Did Bush and the Federal Govt Fail New Orleans

[Martinman]

In response to the stated question as to whether or not Bush and the federal government failed New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast, the answer is yes.

[derrickskugler]

I'm done with this thread. I get threatened with being suspended because I don't agree with the moderator. Pathetic.

I haven't called anyone any names. If you have an issue with the word "libbies", that's more your problem than mine. It's no different than saying "Dems". Why don't you jump all over your fellow liberals for calling anyone who defends Bush "neocons" or any other Michael Moore mantra? Simple, because you have two seperate standards for people who sit on the right and people who sit on the left. Sounds like someone's a bit sensative.

And finally, YES, the LIBERALS (happy now, chief?) have been guilty of revisionist history, case in point, claiming Clinton was impeached for a bad relationship. That is a LIE, and you know it. Anyone who lives in the real world would know that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. But, it's okay for that lie to be stated because it came from a liberal.

[Ruso]

I'm done with this thread.  I get threatened with being suspended because I don't agree with the moderator.  Pathetic.

I haven't called anyone any names.  If you have an issue with the word "libbies", that's more your problem than mine.  It's no different than saying "Dems".  Why don't you jump all over your fellow liberals for calling anyone who defends Bush "neocons" or any other Michael Moore mantra?  Simple, because you have two seperate standards for people who sit on the right and people who sit on the left.  Sounds like someone's a bit sensative.

And finally, YES, the LIBERALS (happy now, chief?) have been guilty of revisionist history, case in point, claiming Clinton was impeached for a bad relationship.  That is a LIE, and you know it.  Anyone who lives in the real world would know that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.  But, it's okay for that lie to be stated because it came from a liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And conservatives are not history revisionists? Again, do not glorify your party, that if there is something they do is to manipulate history. If you base your beliefs on paranoia, simple, uneducated prejudices and supersticion, then that is your problem, and I can not do anything about that. As you said before, there is people with whom you'll nver be able to talk and discuss reasonably, especially when one of the sides is supported by easy, not critical ideas.

You are done, and so am I. (at least I'll try to be, hoping not to read any more bs)

Greetings

[Ruso]

BTW: I do not agree with people who blamed Bush for the disaster, my responses were mainly a reaction to other "scary" commentaries. And also, I do not think all conservatives lack reasonable arguments. I was referring to a vast majority, but not to all. A few have presented really admirable justifications for their political beliefs.

Just that, sorry....

[RiversideGator]

Turns out that the New Orleans death toll may be much lower than the earlier statements of the NO Mayor indicated:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story....ina&floc=NW_1-T

Of course, anyone dying because of mistakes is too many. But, the scale of the disaster is quietly being toned down by the media.

[Buck1intpa]

Martin, Riverside, et al...  by now you should have realized that facts are a foreign language to libbies.  Remember, the entire purpose of their thread is to bash-Buch.  That's it.  There's no use defending him, because as soon as you destroy their arguement with facts, they spin the arguement in a complete different direction because they know they were beaten in the last one but won't admit it.

It's sad, but what can you do?  And by the way...  Clinton was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH, not for lying about an affair.  He should have been impeached for that, and was.  Gotta love you libbies and your revisionist history.  Get over it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just the facts from a fellow republican:

He wasn't impeached. He was brought up on charges but was not impeached. Can't blame the libbies for revisionist history here... sounds like someone else is trying to "revise" history. Let's get our facts straight guys.

[Buck1intpa]

In response to the stated question as to whether or not Bush and the federal government failed New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast, the answer is yes.  But, there is enough blame to go around. 

Mayor Nagins should have done more to implement the city-wide evacuation on the Sunday before Katrina hit when he issued the order.  He knew that New Orleans, as many other large, older American urban centers, is home to a disproportionate number of poor and disenfranchised residents who did not have the means to evacuate.  He should have utilized the city buses and school buses and gotten as many people out of the city as possible.  That said, the power and size of the storm overwhelmed the city's infrastructure as hadn't been see before.  The communications breakdown among local emergency personnel was a key concern that had not been planned for in the drills and emergency planning. 

The governor, who rightly asked Bush to declare a state of emergency before the storm made landfall, did not appear to be sure-footed at the outset of the storm and seemed to be caught off-guard and was therefore somewhat ineffective early on. 

Bush, however, failed on a number of levels.  This was a failure both personally as a "leader" and on a policy level.  His policy of viewing FEMA as "an entitlement agency" and therefore diminishing its authority, role and budget after James Lee Witt had transformed it into a well-organized, swift-footed agency is the most grievous of the policy failures.  To underscore his disdain for FEMA, Bush handed out appointments to the agency as political favors.  As has been well-documented, Brown was not even remotely qualified for the position which was in evidence in his statement that FEMA and DHS did not know about the thousands of evacuees at the convention center after major new organizations like CNN, BBS, NBC, NPR, etc had been interviewing people there for days.  According to a Mississippi city manager interviewed on Dateline last night, the first relief workers to his town were a Canadian search and rescue unit from Vancouver.  In the case of FEMA, Bush failed because it was his policy that put Michael Brown in the position of leadership.

The failure of Bush with FEMA coupled with the defunding of the Army Corps of Engineers projects to upgrade the flood protection infrastructure of New Orleans further reveals the lack of forethought in the policies of the Bush administration and this Congress.  While it is true that there was not much movement on the protection through many successive Democratic and Republican administrations over the past several decades, that bad track-record was being turned around during the Clinton administration and the Army Corps was getting the funding it needed to start to make real progress.  Bush has cut the funding each of the last 4 years.  Additionally, an arcane energy policy and development policies that have systematically destroyed the wetlands and Mississippi delta that has been exacerbated by current policies of the federal government run parallel to Bush's expansive lack of long-term thinking on issues from global warming, ANWAR, the SUV business tax credit, etc  in favor of the short-term bottom line gains.  Now, however, the emperor has indeed been revealed to have no clothes.  The sum the Army Corps was asking for is a mere pittance compared to the $62 billion (and yet as known grand total) that it has cost to begin to deal with the destruction of New Orleans.

On a personal level, Bush holds himself as a "leader."  As the waters were rising in New Orleans, Bush was asking us to liken his leadership as a "wartime President" to that of FDR and WWII.  He compares his qualities of leadership those of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, yet when New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are being battered, he remained on vacation delivering speeches on Iraq and Social Security and collecting fundraising checks from his supporters.  Not only did he not allow Cindy Sheehan or the August carnage in Iraq to affect his vacation, he couldn't even be bothered to leave Crawford until 2-1/2 days after Katrina hit.  The only thing that has summoned him from his mind-blowing vacation schedule has been Terry Schiavo, for whom he left Crawford in the middle of the night to return to DC.  But, then why should we be surprised.  In August 2001, an NSC briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike within the United States" did not cause pause or a break from clearing the brush on the ranch.  The only good thing to come out of Bush's years in office is that with all the time he has taken off, I imagine there isn't a weed left in Crawford.  Too bad the rest of the country has been left to fend for itself.  That is not leadership, that is failure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As much as it troubles me, the arguments you've made in your statement are accurate. You could have left the "weed clearing" out though. Sometimes one has to re-think his/her priorities and political positions Time for me to re-register next week as an independent.

[monsoon]

Just the facts from a fellow republican:

He wasn't impeached.  He was brought up on charges but was not impeached.  Can't blame the libbies for revisionist history here...  sounds like someone else is trying to "revise" history.  Let's get our facts straight guys.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You might want to go check the dictionary and do a little read of the US Constitution. I find that many enter into these arguments have not done so.

Impeached means to bring charges against. Specifically for the US President, this means to charge him with a crime serious enough to warrant removal from office. Article 2 says its the House of Reps. has sole power to impeach a President or other government official. They did this along party lines. Impeachment does not mean removal

As I said, Clinton was impeached by the Republican House. The job then fell on the Senate to hold a trial to determine if the President is guilty of the charges brought forth by the House, with their only options to be either removal from office, or find him innocent. He was aquitted of all charges.

Now the interesting thing about this is the Republicans hold a 4 year long witchhunt on Clinton where they spent $90 million in tax payer money, basically a long smear campaign, all they could do was to get him to lie about an affair against his wife on national TV. (They never found anything on Hillary) The people who would waste the country's time with crap like this are so drunk with power they will do or say anything to keep it, regardless of how much it destroys the USA. Its unfortuate they are still running things, and now with no moderation from the Democrats, are slowly (or fast in the case of NO) destroying the country for their gain.

Finally why are not the Republicans clamoring to impeach and rid the government of even Michael Brown who has been found to have lied on this resume about his qualifications to hold the Fema Job? Never mind that he failed to do his high priced government job, and did not get fired from that. Bush has said that he is needed for other "important" duties at Fema. What in the hell is more important right now than helping the survivors of Katrina?

[Viper]

Turns out that the New Orleans death toll may be much lower than the earlier statements of the NO Mayor indicated: 

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story....ina&floc=NW_1-T

Of course, anyone dying because of mistakes is too many.  But, the scale of the disaster is quietly being toned down by the media.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same thing happened on, ironically, 9/11 (nevermind, it's now 9/12.)

Reports of as many as 30,000+ were tossed around until a final of 1/10 of that estimate became reality.

Media feeds on shock like that just like they are feeding on this whole shock about Bush.

It's exaggerated, stretched for drama and ratings.

Even though I support Bush in this, I admit, the media went way overboard with Clintons scandal.

[monsoon]

So if only 500 people died due to the Federal govenment sitting on its ass for several days, that is ok? If not, then I don't see the point. Bush failed the citizens of the USA and now there is blood on his hands in NO just as there is in Iraq. I see absolutely no reason to support this man for what he has done in New Orleans. If one person died due to his inaction it is too much and it galls me that anyone would trivialize people, Americans, dying because the Federal government can't do anything for them.

But hey, his friends at Haliburton are making plenty of money. It should be noted the person, Bush's campaign manager, that recommended Michael Brown to head FEMA is now working for this marvelous company that doesn't have to do competitive bidding for government contracts.

The media did not go way overboard on the Clinton scandal. It was the Republicans in the House of Representives that did. BTW, keep in mind, Clinton was found innocent of all charges. That seems to be lost on many here. Why aren't these people going after Bush for the dead in NO? Answer: they won't. They have sold us out as well.

[Buck1intpa]

Same thing happened on, ironically, 9/11 (nevermind, it's now 9/12.)

Reports of as many as 30,000+ were tossed around until a final of 1/10 of that estimate became reality.

Media feeds on shock like that just like they are feeding on this whole shock about Bush.

It's exaggerated, stretched for drama and ratings.

Even though I support Bush in this, I admit, the media went way overboard with Clintons scandal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh my God, Viper. Spoken like someone with integrity!!! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!!! Let's do lunch! I don't know you from Adam, but I know that you are consistent and honest. That's a rarity these days! Keep the faith. . .

[Buck1intpa]

So if only 500 people died due to the Federal govenment sitting on its ass for several days, that is ok?  If not, then I don't see the point.  Bush failed the citizens of the USA and now there is blood on his hands in NO just as there is in Iraq.  I see absolutely no reason to support this man for what he has done in New Orleans.  If one person died due to his inaction it is too much and it galls me that anyone would trivialize people, Americans, dying because the Federal government can't do anything for them.

But hey, his friends at Haliburton are making plenty of money.  It should be noted the person, Bush's campaign manager, that recommended Michael Brown to head FEMA is now working for this marvelous company that doesn't have to do competitive bidding for government contracts.   

The media did not go way overboard on the Clinton scandal.  It was the Republicans in the House of Representives that did.  BTW, keep in mind, Clinton was found innocent of all charges.  That seems to be lost on many here.    Why aren't  these people going after Bush for the dead in NO?  Answer: they won't.  They have sold us out as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll probably be banned for expressing this opinion but I'm going to do it anyway... I love the 1st Amendment!

President Bush wasn't the only one who failed the American people!

The protocol for "no-bid" contracts is disgusting and it makes a "whore" out of our form of government and those supporting its abuse! Read P.J. O'Rourke's "A Parliment of Whores."

The media DID go way overboard on the Clinton scandal! It was all about ratings and it WAS 24/7 Clinton bashing all day, every day. His "scandal" was a "cash cow" for all of the corporate media, pure and simple. And yes, he was the most scrutinized public official of our lifetime and the media's obsession was a disgrace to our country. But what the hell, it sold airtime. Gotta love it!

monsoon, you make sound and reasonable arguments regarding the Administration's failures, however, you allow your distain for the President to cloud your judgement as to the entire picture. Your argument is far from balanced.

Yes, the President fell short of his responsibilities; but for you NOT to argue that the governor and mayor did not react inappropriately is not an accurate representation of reality and it weakens your argument as a sound judge of history. Where is your distain for them as leaders? I haven't seen one instance by which you have called them on their failures. Not once! If the President's lack of action cost lives then their shortfalls cost lives as well! Can you not agree?

No one can logically argue that the federal govt. fell short of its responsibilities -- even the President says as much. Trust me; they will all question their lack of action. Hell, I'll go one step further: NO ONE wished death upon anyone in this instance! That's right; not even the President!

The truth is the entire world is discussing this. From "Der Spiegel" in Germany to the "Mirror" in England, all have criticized our government for their lack of action. I won't even trouble anyone here with the rest of the world's comments -- they depress me and are far too many to mention. It is painfully obvious now.

Let us cut to the quic: where is your outrage from ALL levels of government? Again, I say you are correct in your argument concerning the federal government, but why are you not equally as outraged by other politicians in power? As I see it, your anger is blatently bias and that surely weakens your argument. If this were a debate class lesson, you would be lucky to receive a passing grade on this one.

As far as President Clinton is concerned, I personally held my nose during the impeachment process. Countless others lie each day under oath in court where divorce proceedings or "sex" is concerned. It is natural for individuals to deny allegations surrounding anything sexual in nature. President Clinton WAS defininitely held to a higher standard than anyone else in his shoes, and yes, it was a political "powerplay." Republicans controlled the congress and they had the power to impeach him. President Clinton took their toys away and they were pissed! It is the nature of politics in this country these days. Honestly, it should never have happened.

And yes, I suspect that you will argue that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and that his lie was much more costly. I cannot argue against that position, but I would still hold my nose during an impeachment process in that instance as well. And no one can deny that if the Democrats controlled the House and Senate, they would be no different than the Republicans. It is, however, hard to prove "specific intent."

My point is..... if they were to go after Bush for "the dead" in NO.... would you not also support going after democratic leaders for the same failures? If not, why not?

I'm just curious. . .

b.t.w. If I'm banned, it's been a very provocative discussion and I actually appreciate all of you making me think! This discussion has forced me to seriously think about our responsibility as Americans and as true patriots.

[Buck1intpa]

You might want to go check the dictionary and do a little read of the US Constitution.  I find that many enter into these arguments have not done so.   

Impeached means to bring charges against.  Specifically for the US President, this means to charge him with a crime serious enough to warrant removal from office.  Article 2 says its the House of Reps. has sole power to impeach a President or other government official.  They did this along party lines.  Impeachment does not mean removal 

As I said, Clinton was impeached by the Republican House.  The job then fell on the Senate to hold a trial to determine if the President is guilty of the charges brought forth by the House,  with their only options to be either removal from office, or find him innocent.  He was aquitted of all charges. 

Now the interesting thing about this is the Republicans hold a 4 year long witchhunt on Clinton where they spent $90 million in tax payer money, basically a long smear campaign, all they could do was to get him to lie about an affair against his wife on national TV.  (They never found anything on Hillary)  The people who would waste the country's time with crap like this are so drunk with power they will do or say anything to keep it, regardless of how much it destroys the USA.  Its unfortuate they are still running things, and now with no moderation from the Democrats, are slowly (or fast in the case of NO) destroying the country for their gain. 

Finally why are not the Republicans clamoring to impeach and rid the government of even Michael Brown who has been found to have lied on this resume about his qualifications to hold the Fema Job?  Never mind that he failed to do his high priced government job, and did not get fired from that.  Bush has said that he is needed for other "important" duties at Fema.  What in the hell is more important right now than helping the survivors of Katrina? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stand corrected. He was impeached but not removed from office. My bad!

[monsoon]

I'll probably be banned for expressing this opinion but I'm going to do it anyway... I love the 1st Amendment!

......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First I don't see any reason for you to be banned. You have not broken any rules, not even close. Second, if it were a Democratic President, and a Democratic Congress I would certainly be just as critical if their inaction left people to die on the streets of an American city. To my knowledge, nothing close to this has happened sinc LBJ was in office and national guardsmen shot dead protesters of the Vietnam war at Kent state.

The subject of this thread is about Bush and the Federal government and their failures. A am not debating whether the local government failed to serve the people, I am sure they all had fault in it, but it does not mitigate Bush's failings in the matter. People are dead because he choose to stay on vacation while people were drowning in New Orleans. It took the resources of the Federal government to provide aid on this scale and he should have realized it and been on top of it before the disaster ever happened. If not, why in the hell to we have a new federal bureaucracy called Homeland Security? Why do we have a FEMA director that as been removed from the recovery effort, but gets to keep his job?

Its called cronieism, making money for the elite and not caring enough about the common person to even bother leaving a month long vacation to mobilize aid when it could have save lives. There is no excuse for these failings, and attempts to blame it all on the local government just don't fly. Neither the governer nor the mayor went on vacation when the nation was faced with the prospect of getting hit with a CAT 5 storm. Bush referred to it as a "temporary disruption". Tell that to the families with dead loved ones. Their government has failed them.

If you want to debate whether the local government has failed NO, then start a thread on it. But I think the end result is going to point right back to the man on top, GW Bush. How many more excuses are going to be put forth to point blame somewhere else. True leaders admit when they fudgeed up. We don't have that.

[monsoon]

I stand corrected.  He was impeached but not removed from office.  My bad!   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed. He was not removed from office, because he was found Not Guilty of the charges.

[RiversideGator]

People are dead because he choose to stay on vacation while people were drowning in New Orleans.

What people are dead because of Bush? Can you please tie a single death to Bush's actions or inaction instead of making unsubstantiated accusations.

Indeed. He was not removed from office, because he was found Not Guilty of the charges.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a civil deposition. This is perjury - a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Prior to the deposition, Clinton was sworn in and was under oath when he told a lie about his affair. The civil suit was not filed by the Republicans in Congress, but by Paula Jones, a young woman who Clinton sexually harassed. Impeachment is similar to an indictment in a criminal case in that it just means that there is probable cause against the Defendant, here the President, to merit a trial. The Senate then found that Clinton had not committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is the Constitutional standard for impeachment. Most observers agree that Clinton in fact did commit perjury (he was disbarred for this) but that the Republicans in the Senate decided that it was not politically wise to throw him out of office for this. Hence Clinton survived. I really dont think you want to revive this argument, because it doesnt make Dems look good.

[MrSmith]

Don't feel too bad...I voted for Bush the first time too. I am soooo sorry I did. I belived him and thought he did a great job on 9/11 but since them, I see nothing but mis-steps etc. I feel so stupid for believing him about WMD's, about the fact that Iraq oil would pay for the war, that we would be out of there in no time etc. etc. Add to that, that the deficit and the size of government is actually growing under his administration while the lives of the poor and uninsured just keeps getting worse (my health insurance rose 24% last year alone!). It seems to me we've spent a lot of money and given a lot of tax breaks, but have not fixed any problems. He has literally squandered our future and good name and we have absolutely nothing to show for it.

[monsoon]

What people are dead because of Bush?  Can you please tie a single death to Bush's actions or inaction instead of making unsubstantiated accusations.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a civil deposition.  This is perjury - a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.  Prior to the deposition, Clinton was sworn in and was under oath when he told a lie about his affair.  The civil suit was not filed by the Republicans in Congress, but by Paula Jones, a young woman who Clinton sexually harassed.  Impeachment is similar to an indictment in a criminal case in that it just means that there is probable cause against the Defendant, here the President, to merit a trial.  The Senate then found that Clinton had not committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is the Constitutional standard for impeachment.  Most observers agree that Clinton in fact did commit perjury (he was disbarred for this) but that the Republicans in the Senate decided that it was not politically wise to throw him out of office for this.  Hence Clinton survived.  I really dont think you want to revive this argument, because it doesnt make Dems look good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clinton was found Not Guilty. Case Closed. The episode is a bad one for Republicans because they wasted the nation's time on this nonsense and example of how far they will take political mud slinging to keep themselves in power. The hypocrisy of those who say they support Republicans is because Republicans represent smaller less intrusive government. yet witch hunts such as this, where they wasted $90 million in the prosecution, is somehow forgiven.

Everyone that has died in New Orleans because the federal government did not provide water, food, transportation and protection from the local terrorists are certainly the fault of Bush's slow actions. Bush says we are fighting a war on terror. And snipers shooting people in an urban setting, firing at military helicopters no less, are terrorists. However I note that he doesn't use this word when it isnt politically convenient.

He has already removed his chosen head from Fema who just couldn't get the job done, which is an admission of failure. Yet he continues to let this incompetant person collect his government salary, benefits and hold his title. A person that has lied on his resume. A person whose biggest job was arranging horse shows.

[RiversideGator]

monsoon: First, Clinton was disbarred by the Arkansas Bar for his actions in the Paula Jones case. This doesnt happen to people who have done nothing wrong. Second, the Senate did not say Clinton was innocent. They found that the allegations did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". I think someone who clearly lied under oath is not fit to be President personally, but the Senate found otherwise. Please dont confuse this with an exoneration of Clinton.

As for New Orleans, it turns out the federal response wasnt so slow after all:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm

According to this piece, the federal response to the Katrina aftermath was actually faster than in previous similar storms, like Hugo and Andrew. Of particular interest in this column are the following:

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."

And, this:

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.

So, I am basically rejecting the premise that there was some kind of intentional or negligent delayed reaction to the storm. Could things theoretically have been done faster by the feds or better by the locals? Yes. But, were they as good as could be expected under the circumstances? Yes again.

[RiversideGator]

And, the death toll is especially light in New Orleans (lower so far than in Mississippi) given the rhetoric heard from Democrats and on this board.

See: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050912/D8CIM1K80.html

- Army Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honore, commander of active duty troops engaged in hurricane relief, reiterated Sunday the number of dead would be "a heck of a lot lower" than initial projections of 10,000 or more.

Could it be that even death toll estimates were exaggerated for political effect? I suspect also, when all is said and done, that most people who died in New Orleans were homebound disabled and elderly people who the local authorities left behind (instead of using their buses) or were locals killed by local thugs in the aftermath of the flooding when the NO police gave the streets over to criminals. These people, by the way, are not terrorists because they have no stated political or religious aims. They are simply criminals.

I know I said I wouldnt post on this thread anymore because of the possibility that I would be banned or suspended again, but I just have to get the facts out there.

[Ruso]

Same thing happened on, ironically, 9/11 (nevermind, it's now 9/12.)

Reports of as many as 30,000+ were tossed around until a final of 1/10 of that estimate became reality.

Media feeds on shock like that just like they are feeding on this whole shock about Bush.

It's exaggerated, stretched for drama and ratings.

Even though I support Bush in this, I admit, the media went way overboard with Clintons scandal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know I said I would not post anymore on this thread, but I had to answer to this. Why cannot everybody do the same thing? What is so hard about trying to look for objectivity, regardless of you political ideology?

Viper, I do not agree with you in many things, but I do salute you for trying to be reasonable. That has been, and is, very rare.

[monsoon]

Brown has fallen on his sword, not un-expected, by resigning from FEMA. He should have been fired. I wonder if he will get a job at Haliburton?

[monsoon]

And, the death toll is especially light in New Orleans (lower so far than in Mississippi) given the rhetoric heard from Democrats and on this board.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BTW, you got a 24 hour suspension for calling people senseless names. This isn't the first time it happened. You can debate all you want as long as you follow the rules.

Well I ask this again since the question has been ignored? Is 10 dead acceptable, 100 dead, 500? You tell me since statements such as this would seem to indicate that if the number is less than thousands, then somehow Bush is exonerated of all charges that he did not act fast enough? I feel that 1 unnecessary death is too much. But I do understand why Bush supporters would make an argument such as this. Blame it on the media to distract from the real issue.

Just today they found a hospital in New Orleans where 40 elderly people died while waiting to be rescued. They waited for promised help that never came, and died from dehydration when temperatures inside the hospital reached 106 degrees. The military could have been in there in just hours with relief had they been given the order. Outside of Iraq, Bush is spending $400B/year on the military and they certainly have the resources to bring some water to these patients if they had just been ordered to do so. Is this low number of dead acceptable? It's not to me. Bush has failed the people by staying on vacation while people were were in the most deadly of positions. Remember he said it was just a temporary disruption.

[sleepy]

I think one thing that people forget when assessing--or not assessing--blame for the reaction to this disaster is the fact that the President of the United States is not only the head of government, he's head of state.

And in my opinion, Bush did not function like a head of state.

A head of state, a symbol of leadership, gets in there quickly and decisively, and assures the nation.

All that may just be symbolism, but in times of emergency I think symbolism is important.

Now, in 1965 at night, Hurricane Betsy flooded New Orleans. Lyndon Johnson was at a shelter without electricity the next morning, shining a flashlight in his face and proclaiming:

"This is the president of the United States and I'm here to help you!"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287435/

(No, monsoon, I don't think quotes from a president are copyrighted.)

Where was Bush the morning after the hurricane?

The article's a good read.

I have no doubt that Gov. Blanco bears some blame as well. Nagin, less so. But both those folks were told during every emergency management exercise that if they could hold out for 48-60 hours after a storm, FEMA would be on the scene in force. That didn't happen.

[monsoon]

Very well stated Sleepy. The facts of what happened are damning and I have not seen anyone here put for a good answer as to why Bush remained on his important vacation after the storm had destroyed the area, after the flooding had begun. He made another tiresome speech on Iraq.