Obama's gone and done it

Scott Seidman wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in
news
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.

On Nov 23, 10:31*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
[snip]
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.

People had been predicting a disastrous hurricane for NO for a long
time.

But since it was Bush, it was the worst failure in history. *And Only
because it was Bush.

That is probably correct: no other administration since the time of
Harding would have fouled up the gov't's response so badly.

On Nov 24, 11:31*am, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in
news

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

riverman wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:31 am, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in
news 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.)

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

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.)

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

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.

On Nov 24, 2:42*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
Prove he lied. *So far nobody can do that.

This is likely to be my one and only post for you, so I'll type
slowly. I am of the expectation that the President of the United
States, if he is even moderately competent, has access to and takes
seriously *all* of the available intelligence on any given topic of
global importance. That is to say, if he makes the statement that the
"intelligence indicates" something, that implies to me that he has
seen all of the relevant intelligence or at least a comprehensive
summary thereof, and he is willing to stake his veracity on the next
words that come out of his mouth. Based on that perspective, I offer
the following:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX
nerve agent." - State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents." - State of the
Union Address, 1/28/2003

"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing
fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to
disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." - State
of the Union Address, 1/28/2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids
and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." - State of
the Union Address, 1/28/2003

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to
purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons
production." - State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at
[past nuclear] sites." - Bush speech to the nation, 10/7/2002

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - State of the
Union Address, 1/28/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in." - Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003


Now, in some cases above, one might weasel that Bush merely asserted
what he believed the intelligence said; but we now know that Bush knew
that there was substantial intelligence counter to his military
aspirations; but he ignored, obfuscated, or outright lied about what
the "intelligence indicated".

A great deal of Bush's lies follow a similar scenario; it's not so
much what he said as what he intended for us to believe. He lied.

On Nov 24, 11:26*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:


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


Fair enough. According to cnn.com (http://tinyurl.com/5pd8rd) and
factcheck.org (http://tinyurl.com/6peqf5) it was on Aug 27, two days
before Katrina hit.

My questions to you:
1) When was the White House and FEMA notified that a hurricane of this
intensity could cause this level of destruction? (and as a
supplement, what did FEMA do about it in advance to prepare the city
for a hurricane of this intensity?)
2) When did FEMA learn of the people stranded in the Convention
Center?
3) When did FEMA learn that the levees had been breached?
4) When did FEMA actually send assistance in?

--riverman
(Who wishes he could be generous enough to claim your posts are merely
partisan.)