Obama's gone and done it

Scott Seidman wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote in news:jahVk.6049
:

What American city? I just looked at a map and it looks like they're
all still there. Which one is lost?


Tell me you're going to defend the Bushies for the Katrina response, so I
can plonk you, as you have squat that's realistic to say.



Tell me that Bush was responsible for Katrina.

History seems to indicate that there was a real clustering operation
between New Orleans and Baton Rouge that contributed mightily to that
response problem. Wasn't all Bush's fault. Plenty of blame to go
around on THAT one. If you can't see that, then you are far to partisan
to look at problems objectively.

Peaceful Bill wrote in news:EUhVk.8080
:

Tell me that Bush was responsible for Katrina.


Bush was responsible for the botched national response to Katrina, because
of his cronyistic FEMA appointment.

If he didn't hire an incompetant into the role, we wouldn't have to sit
here wondering if the cluster**** was because he hired an incompetent into
the role.

FWIW, it was Homeland Security's mandate to make sure that the proper
emergency responses were in place. http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote in news:EUhVk.8080
:

Tell me that Bush was responsible for Katrina.


Bush was responsible for the botched national response to Katrina, because
of his cronyistic FEMA appointment.

Nah, certainly not completely to balme. At least half or more of the
response problem was attributed to the ****ing contest between the La.
gov and Nagin. Plenty of blame to go on them.


If he didn't hire an incompetant into the role, we wouldn't have to sit
here wondering if the cluster**** was because he hired an incompetent into
the role.

You're the one who brought it up. I don't wonder at all. When did the
La. Gov call FEMA? When did Nagin call FEMA? That's the issue.

Do you think there's anything that could have been done to stop all the
flooding once the levees broke?


FWIW, it was Homeland Security's mandate to make sure that the proper
emergency responses were in place. http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/


New Orleans was wrecked before any response would have been possible.
Once the levees gave way, N.O. and in particular St. Bernard (pronounced
sane buhnahd for those who haven't spent real time there) Parish was a
goner.

On Nov 20, 11:19*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

We can only hope that Obama doesn't screw up too badly.- Hide quoted text -


Great attitude.

This is getting too nit-picky to be even worth discussing, but I
somehow wonder if you and I have lived through the same past 8 years.
Bush wasn't primarily accountable for the Katrina debacle? The
economy? The gross restructuring of presidential powers? The 'liberals
are unamerican' attitude in Washington? The NeoCon power grab? The
'insider trading' of the Energy and Fiscal policies? The most recent
rise of Islamist Anti-american sentiment? The decay of US esteem
internationally (or even worse, the apathy about it in the US)? The
two-faced nature of Guantanamo Bay? The US adoption of extra-judicial
killings (also known as 'the Bush Doctrine'). We sure have come a long
long way from 'the Buck Stops Here'....now you're trying to make him
the Teflon Kid.

The But I'll happily start with one point.

You challenged me to 'prove Bush lied'....of course if I could do
that, he'd be impeached in a heartbeat. But in the face of his botched
intelligence (and I mean that in more ways than one...), his rash
decision-making in the face of it, his marginalizing the UN and
pushing his pro-war agenda through congress, his allegiance to the
NeoCon plan to destablize the middle east, his 'politics before
policy' attitude, and his well-documented desire to be a War Time
President, the motive and opportunity are well-established. Prove he
DIDN'T lie.

Any efforts to deny that he 'lied' are going to get very very close to
trying to say "what is the meaning of 'is'".

Squirm away.

--riverman

riverman wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:19 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

We can only hope that Obama doesn't screw up too badly.- Hide quoted text -


Great attitude.



Just being realistic. He comes in with no resume. That itself doesn't
inspire much confidence. Market doesn't seem to think he can do much.


The But I'll happily start with one point.

You challenged me to 'prove Bush lied'....of course if I could do
that, he'd be impeached in a heartbeat. But in the face of his botched
intelligence (and I mean that in more ways than one...), his rash
decision-making in the face of it, his marginalizing the UN and
pushing his pro-war agenda through congress, his allegiance to the
NeoCon plan to destablize the middle east, his 'politics before
policy' attitude, and his well-documented desire to be a War Time
President, the motive and opportunity are well-established. Prove he
DIDN'T lie.

So let me understand where you're coming from. Because its Bush, he's
guilty until proven innocent?

Because you didn't care for the way he ran his administration, he's a
liar?

Because he didn't align his administration with your point-of-view, he lied?

So where did he lie in all of this. Nothing you said indicates that he
lied. Sounds more like partisan differences than an objective analysis
of whether he lied.


Any efforts to deny that he 'lied' are going to get very very close to
trying to say "what is the meaning of 'is'".

Not at all. Clinton lied to a Grand Jury. Its not that he might have
lied or that what he said might have more than one meaning. He lied.
Period.

I'm not saying Bush lied or not. I'm challenging you to prove that he
did. You admit you can't.



Squirm away.

I can see that's what you had to do. But still you failed to prove your
accusation.


--riverman

Did I read in HK? Haven't been there since I retired. But have almost
always enjoyed my visits.

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Peaceful Bill wrote in news:jahVk.6049
:

What American city? I just looked at a map and it looks like they're
all still there. Which one is lost?


Tell me you're going to defend the Bushies for the Katrina response, so I
can plonk you, as you have squat that's realistic to say.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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 followed. There was more devastion in
Mississippi and they did not have the problems. Bush has sucked as a POTUS,
but so did Clinton. And 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, but was setup under
Clinton's watch. In fact the attack under Clinton's watch reduced the death
count on 9/11 as the people were smart enough to exit the building if they
could. Clinton and Greenspan (Worse Fed Chair ever) and Sec Treas. Rubin
are the main cause of the present economic morass. Rublin left to head
Citigroup and helped lobby to remove Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that
prevented the cross ownship of insurance, bank and brokerages. This
happened under Clinton's watch. As well as the dot.bomb happened under
Clinton. Brought a lot of money into the treasury, but was a bubble just
like the real-estate boom of the last few years. Neither Clinton who
started it and Bush who went along with it are worth a crap.

"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]

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.

The only ambiguity is whether Bush's legacy will be watching a city
drown, starting a war of aggression, or presiding over a huge economic
meltdown.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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