 6/24/2002 Rep Cooksey, John [LA-5] - 6/24/2002
Rep Cox, Christopher [CA-47] - 6/24/2002 Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] - 6/24/2002
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 6/24/2002 Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 6/24/2002
Rep Davis, Tom [VA-11] - 6/24/2002 Rep DeLay, Tom [TX-22] - 6/24/2002
Rep DeMint, Jim [SC-4] - 6/24/2002 Rep Dreier, David [CA-28] - 6/24/2002
Rep Dunn, Jennifer [WA-8] - 6/24/2002 Rep Ehrlich, Robert L., Jr. [MD-2] - 6/24/2002
Rep English, Phil [PA-21] - 6/24/2002 Rep Ferguson, Mike [NJ-7] - 6/24/2002
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 6/24/2002 Rep Fossella, Vito [NY-13] - 6/24/2002
Rep Ganske, Greg [IA-4] - 6/24/2002 Rep Gekas, George W. [PA-17] - 6/24/2002
Rep Gibbons, Jim [NV-2] - 6/24/2002 Rep Gillmor, Paul E. [OH-5] - 6/24/2002
Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. [NY-20] - 6/24/2002 Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 6/24/2002
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 6/24/2002 Rep Green, Mark [WI-8] - 6/24/2002
Rep Greenwood, James C. [PA-8] - 6/24/2002 Rep Grucci, Felix J., Jr. [NY-1] - 6/24/2002
Rep Hansen, James V. [UT-1] - 6/24/2002 Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 6/24/2002
Rep Hart, Melissa A. [PA-4] - 6/24/2002 Rep Hastert, J. Dennis [IL-14] - 6/24/2002
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 6/24/2002 Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 6/24/2002
Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-6] - 6/24/2002 Rep Hefley, Joel [CO-5] - 6/24/2002
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 6/24/2002 Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 6/24/2002
Rep Horn, Stephen [CA-38] - 6/24/2002 Rep Houghton, Amo [NY-31] - 6/24/2002
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 6/25/2002 Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-48] - 6/24/2002
Rep Jenkins, William L. [TN-1] - 6/24/2002 Rep Johnson, Nancy L. [CT-6] - 6/24/2002
Rep Keller, Ric [FL-8] - 6/24/2002 Rep Kelly, Sue W. [NY-19] - 6/24/2002
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 6/24/2002 Rep Kolbe, Jim [AZ-5] - 6/24/2002
Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 6/24/2002 Rep Linder, John [GA-11] - 6/24/2002
Rep Maloney, James H. [CT-5] - 6/24/2002 Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 6/24/2002
Rep McCrery, Jim [LA-4] - 6/24/2002 Rep McKeon, Howard P. (Buck) [CA-25] - 6/24/2002
Rep Miller, Dan [FL-13] - 6/24/2002 Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-41] - 6/24/2002
Rep Morella, Constance A. [MD-8] - 6/24/2002 Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] - 6/24/2002
Rep Nussle, Jim [IA-2] - 6/24/2002 Rep Osborne, Tom [NE-3] - 6/24/2002
Rep Oxley, Michael G. [OH-4] - 6/24/2002 Rep Pence, Mike [IN-2] - 7/12/2002
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) [MS-3] - 6/24/2002 Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 6/24/2002
Rep Portman, Rob [OH-2] - 6/24/2002 Rep Pryce, Deborah [OH-15] - 6/24/2002
Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] - 6/24/2002 Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT] - 6/24/2002
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-45] - 6/24/2002 Rep Roukema, Marge [NJ-5] - 6/24/2002
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-39] - 6/24/2002 Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] - 6/24/2002
Rep Saxton, Jim [NJ-3] - 6/24/2002 Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-27] - 7/11/2002
Rep Schrock, Edward L. [VA-2] - 6/24/2002 Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-9] - 6/24/2002
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-5] - 6/24/2002 Rep Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. [FL-22] - 6/24/2002
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 6/24/2002 Rep Sherwood, Don [PA-10] - 6/24/2002
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-20] - 6/24/2002 Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 6/24/2002
Rep Skeen, Joe [NM-2] - 6/24/2002 Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-4] - 6/24/2002
Rep Sweeney, John E. [NY-22] - 6/24/2002 Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 6/24/2002
Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) [LA-3] - 6/24/2002 Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] - 6/24/2002
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 6/24/2002 Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] - 6/24/2002
Rep Vitter, David [LA-1] - 7/12/2002 Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] - 6/24/2002
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 6/24/2002 Rep Watts, J. C., Jr. [OK-4] - 6/24/2002
Rep Weldon, Curt [PA-7] - 6/24/2002 Rep Weller, Jerry [IL-11] - 6/24/2002
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 6/24/2002 Rep Wicker, Roger F. [MS-1] - 6/24/2002
Rep Wilson, Heather [NM-1] - 6/24/2002 Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 6/24/2002

0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 05:40 am
Thanks for the correction, Piffka. So much false information and spin being thrown around, it's very difficult to determine the truth when one doesn't have days to spend investigating.

Anyone familiar with Louisiana parishes? I was just reading something that suggested the Louisiana governor requested assistance prior to the storm, listing parishes based on likely levels of damage and the federal government responded with listing assistance to be provided for minimal damage parishes, and neglected to include New Orleans.

Anyone know if this is accurate?

Quote:
Three Gulf State governors requested federal FEMA assistance days before Hurricane Katrina made landfall: two Republicans (Alabama and Mississippi) and one Democrat (Louisiana).

Official "state of emergency" letters were sent to the White House requesting federal assistance and the White House responded to each of them. In them, the President gave FEMA the responsibility of providing the assistance requested and notified each governor accordingly.

Now, this is where it gets interesting. The official White House letters the two Republican governors received mentioned counties directly in the hurricane's path along their southern, coastal borders. But what about Louisiana? The official White House letter sent to Democratic Gov. Blanco of Louisiana listed 39 parishes, all north and west of Baton Rouge, with none of them being the "major damage" parishes, including the parish for New Orleans, that Gov. Blanco requested primary FEMA assistance for in her letter.

After looking at her letter and the White House letter, I initially thought that someone had just made a mistake. They had cut-and-pasted the wrong set of parishes from her letter into the White House response. Nope. Didn't happen. Someone deliberately excluded the "major damage," Louisiana parishes from FEMA protection.

Gov. Blanco's pre-Katrina letter divided Louisiana's 64 parishes into three categories: 1) Major damage; 14 coastal, Mississippi Delta parishes, 2) Significant damage; 17 further inland parishes, and 3) Minimal damage, evacuation parishes; 33 northern parishes.

So from where did the White House letter composer get these 39 Louisiana parishes that were listed and placed under FEMA control? The 33 "minimal damage" parishes were added to 6 "significant damage" parishes, while the remaining 11 "significant damage" parishes and the 14 "major damage" parishes just disappeared.

Do you see? Someone cherry-picked 6 parishes out of the mid-range category. The 39, non-"major damage," parishes listed in the President's official directive, therefore, were placed there intentionally. Deliberately.

Just as all the Alabama and Mississippi "major damage" counties were intentionally, deliberately, listed in those official directives from the White House covering Alabama and Mississippi days before Katrina hit.

So, who in the White House was behind the diversion of FEMA's disaster efforts from Louisiana's hardest hit parishes to those parishes under the least threat from Katrina, thus hamstringing FEMA's disaster response?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 06:29 am
Heres the relevant part of Blanco's request dated August 27:

Quote:
I request that you declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period beginning August 26, 2005, and continuing. The affected areas are all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor that are accepting the thousands of citizens evacuating from the areas expecting to be flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina.


Governors homepage Source


Here's the relevant part of the answer from the federal governement that Blanco recieved, dated August 27:

Quote:
Statement on Federal Emergency Assistance for Louisiana

The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing.

The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the parishes of Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Caldwell, Claiborne, Catahoula, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Jackson, LaSalle, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Pointe Coupee, Ouachita, Rapides, Red River, Richland, Sabine, St. Helena, St. Landry, Tensas, Union, Vernon, Webster, West Carroll, West Feliciana, and Winn.

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent Federal funding.


White House Source

Note parishes are listed alphabetically and does not include Orleans or Jefferson, the two hard hit parishes I've heard the most about. But this area is included in the governors request.

Here's a link to the August 28 Formal Request which includes parishes by name.

On the 29th, AFTER Katrina had hit, Jefferson and Orleans parishes are put back into the mix by the White House:

Quote:
The President's action makes Federal funding available to affected individuals in the parishes of Acadia, Ascension, Assumption, Calcasieu, Cameron, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Iberia, Iberville, Jefferson, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lafourche, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. Helena, St. James, St. John, St. Mary, St. Martin, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, Vermilion, Washington, West Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana. Assistance can include grants for temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other programs to help individuals and business owners recover from the effects of the disaster.


White House Source
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 09:36 am
mysteryman wrote:

Someone mentioned earlier something about FEMA being folded into the DHS,and the screwups that have followed.
I don't want to make this any more political then it already is,but lets remember that it was the dems,including Hillary,that demanded the formation of the DHS.
Remember,Bush originally opposed the idea.
Now,the dems are running around blaming Bush for the failures of a beurocracy they created.


I hadn't intended for this to be political at all, really. If it were a Democrat in charge, putting political allies in positions that required people who actually know what they're doing, I'd be equally pissed. But the issue here is not necessarily the creation of DHS, it's putting FEMA under it and loading emergency response up with buraucratic red tape. FEMA used to be pretty good at responding to emergencies.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 09:43 am
[quote="FreeDuck: I hadn't intended for this to be political at all, really. If it were a Democrat in charge, putting political allies in positions that required people who actually know what they're doing, I'd be equally pissed. But the issue here is not necessarily the creation of DHS, it's putting FEMA under it and loading emergency response up with buraucratic red tape. FEMA used to be pretty good at responding to emergencies.[/quote]

FEMA performed very well under James Witt. He had actual disaster aid experience. Now FEMA is staffed at the top by image making political hacks.

Image polishing doesn't save lives and doesn't feed and house the afflicted.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 12:11 pm
By and large this thread is an example of A2K at its finest.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 12:26 pm
<Nods at Noddy>
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:19 pm
did anyone else notice how much of the "official" wording of the governor's request, mostly page 2, involves one form or another of holding the united states (government) blameless for undesired results ?

talk about C.Y.A.. no wonder things get so fouled up.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 02:25 pm
Yep, I noticed that. It's all according to how fema insists you must ask for help. Details.

That's why all the talk about how the governor didn't ask for just the right thing in just the right way is so irksome.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 04:05 pm
ya knowwww.....,

this all reminds me of when i was an assistant buyer for a department store chain here, back in the 80's. the broadway. the company was over 85 years old at the time.

things were running just grand untill the parent corporation decided to "maximize the stakeholder's return on investment", and sent in the ever popular efficiency experts. most of whom had no clue whatsoever as to how the rag trade worked.

the company was in chapter 11 within a year and folded in less than 5.

scary, ain't it ?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 04:09 pm
What's scary is that some consider that a success.
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 0.03 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 04:43:06