Obama's gone and done it
 

Peaceful Bill wrote in news:wepWk.12247
:

What's the date on that letter from the gov?

Bush declared a state of emerggency on 27 Aug. Hurricane didn't hit
N.O. until 29 Aug. So how could Bush or anyone else know the extent of
the devastation along the coast?

You're getting a bit circular. There was a claim that the local folks
didn't authorize a federal role. The State of Emergency was declared in
reponse to the letter I cited above, and was sufficient to allow the feds
to take whatever actions they wanted in response to the emergency.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Obama's gone and done it
 

riverman wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:31 am, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:
When did the Governor and Nagin the incompetant mayor ask for Federal
help? The Fed's could not go in without an invitation. Seems as if
part of the Constitution and laws were followedInvestigation of State
of Emergency declaration
WIKPEDIA
In a September 26, 2005 hearing, former FEMA chief Michael Brown
testified before a U.S. House subcommittee about FEMA's response. During
that hearing, Representative Stephen Buyer (R-IN) inquired as to why
president Bush's declaration of state of emergency of August 27 had not
included the coastal parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines.[16]
(In fact, the declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal
parishes, whereas the coastal counties were included in the declarations
for Mississippi[17] and Alabama.[18]) Brown testified that this was
because Louisiana Governor Blanco had not included those parishes in her
initial request for aid, a decision that he found "shocking." After the
hearing, though, Blanco released a copy of her letter, which requested
assistance for "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 [evacuated
citizens]."[19]
What's the date on that letter from the gov?

Bush declared a state of emerggency on 27 Aug. Hurricane didn't hit
N.O. until 29 Aug. So how could Bush or anyone else know the extent of
the devastation along the coast?

So, with the possible exception of a few southern parishes (though that's
up in the air), the Feds were CLEARLY allowed to move in after Aug 27.
Nothing ambiguous about that.
Move in for what? Why move in when you're gonna get pounded and flooded
with the likely loss of whatever aid was brought in?

You're just regurgitating more partisan arguments. There was no way to
anticipate the N.O. disaster much less prepare for it. If it had been a
Democrat pres, it would only classified as a natural disaster of
unpredicted magnitude. One that nobody had foreseen.

But since it was Bush, it was the worst failure in history. And Only
because it was Bush.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You gotta keep your story straight, Bill. First you insist that Bush
was not asked to go in on time, so the fault lie with Nagin, et al,
for delaying their request for help:

Now you change your story and say there's no way he could have known
the extent of the damage because the request came too early.

Face it: Bush not only mismanaged a whole lot of things during his
tenure, the people he hired (and as a result, he was indirectly
responsible for their actions) also mismanaged a whole lot of things.
And now, to compound things, you are taking on his mantle of crying
"its not my fault!!" Last I saw, he even commissioned a full-length TV
movie to show how the mismanagment of bad Intel was 'not his fault'.

Well guess what; it WAS his fault. The response to Katrina happened
under his watch. The misguided invasion was under his watch. The
economic collapse was under his watch. The largest federal deficit in
the history of mankind was under his watch. And that's just the tip of
the iceberg.

And its not a matter of being 'partisan'....incompetence is not the
same as partisan politics. But of course, Bush (and Rove) were good at
covering their mismanagements up by claiming that opposition folks
were just being 'partisan'. Or "Liberals". Well guess what: try to
write revisionist history all you want...Bush's legacy is written
already.

--riverman

You didn't answer the question. What dat6e did the La. gov ask the Feds
to come in?

(And your posts are extremely partisan.)

Obama's gone and done it
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote in news:wepWk.12247
:

What's the date on that letter from the gov?

Bush declared a state of emerggency on 27 Aug. Hurricane didn't hit
N.O. until 29 Aug. So how could Bush or anyone else know the extent of
the devastation along the coast?

You're getting a bit circular. There was a claim that the local folks
didn't authorize a federal role. The State of Emergency was declared in
reponse to the letter I cited above, and was sufficient to allow the feds
to take whatever actions they wanted in response to the emergency.


Not circular at all. What date was the letter?

If before the hurricane, how could the governor assess the magnitude of
the disaster before it hit? How could she have pinpointed the parishes
that were hardest hit?

Obama's gone and done it
 

Peaceful Bill wrote:
snip
(And your posts are extremely partisan.)

And so it starts. The right-wing nitwits launch their ridiculous
brand of revisionism as a pre-emptive strike against historic
ridicule. Shrub lied us into a disastrous war, tarnished American
prestige with torture, sat idly by as New Orleans drowned, screwed
the Justice Department with political shenanigans, censored science
and let the financial market spiral so far out of control we have
a worldwide crisis of unprecedented proportion. But other than that
he was a pretty good president. LOL !!

Mr. Jelly, you are one stupid moron, a laughably ignorant, hard core
partisan from the far right wing. Enjoy your stay in the political
wilderness, dumbass idiots like you are history.

Buh bye.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Obama's gone and done it
 

Don Quixote, waving his sword at windmills and ****ting through his
fingers wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote:
snip
(And your posts are extremely partisan.)

And so it starts. The right-wing nitwits launch their ridiculous
brand of revisionism as a pre-emptive strike against historic
ridicule. Shrub lied us into a disastrous war,

Prove he lied. So far nobody can do that.

tarnished American
prestige with torture,

In your opinion and the opinion of his opponents. But not in the
opinion of all the courts.

BTW, I don't agree that those prisoners should have been kept jailed.
They should have been deported to Israel or Turkey.


sat idly by as New Orleans drowned,

Yeah, he seeded the clouds and personally blew up the levees. Used
Chaney's black helicopters to aim the storm right at N.O.

You're a complete imbecile.

screwed
the Justice Department with political shenanigans,

But that kind of action was OK under the previous administrations of
Clinton, Bush 1, and esapecially Carter who cleaned out the FBI every
time any of their investigations started to implicate him or his family.

censored science

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

and let the financial market spiral so far out of control we have
a worldwide crisis of unprecedented proportion.

He certainly inherited a mortgage crisis in its infancy and didn't do
anything about it. But the economic problems were already in place 10
months BEFORE he was sworn in. He just didn't do much about them.


But other than that
he was a pretty good president. LOL !!


No, I didn't say that. As usual, you're putting your own descriptions
in and attributing them to someone else.



Mr. Jelly, you are one stupid moron, a laughably ignorant, hard core
partisan from the far right wing. Enjoy your stay in the political
wilderness, dumbass idiots like you are history.

Buh bye.


Clearly not as partisan as you (who can't make a truly objective
assessment.)

Obama's gone and done it
 

Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
And so it starts. The right-wing nitwits launch their ridiculous
brand of revisionism as a pre-emptive strike against historic
ridicule. Shrub lied us into a disastrous war,

Prove he lied. So far nobody can do that.

Did Saddam Hussein have anything to with 9-11 ? No. Was
Saddam Hussein's government conspiring with Al Qaeda ? No.
Did Saddam Hussein posses WMD's which could be a threat to
the US ? No. Did Saddam Hussein pose any threat at all to
the US ? No. Bush lied and only a partisan nitwit could
claim otherwise.

tarnished American
prestige with torture,

In your opinion and the opinion of his opponents. But not in the
opinion of all the courts.

Gawd, you're an idiot. Courts don't issue opinions on American
prestige, you ****ing moron.

sat idly by as New Orleans drowned,

Yeah, he seeded the clouds ...

No nitwit, he sat idly by after the storm when his government
should have been there to help.

screwed
the Justice Department with political shenanigans,

But that kind of action was OK under the previous administrations of
Clinton, ...

BWAHAHAHAHA !! You right-wing nitwit dimbulbs are so predictable
it's hilarious.

censored science

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

You think that's *funny* ? Man, you're dumber than you look and
I wouldn't have thought that possible.

and let the financial market spiral so far out of control we have
a worldwide crisis of unprecedented proportion.

He certainly inherited a mortgage crisis in its infancy and didn't do
anything about it. But the economic problems were already in place 10
months BEFORE he was sworn in. He just didn't do much about them.

There you go again, it's all Clinton's fault. Hilarious, well
mostly it's pathetic but there's no sense looking backwards so
let's just go with hilarious.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Obama's gone and done it
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
And so it starts. The right-wing nitwits launch their ridiculous
brand of revisionism as a pre-emptive strike against historic
ridicule. Shrub lied us into a disastrous war,

Prove he lied. So far nobody can do that.

Did Saddam Hussein have anything to with 9-11 ? No. Was
Saddam Hussein's government conspiring with Al Qaeda ? No.
Did Saddam Hussein posses WMD's which could be a threat to
the US ? No. Did Saddam Hussein pose any threat at all to
the US ? No. Bush lied and only a partisan nitwit could
claim otherwise.

But you supply no proof of ANY of your statements. How do you know
Hussein was not part of any of that?



tarnished American
prestige with torture,

In your opinion and the opinion of his opponents. But not in the
opinion of all the courts.

Gawd, you're an idiot. Courts don't issue opinions on American
prestige, you ****ing moron.

Gawd, you're an idiot. Courts do issue opinions on whether treatment of
prisoners or interrogation techniques are torture.

You're a ****ing moromn.


sat idly by as New Orleans drowned,

Yeah, he seeded the clouds ...

No nitwit, he sat idly by after the storm when his government
should have been there to help.


What date did the governor of La. send the letter requesting aid?


screwed
the Justice Department with political shenanigans,

But that kind of action was OK under the previous administrations of
Clinton, ...

BWAHAHAHAHA !! You right-wing nitwit dimbulbs are so predictable
it's hilarious.


You left-wingnuts are all alike. Just spin history whatever way you want.


censored science

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

You think that's *funny* ? Man, you're dumber than you look and
I wouldn't have thought that possible.

and let the financial market spiral so far out of control we have
a worldwide crisis of unprecedented proportion.

He certainly inherited a mortgage crisis in its infancy and didn't do
anything about it. But the economic problems were already in place 10
months BEFORE he was sworn in. He just didn't do much about them.

There you go again, it's all Clinton's fault. Hilarious, well
mostly it's pathetic but there's no sense looking backwards so
let's just go with hilarious.


Did I say its all Clinton's fault or is that you having problems with
comprehension again. But don't look backwards more than 8 years. That
way you can deny that there were ANY problems under Clinton's watch.

Obama's gone and done it
 

Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
And so it starts. The right-wing nitwits launch their ridiculous
brand of revisionism as a pre-emptive strike against historic
ridicule. Shrub lied us into a disastrous war,

Prove he lied. So far nobody can do that.

Did Saddam Hussein have anything to with 9-11 ? No. Was
Saddam Hussein's government conspiring with Al Qaeda ? No.
Did Saddam Hussein posses WMD's which could be a threat to
the US ? No. Did Saddam Hussein pose any threat at all to
the US ? No. Bush lied and only a partisan nitwit could
claim otherwise.

But you supply no proof of ANY of your statements. How do you know
Hussein was not part of any of that? ...

You're just too, too stupid. Like most right-wing nitwits
you're an uneducated, incurious, ill-informed dupe who will
swallow whatever lies and nonsense you're spoon fed by the
Roves and Limbaughs of the GOP.

It is fortunate for our country that more of our citizens are
getting liberal arts educations and learning critical thinking
skills than ever before. The days of the uneducated, old, white
blue collar, grade school grad having great influence in our
politics are thankfully coming to a close. It's a new day
dumbass, change is coming and you aren't a part of it.

Toodle-oo.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Obama's gone and done it
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
And so it starts. The right-wing nitwits launch their ridiculous
brand of revisionism as a pre-emptive strike against historic
ridicule. Shrub lied us into a disastrous war,

Prove he lied. So far nobody can do that.

Did Saddam Hussein have anything to with 9-11 ? No. Was
Saddam Hussein's government conspiring with Al Qaeda ? No.
Did Saddam Hussein posses WMD's which could be a threat to
the US ? No. Did Saddam Hussein pose any threat at all to
the US ? No. Bush lied and only a partisan nitwit could
claim otherwise.

But you supply no proof of ANY of your statements. How do you know
Hussein was not part of any of that? ...

You're just too, too stupid. Like most right-wing nitwits
you're an uneducated, incurious, ill-informed dupe who will
swallow whatever lies and nonsense you're spoon fed by the
Roves and Limbaughs of the GOP.

It is fortunate for our country that more of our citizens are
getting liberal arts educations and learning critical thinking
skills than ever before. The days of the uneducated, old, white
blue collar, grade school grad having great influence in our
politics are thankfully coming to a close. It's a new day
dumbass, change is coming and you aren't a part of it.

Toodle-oo.

You can't hope to intelligently answer the questions.

You're a ****ing liar and a dimwit that defends his actions not by logic
but by personal attacks. You're the worst thing about liberals. You
make mainstream America hate the left. Your way or the highway.

Imbecile.

You poor self-absorbed, misguided wretch. In all seriousness, get some
health to overcome those numerous mental problems that are obviously too
deep and complex for normal treatment.

Obama's gone and done it
 

Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
And so it starts. The right-wing nitwits launch their ridiculous
brand of revisionism as a pre-emptive strike against historic
ridicule. Shrub lied us into a disastrous war,

Prove he lied. So far nobody can do that.

Did Saddam Hussein have anything to with 9-11 ? No. Was
Saddam Hussein's government conspiring with Al Qaeda ? No.
Did Saddam Hussein posses WMD's which could be a threat to
the US ? No. Did Saddam Hussein pose any threat at all to
the US ? No. Bush lied and only a partisan nitwit could
claim otherwise.

But you supply no proof of ANY of your statements. How do you know
Hussein was not part of any of that? ...

You're just too, too stupid. Like most right-wing nitwits
you're an uneducated, incurious, ill-informed dupe who will
swallow whatever lies and nonsense you're spoon fed by the
Roves and Limbaughs of the GOP.

It is fortunate for our country that more of our citizens are
getting liberal arts educations and learning critical thinking
skills than ever before. The days of the uneducated, old, white
blue collar, grade school grad having great influence in our
politics are thankfully coming to a close. It's a new day
dumbass, change is coming and you aren't a part of it.

Toodle-oo.

You can't hope to intelligently answer the questions.

The questions you pose have been answered definitively and
intelligently. The fact that you still question those answers
in the face of overwhelming evidence indicates a profound
lack of intellect. In other words, you're stupid. There is
really no way to sugarcoat it.

You are obviously a person of limited education which would
explain your ignorance but ignorance can be cured. Unfortunately
you are also and just as obviously stupid and I'm afraid stupid
is terminal. Too bad for you, but I hope you enjoy your daily
dose of Limbaugh, I'm sure it makes you all warm and fuzzy. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry