How the Republicans washed out under Katrina

[Ivan Seeking]

Considering that the response to terrorist attacks has been the focus and responsibility of the Republicans and this administration, Katrina shows how miserably a Republican run government has failed to protect the interests of the people of the United States. They have had four years and more money than at any time in history to ensure that any large scale emergency response here in the US is well coordinated and effective. Instead we find the coffee boy - a good buddy of Bush's - and his buddies running FEMA, and only half of the National Guard equipment, and 2/3 of the personnel, available in the critical states; which certainly cost American lives.

Above all, any emergency worker will tell you that in an emergency, time is the most important factor in determining who lives and who dies. Time is what the 40 critical patients who drowned in their hospital beds didn't have. And they have the republicans and the Bush administration to thank for it.

This - large scale disasters - was not just a priority, it was the priority for Bush, and this is the Bush legacy - the bodies floating in the streets of New Orleans.

[SOS2008]

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

Photographers rarely are allowed into the forward cabin of Air Force One, but consigliere Karl Rove and other aides summoned them so they could snap pictures of the Boss gazing out the window as the plane flew over the devastation. Republican strategists privately call the resulting image—Bush as tourist, seemingly powerless as he peered down at the chaos—perhaps among the most damaging of his presidency.Uh-oh, could Rove find himself out of favor?
"I'm unsatisfied with where we are right now," Republican Senate Leader Bill Frist told NEWSWEEK, "because I cannot be assured now that if a similar event were to happen today, that anything would be different."The man has left the Bushies and is heading for 2008!

Katrina seems likely to blow away much of Bush's agenda, already burdened by an expensive and increasingly unpopular construction project in Iraq. Congress already has shoveled out $62 billion in relief money alone, with several times that likely to be spent on rebuilding the Gulf Coast. Democrats declared Bush's costly Social Security-reform plan dead (again), as well as his plan to repeal the estate tax. Few Republicans disagreed. Frist didn't shut the door on a tax increase, saying, "I'm not going to rule it out nor am I going to endorse it." But he noted that Congress faces "the most expensive redevelopment project the country has ever seen. I would think, and predict, that it is going to cost money."What? You think?

"Voters see not just a failure of execution, but of the Bush brand of conservatism," he said. The alternative? Senator Clinton offered one, informally launching her 2008 run by touting the last president's record on disaster relief. She wasn't proposing another Johnsonian Great Society, but, at least for Democrats, she was offering a flashlight in the dark.Now that really hurts.

[LURCH]

A friend of mine runs a conservative Blog. He has heard all the partisan finger-pointing that has been going on since about the time the levy first started to crack, and still is the liberal's main contribution to the relief effort. There's plenty of blame to go 'round, but he has no time to sling mud right now, 'cause he's at the Astrodome actually doing something to help. I am signed up and waiting my turn to go to the "Big Easy", and work very hard. This is the most I've ever said on the subject, because I think it's kind of ghoulish to take advantage of these tragic deaths to argue a personal point of politics or say "I told ya so".

Besides, I need all my fingers to help sort through and package up all the donated clothing my town's local churches are preparing for shipment to TX and LA.

[TRCSF]

A friend of mine runs a conservative Blog. He has heard all the partisan finger-pointing that has been going on since about the time the levy first started to crack, and still is the liberal's main contribution to the relief effort. There's plenty of blame to go 'round, but he has no time to sling mud right now, 'cause he's at the Astrodome actually doing something to help. I am signed up and waiting my turn to go to the "Big Easy", and work very hard. This is the most I've ever said on the subject, because I think it's kind of ghoulish to take advantage of these tragic deaths to argue a personal point of politics or say "I told ya so".

Besides, I need all my fingers to help sort through and package up all the donated clothing my town's local churches are preparing for shipment to TX and LA.

Is that so? Because I see liberals placing blame where blame is due, and helping people out. While I see conservatives whining about the blame game while pointing the finger at everybody but Bush, and saying how they shouldn't help the Katrina victims anyway because they're poor and black and got what they had coming.

[kyleb]

I have seen plenty of uncalled-for stuff from both sides, but I have to ask Lurch; wouldn't the you consider the "liberal's" contribution to the relief effort include to the replacement of Mike Brown, and can you at least have respect for the "finger-pointing" that prompted that change?

[russ_watters]

Precisely how many deaths did Bush cause here? Anyone care to place an actual number on it? So far, I see 40. Does anyone want to go for 50?

edit: I missed the sarcasm in the last sarcastic thread, so I'm not sure if this thread was meant to be sarcastic or not. But I guess I'm going to have to assume it's sarcastic because what I'm seeing here is beyond irrational. Its beyond delusional. A hurricane hits and breaks levees that take decades to build, flooding a below-sea-level city in the worst national disaster in the history of the US, and the resulting deaths are somehow politically aligned? I suppose you guys blame Clinton for the Northridge Earthquake, right? :uhh:

[russ_watters]

They have had four years and more money than at any time in history to ensure that any large scale emergency response here in the US is well coordinated and effective. And by the same logic, Clinton had nearly 8 years to secure the WTC after its first Al Qaeda attack and fix our intelligence services to detect and prevent the second attack, making the second attack his fault and putting the 3,000 deaths in his stats column, right? :uhh:

[russ_watters]

I have seen plenty of uncalled-for stuff from both sides, but I have to ask Lurch; wouldn't the you consider the "liberal's" contribution to the relief effort include to the replacement of Mike Brown, and can you at least have respect for the "finger-pointing" that prompted that change? If Brown were the real target, maybe they could get credit for that - but everyone here knows that Brown was only being used as ammo for the sake of attacking Bush.

[Skyhunter]

A friend of mine runs a conservative Blog. He has heard all the partisan finger-pointing that has been going on since about the time the levy first started to crack, and still is the liberal's main contribution to the relief effort. There's plenty of blame to go 'round, but he has no time to sling mud right now, 'cause he's at the Astrodome actually doing something to help. I am signed up and waiting my turn to go to the "Big Easy", and work very hard. This is the most I've ever said on the subject, because I think it's kind of ghoulish to take advantage of these tragic deaths to argue a personal point of politics or say "I told ya so".

Besides, I need all my fingers to help sort through and package up all the donated clothing my town's local churches are preparing for shipment to TX and LA.
Since he is not one to toot his own horn I guess you missed this "Liberal" and his efforts.

Al Gore blasts Bush; personally airlifted Katrina victims

TERENCE CHEA

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - Former Vice President Al Gore urged Americans on Friday to hold the Bush administration accountable for failing to adequately prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina.

"When the corpses of American citizens are floating in toxic flood waters five days after a hurricane struck, it is time not only to respond directly to the victims of the catastrophe, but to hold ... the leaders of our nation accountable," Gore told environmentalists at the Sierra Club's national convention.

Gore had been scheduled to give a speech to state insurance commissioners in New Orleans this weekend about the likelihood that global warming will spawn increasingly deadly hurricanes. He decided to take his speech to San Francisco after that conference was canceled.

"The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis, it is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences," Gore said.

Bush administration officials have said Katrina's damage could not have been anticipated, but Gore rejected that.

"What happened was not only knowable, it was known in advance, in great and painstaking detail. They did tabletop planning exercises. They identified exactly what the scientific evidence showed would take place," Gore said.

In his Sierra Club speech, the former senator from Tennessee didn't mention an act of mercy that he was personally involved in - his help airlifting some 270 Katrina evacuees on two private charters from New Orleans to Tennessee on Sept. 3 and 4. He did that at the urging of a doctor who saved the life of his son years earlier.

Dr. Anderson Spickard, who is Gore's personal physician and accompanied him on the flights, told The Associated Press that "Gore told me he wanted to do this because like all of us he wanted to seize the opportunity to do what one guy can do, given the assets that he has."

An account of the flights was posted this week on a Democratic Party Web page. It was written by Greg Simon, president of the Washington-based activist group FasterCures. Simon, who helped put together the mission, also declined an interview.

On Sept. 1, three days after Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, Simon learned that Dr. David Kline, a neurosurgeon who operated on Gore's son, Albert, after a life-threatening auto accident in 1989, was trying to get in touch with Gore. Kline was stranded with patients at Charity Hospital in New Orleans.

"The situation was dire and becoming worse by the minute - food and water running out, no power, 4 feet of water surrounding the hospital and ... corpses outside," Simon wrote.

Gore responded immediately, telephoning Kline and agreeing to underwrite the $50,000 each for the two flights, although Larry Flax, founder of California Pizza Kitchens, later pledged to pay for one of them.

"None of the airlines involved required a contract or any written guarantee of payment before sending their planes and volunteer crews," Simon wrote of the American Airlines flights. "One official said if Gore promised to pay, that was good enough for them."

He also recruited two doctors, Spickard and Gore's cousin, retired Col. Dar LaFon, a specialist in internal medicine who once ran the military hospital in Baghdad.

Most critically, Gore worked to cut through government red tape, personally calling Gov. Phil Bredesen to get Tennessee's support and U.S. Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta to secure landing rights in New Orleans.

About 140 people, many of them sick, landed in Knoxville on Sept. 3. The second flight, with 130 evacuees, landed the next day in Chattanooga.

---

Associated Press Writer Duncan Mansfield in Nashville contributed to this report.

ON THE NET

Simon's account: https://http://www.democrats.org
Thank you Al Gore for so eloquently demonstrating how "Liberals" can criticize and aid in the relief effort.

It makes me sick to think of how much better off we would have been if Rehnquist had not been so partisan and had stuck to his legal philosophy and allowed a proper Florida recount.

Bush flew over New Orleans at tax payer expense and did nothing for days afterward. Al Gore chartered his own plane and airlifts 270 patients.

I find it incomprehensible that anyone can still support George W. Bush.

Here is another example of those heartless liberals slinging mud and not helping out the victims of hurricane Katrina.

Dear MoveOn member,
In the face of the enormous tragedy unfolding in the Southeast, the response from MoveOn members and the general public to our volunteer housing efforts has been amazing and heartwarming. Since last Thursday, offers of over 150,000 beds have been posted at hurricanehousing.org, with over 50,000 of those spots in the Southeast.

The thanks that mean the most, of course, are those of the people who have found a place to stay. Here's what Mary, one of the Katrina survivors, had to say: "I bought a condo in Biloxi just 10 days before Katrina to be closer to family after my husband's death last Jan. No motels were taking reservations so I looked on the web...that is how I came across hurricanehousing.org. What a blessing in this time of need. I'll be staying with wonderful Susan and her cats for one week."

Over 1,500 people like Mary have responded to the postings, seeking housing for 11,000 hurricane victims—even as most relief organizations are still focused primarily on saving everyone they can from the most immediate dangers. With over a million people displaced, as attention shifts to finding medium-term solutions for those crammed into churches and other makeshift shelters, we expect that the housing offered so far will be snapped up.
That's where you can help:

Offer housing: If you can shelter someone in need, even if you're nowhere near New Orleans, you may be able to make a difference for someone who has lost everything. The need is most urgent in the following locations: all of Texas and Louisiana; Washington, DC; Philadelphia; Atlanta; Memphis and Greensboro, North Carolina. But victims are also being moved to cities further afield, including Boston, Chicago, and even St. Paul, Minnesota. Post your offer of a spare room, or a bed, or even a couch here:

http://www.hurricanehousing.org/?id=5959-5601456-5RpJGfP.bSPTsnRs.hA0jQ

Donate: We've also partnered with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). As part of their effort to help victims of Katrina, they're working to match victims to available housing, and providing additional transportation out of New Orleans and emergency supplies to those affected. They're strapped for funds to do this important work, and need our help. You can donate online right now at:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=864&t=4

We're doing everything we can to get these offers into the hands of those in need. We've set up a toll-free hotline so people without internet access can call in and get help finding housing. Celebrities—from Rosie Perez to Moby to Tim Robbins to the Beastie Boys—are helping us publicize the website and hotline through public service announcements and other outreach.

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org Political Action is readying plans to hold the Bush Administration to account for its failures in preventing and then responding to this disaster, and make sure that Congress provides the aid that's needed.

Here are a couple more stories from the victims and their families:

I went out of town for the weekend. When I found out about the hurricane, the airline wouldn't let me return home to get my things or my dog. So I had to sit and watch in horror as the waters came in and see everything from the television. I'm distraught not only because I want my dog, I want to be home, but because I only had three classes left to graduate. [Through your site] I found a place. It was a miracle. The guy renting his apt was moving and I have 30 days to stay here and that gives me time to find a job and more permanent housing. He also hooked me up with a job. I will be attending the University of Houston Monday. I can't tell you how grateful I am to people like him and others who responded and opened their homes to me.–Dara

We moved to New Orleans in 2003 and bought a house which was under 12 feet of water following Hurricane Katrina. We evacuated safely but were at a loss as to where we would go while waiting for the endless water to drain from our city. We applied at hurricanehousing.org and got two responses within 24 hours.–Ann

Today's New York Times also includes a story of a family that was placed through hurricanehousing.org. The Mixons, from a New Orleans suburb, have plenty to worry about with the mortgages on their home and a now uninhabitable rental property adding up and the possibility that their business won't survive. The offer by Shannon O'Leary and Alex McKinney in Cummings, GA, provided not just shelter near family members, but a new friendship for both couples and their 4-year old daughters in a time of trouble.

So Lurch is your post really sincere?

I think it is just an attempt to obfuscate the fact that Bush and his cronies have been exposed for the incompetents they are. So don't try to take the high road now!

Americans are coming to the aid of Americans period!

[SOS2008]

I think it is great that LURCH is volunteering, and I agree that action speaks louder than words. However, per the example email above, I received emails from various liberal sources almost immediately, and quietly, helping to raise funds for the victims, while listening to the BS on the news.
Precisely how many deaths did Bush cause here? Anyone care to place an actual number on it? So far, I see 40. Does anyone want to go for 50?

edit: I missed the sarcasm in the last sarcastic thread, so I'm not sure if this thread was meant to be sarcastic or not. But I guess I'm going to have to assume it's sarcastic because what I'm seeing here is beyond irrational. Its beyond delusional. A hurricane hits and breaks levees that take decades to build, flooding a below-sea-level city in the worst national disaster in the history of the US, and the resulting deaths are somehow politically aligned? I suppose you guys blame Clinton for the Northridge Earthquake, right? :uhh:OMG, it's not the "he is bad but so was he" argument? In any event, I'm not sure what the most recent count is, but it was at 154 on the 10th. I think we should be grateful it isn't as high as originally anticipated, but still sad that people died. In the meantime, I am angry that the money and effort spent on our Homeland Security has resulted in such poor protection of Americans.

[kyleb]

If Brown were the real target, maybe they could get credit for that - but everyone here knows that Brown was only being used as ammo for the sake of attacking Bush.
Wow, I was just looking for a response from Lurch; never in my wildest dreams would I have expected even a if-maybe from you, Russ. I suppose I was too quick to assume that you would be just as pleased with Brown's efforts as Bush was when he commended his appointee last week. On the other hand, the way you completely brushed over Ivan's point and simultaneously squeezed in a loose correlation to Clinton just brought me right back to the good old days.

Hey it’s good to be back home again,
Sometimes this old forum feels like a long-lost friend,
Yes ’n’ hey, it’s good to be back home again...
:tongue2:

[Skyhunter]

Precisely how many deaths did Bush cause here? Anyone care to place an actual number on it? So far, I see 40. Does anyone want to go for 50?

edit: I missed the sarcasm in the last sarcastic thread, so I'm not sure if this thread was meant to be sarcastic or not. But I guess I'm going to have to assume it's sarcastic because what I'm seeing here is beyond irrational. Its beyond delusional. A hurricane hits and breaks levees that take decades to build, flooding a below-sea-level city in the worst national disaster in the history of the US, and the resulting deaths are somehow politically aligned? I suppose you guys blame Clinton for the Northridge Earthquake, right? :uhh:
Bush cut the ACE funding 80% for NO flood control. If they had hardened the earthen levee in 2002 when it was scheduled to be finished, the seawall would probably not have collapsed. The flood happened after the storm, not because the levees were overwhelmed but because they were not properly maintained! The levees are sinking, they need constant maintenance as well as upgrades. If Katrina had made a direct hit this point would be moot, but it was a cat 3/4 when it got to NO and it just missed. The disaster is a result of Bush's policies. He is to blame. He also filled FEMA with his campaign buddies and political supporters.

And FEMA disaster management response, are you saying it was a well managed effective response?

If Bush would have just taken responsibility, fired Brown, and took the lead he could have put an end to the "blame game" Instead he had to wait until he could do a photo op with fireman who would have much rather been rescuing storm victims. He responded in the only way he knows how, lots of PR and propaganda.

And you had to invoke Clinton again to defend Bush so you already lost this argument.

You will not lose your conservative credentials if you just admit that Bush & Co. have now been exposed for what they are.

[LURCH]

While I see conservatives... saying how they shouldn't help the Katrina victims anyway because they're poor and black and got what they had coming.

C'mon now, do you have a link to some quote that says that?

Kyleb, I can see your point, and it's not that I don't think Brown needed replacing, but no, I can't really say that I "respect" the finger-pointing at this particular time. The change of personel didn't put food or drinking water in the hands of the victims, it didn't provide housing for the displaced refugees. It could have waited till a later time, these people are in desperate need right now, and replacing one face with another in some distant office somewhere isn't the best way to help. It just seems as though some folks are less interested in the human needs of the victims, and more interested in the political symbol they can provide to rally followers to their own cause.

But we could turn this around. In the engineering thread, people are talking about what cuold be done in the future to prevent such a disaster, or at least limit its effects. Maybe we could start telling about the relief efforts we've seen and (for those of us who are able) perhaps even talk about our own participation. Look how much time we all spend discussing the theoretical; we already have a strong sense of community. This might be a chance for the people of this site to unite for a common goal in the real world. Kind-of a "PFer's reliefers" squad, y'know?

[SOS2008]

C'mon now, do you have a link to some quote that says that?

Kyleb, I can see your point, and it's not that I don't think Brown needed replacing, but no, I can't really say that I "respect" the finger-pointing at this particular time. The change of personel didn't put food or drinking water in the hands of the victims, it didn't provide housing for the displaced refugees. It could have waited till a later time, these people are in desperate need right now, and replacing one face with another in some distant office somewhere isn't the best way to help. It just seems as though some folks are less interested in the human needs of the victims, and more interested in the political symbol they can provide to rally followers to their own cause.

But we could turn this around. In the engineering thread, people are talking about what cuold be done in the future to prevent such a disaster, or at least limit its effects. Maybe we could start telling about the relief efforts we've seen and (for those of us who are able) perhaps even talk about our own participation. Look how much time we all spend discussing the theoretical; we already have a strong sense of community. This might be a chance for the people of this site to unite for a common goal in the real world. Kind-of a "PFer's reliefers" squad, y'know?I feel it is important that the two go hand-in-hand, relief efforts and an investigation. There is no reason why it can't be done--I don't see how it hinders the relief efforts at all, and it is good to get facts while these are fresh. Don't forget, we have had another hurricane off the Carolinas, and who knows what could happen when. People want the problems addressed immediately.

[kyleb]

Lurch, I'm perplexed by your response. Do you honestly belive that having a man with such qualifications as Vice Admiral Allen at the helm is not providing any tangible results over his demonstratedly inept successor?

[Smurf]

The problems didn't start with Brown, they're not going to end with him. It will certainly help a little, but I don't see that specifically having drastic or immediate effects.

[kyleb]

I wasn't trying to suggest anything drastic by any means, but Lurch's no-food/no-shelter stance struck me off guard. I suppose I have just too much respect for the value of strong leadership than to be able to assume that.

[LURCH]

Bush cut the ACE funding 80% for NO flood control. If they had hardened the earthen levee in 2002 when it was scheduled to be finished, the seawall would probably not have collapsed. The flood happened after the storm, not because the levees were overwhelmed but because they were not properly maintained! The levees are sinking, they need constant maintenance as well as upgrades. If Katrina had made a direct hit this point would be moot, but it was a cat 3/4 when it got to NO and it just missed.
It would seem to be moot in any case. I say this for two reasons; firstly, the work on hardening the levy did stop before it wasd completed, but the part of the levy that broke was completed, and secondly, according to the only eyewitness account I've ever heard, the levy was hit by a couple barges. I don't think there is any kind of preperation or strengthening that could have stood up to that.

Actually, I'm a bit confused as to why this huge tidbit of information has been so ignored. I heard a guy say it on a telephone inerview several days ago, and I thought, "this is a major break in the story, the newsguy who got this interview has a real scoop on his hands, he should pounce on it!". The guy lived right next to the levy right at the spot where it broke, and he said he saw two barges get shoved nito the levy by the stormsurge, and then it gave way. But when he was done speaking, the newsguy said thank you very much, sir, that was Mr [whatever his name was], from the scene; some very hard times people are dealing with in that area. And now we take you to...". I have to assume that he wasn't listening to the guy, maybe because his director was talking in his earpeace or something, but they sure dropped the ball.

[Skyhunter]

It would seem to be moot in any case. I say this for two reasons; firstly, the work on hardening the levy did stop before it wasd completed, but the part of the levy that broke was completed, and secondly, according to the only eyewitness account I've ever heard, the levy was hit by a couple barges. I don't think there is any kind of preperation or strengthening that could have stood up to that.

Actually, I'm a bit confused as to why this huge tidbit of information has been so ignored. I heard a guy say it on a telephone inerview several days ago, and I thought, "this is a major break in the story, the newsguy who got this interview has a real scoop on his hands, he should pounce on it!". The guy lived right next to the levy right at the spot where it broke, and he said he saw two barges get shoved nito the levy by the stormsurge, and then it gave way. But when he was done speaking, the newsguy said thank you very much, sir, that was Mr [whatever his name was], from the scene; some very hard times people are dealing with in that area. And now we take you to...". I have to assume that he wasn't listening to the guy, maybe because his director was talking in his earpeace or something, but they sure dropped the ball.
These conflicting reports are a good reason to have an investigation now. I saw the barge story as well, but it had not been confirmed. The report I was referring to was a comprehensive illustrated article that showed how water spilling over the seawall washed away the earthen levee.

I also saw an email from an EPA employee stating that the project was never finished because the contractors quit when they were not paid. If the levee had been compacted and hardened with concrete ie finished, it would not have washed away.

I saw the articles afterward that stated the section that collapsed had been recently rebuilt. I still don't know what really happened, but from the way I have seen stories altered to protect the vested interests, I am extrememly wary of these later versions.

They say they were "rebuilt", but If they were really finished, why did they wash away?

I looked for the first article I read and was unable to find it. I posted the email from the EPA employee in the "New Orleans disaster predicted in 2001" thread. The article illustrating the collapse of the 17th street canal seawall was published at about the same time.

[edit] The eywitness has impeached himself with his tesimony. No way he could have seen the storm surge slam barges into the wall, and it was the next day after the storm went by that the wall collapsed. any reporter worth a damn would pick up on that right away. And any journalist worth a damn would verify his story and not rely on a single "eyewitness".

[Skyhunter]

Why do the members of the Bush administration have such a problem with the truth?

Here they go with a talking point that is an obvious lie. The headlines in the paper read "New Orleans dodged a bullet."

Where were they when they read this Grenada? (The only paper with that headline)

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/chertoffs-reading-habits-123841.php

3) Who Got the Memo?

Richard Myers: "The headline, of course, in most of the papers on Tuesday — “New Orleans Dodged a Bullet,” or words to that effect. At that time, when those words were in our minds, we started working issues before we were asked."

Rep. David Dreier: "And I remember a week ago today reading the newspaper, which said that new Orleans had successfully dodged the bullet of Hurricane Katrina, and then we saw the levee break."

Michael Chertoff: "I remember on Tuesday morning picking up newspapers and I saw headlines, “New Orleans Dodged The Bullet.”

George Bush: "No, what I was referring to is this. When that storm came by, a lot of people said we dodged a bullet. When that storm came through at first, people said, whew. There was a sense of relaxation, and that's what I was referring to. And I, myself, thought we had dodged a bullet. You know why? Because I was listening to people, probably over the airways, say, the bullet has been dodged. And that was what I was referring to. Of course, there were plans in case the levee had been breached. There was a sense of relaxation in the moment, a critical moment. And thank you for giving me a chance to clarify that. [ … ] So, in other words, we anticipated a serious storm coming. But as the man's question said, basically implied, wasn't there a moment where everybody said, well, gosh, we dodged the bullet, and yet the bullet hadn't been dodged.

Well thanks for clearing it up for us Mr. Bush. :rolleyes:

[Kerrie]

In the meantime, I am angry that the money and effort spent on our Homeland Security has resulted in such poor protection of Americans.

I think this is the main point of this conversation. PRIORITIES. Regardless of what party is in control, it shows our GOVERNMENT doesn't have the well being of our own people in mind in times of disasters. Just because we are America doesn't mean we are immune from nature's fury. The unfavorable war in Iraq certainly doesn't lend much credibility to the conservative side, but had this disaster happened while Clinton was in office, does that mean we can assume we would be just as PREPARED?

I say stop placing blame for both sides, shut up, and start reviewing other areas in America that need preventative measures to avoid such a horrific disaster in the future.

[TRCSF]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Nonpartisan_congressional_research_report_finds_Lo uisiana_governor_took_nece_0913.html

[Skyhunter]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Nonpartisan_congressional_research_report_finds_Lo uisiana_governor_took_nece_0913.html
Of course this information is also posted at whitehouse.gov, but it seems that some members of the media, I don't want to mention any names but his initials are Sean Hannity, prefer newsmax.com as a more reliable source.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html

[BobG]

I think this is the main point of this conversation. PRIORITIES. Regardless of what party is in control, it shows our GOVERNMENT doesn't have the well being of our own people in mind in times of disasters. Just because we are America doesn't mean we are immune from nature's fury. The unfavorable war in Iraq certainly doesn't lend much credibility to the conservative side, but had this disaster happened while Clinton was in office, does that mean we can assume we would be just as PREPARED?

I say stop placing blame for both sides, shut up, and start reviewing other areas in America that need preventative measures to avoid such a horrific disaster in the future.
If we were just talking natural disasters, we could assume we would have been better prepared with Lee Witt as director of a cabinet level FEMA, which was the case when Clinton was in office.

Priorities and how far we should swing towards one priority or another is the key issue. It isn't fair to say the US is less safe against all threats. We are safer against terrorist threats, but at a cost of being more vulnerable to natural disasters. I'm not sure where the proper balance is, but you can't just abandon one problem in order to dash over to the other problem.

[BobG]

Photographers rarely are allowed into the forward cabin of Air Force One, but consigliere Karl Rove and other aides summoned them so they could snap pictures of the Boss gazing out the window as the plane flew over the devastation. Republican strategists privately call the resulting image—Bush as tourist, seemingly powerless as he peered down at the chaos—perhaps among the most damaging of his presidency.
The problem is that Rove can set up a good photo op, but he can't take the pictures or select which picture appears in the story. There's a risk, based on the fact that the media generally hasn't been openly hostile to Bush (in spite of conservative claims). The media likes to be portrayed as neutral and objective.

Openly hostile would be the reporting of CNN and MSNBC on federal response to Katrina. Print media are also getting into the act. Look at the pictures of Bush in magazines a couple weeks ago and compare them to the pictures of Bush over the last couple of weeks. Could he really age that much in just two weeks? (Recent pictures remind me of the job the media did on Katherine Harris in 2000 - it was as if editors were playing "can you top this?" in their effort to find the picture that came the closest to portraying Harris as Cruella DeVille).

Images influence readers even when the article is worded fairly. Actually, recent articles aren't even worded in a very neutral manner. Letting slip the 'behind the scenes' action, such as Bush's staff's reluctance to give him bad news, also reflect the media has declared open season on Bush.

Personally, I think a lot of negative reaction to Bush is justified, but it's still not exactly fair and unbiased reporting.

[kyleb]

I'm pretty sure that SOS's point is that while it has been claimed that we are safer from terrorism; clearly, we were woefully unprepared to deal with the aftermath of a disaster, regardless of it was the result of nature or terrorism.

[Astronuc]

I'm not sure where the proper balance is, but you can't just abandon one problem in order to dash over to the other problem. That's the job of people like the Director of FEMA who apparently earns an annual salary of $145,600 (Presidential appointment at a level known as Executive Level III). The regional directors make something like $138,000. :rolleyes:

For those bucks, they better be thinking about those issues.

FEMA and its state and local counter parts ought to be meeting on an annual or bi-annual basis to make sure everyone is on the same page. Large metropolitan areas (e.g. cities like New Orleans) need to know what support to expect from the state and federal governments, and they need to know what is expected of them.

If there was such a meeting, then one of 50 or 100 or a few hundred experts might have asked, "What would happen if the levees break?", "How will you evacuate 100,000 people?", "Where will they go?", . . . . and "What is the role of the state and federal governments?" and perhaps, "What if we have 2, 3 or more states involved in the same disaster - which could be a nuclear attack on NY City, Washington or Philadelphia or any other city that sits near the border of 2 or more states, or widespread flooding along Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, or other river systems serving multiple states.

[2CentsWorth]

Personally, I think a lot of negative reaction to Bush is justified, but it's still not exactly fair and unbiased reporting.I am one of the many who feel the negative reaction is justified. And the reporting may not be exactly fair and unbiased, but in view of the dirty politics of Rove and Bush, they are finally getting a taste of their own medicine, so also deserved.

[Skyhunter]

We are safer against terrorist threats, but at a cost of being more vulnerable to natural disasters. I'm not sure where the proper balance is, but you can't just abandon one problem in order to dash over to the other problem.
What would lead you to believe this?

I see no evidence that we are safer from a terroroist threat now than we were before 9-11. If anything the lack of preparedness and the appointment of political cronies to head up important agencies has made us less safe, not more.

On a positive note. Bush has finally stepped up and assumed responsibility. Now the blame game can come to an end.

[pattylou]

We are safer against terrorist threats, but at a cost of being more vulnerable to natural disasters.
2 questions:

1. Can you give me a good refernce that shows we are safer from terrorist threats under Bush?

2. Is domestic increase in safety worth increasing the risk of terrorism in other countries? At what point do we start to equate a foreign life with an American life?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.(incidentally, 2003 was higher than 2002, etc.)

[BobG]

2 questions:

1. Can you give me a good refernce that shows we are safer from terrorist threats under Bush?

2. Is domestic increase in safety worth increasing the risk of terrorism in other countries? At what point do we start to equate a foreign life with an American life?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

(incidentally, 2003 was higher than 2002, etc.)
Admittedly, 'safer' is an assumption.

FEMA does pay a lot more attention to terrorism since it became incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security. Hopefully, all of the terrorsim exercises they have participated in have had some result.

Here's a list of the exercises (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/News/US/Katrina/docs/DHS%20FEMA%20National%20All%20Hazards%20Exercise%2 0Schedule%2002-04.pdf) FEMA has taken part in (you have to scroll down a ways to the schedule).

FEMA has even participated in two exercises involving hurricanes (Operation Yankee '04 and '05). The purposes of both scenarios was to "Exercise EMAC and FRP coordination in the context of a credible WMD threat during a natural disaster".

[Skyhunter]

Admittedly, 'safer' is an assumption.

Here's a list of the exercises (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/News/US/Katrina/docs/DHS%20FEMA%20National%20All%20Hazards%20Exercise%2 0Schedule%2002-04.pdf) FEMA has taken part in (you have to scroll down a ways to the schedule).Good info BobG. Thanks

There are 3 hurricane prep exercises and 2 of those are training for a hurricane combined with a simultaneous terrorist attack. So it is possible that the training and drills are to narrowly focused. I would argue that if this is the case then the leadership is at fault, they are the ones who approve the training and preparedness drills.

The failure of the response to Katrina was basic logistics, all they had to cope with was water, very dirty diseased water, but nothing like nuclear explosions, or highly infectious bio-weapons, or even dirty bombs.

I wonder if the slow response was on purpose because the perhaps FEMA suspected some type of simultaneous WMD attack, to spread some type of bio or chemical weapon?

That would explain cutting the communications, not allowing people in or out and some of the other questionable occurrences. And you know Bush wouldn't necessarily need to be in the loop. Hmm I guess this one should go in the psyops thread.

Nah I think that the obvious answer is that the leadership team was the pits and it showed.

I have seen some great plans for buildings and watched a contractor F@#$ it beyond belief!

We need to have competent leaders. If the boss got his job solely because he worked for the presidents campaign, and everyone knows it. If the majority of the "leaders" are appointees with little or no experience. Moral is going to suffer, career people either ride the gravy train and let the idiots F$#@ it up and collect their check, become whistle-blowers and get personally destroyed, or move on to some other career or occupation.

I hope you are right and they are prepared for terrorism. They have not been tested on that front yet. The response to Katrina was not encouraging.

Bush needs to start kicking but and taking names. Chertoff had better not get comfortable. He needs to immediately recruit a class A leadership team and fire everybody with gravy stains on their chins!

[BobG]

Considering that the response to terrorist attacks has been the focus and responsibility of the Republicans and this administration, Katrina shows how miserably a Republican run government has failed to protect the interests of the people of the United States. They have had four years and more money than at any time in history to ensure that any large scale emergency response here in the US is well coordinated and effective. Instead we find the coffee boy - a good buddy of Bush's - and his buddies running FEMA, and only half of the National Guard equipment, and 2/3 of the personnel, available in the critical states; which certainly cost American lives.

Above all, any emergency worker will tell you that in an emergency, time is the most important factor in determining who lives and who dies. Time is what the 40 critical patients who drowned in their hospital beds didn't have. And they have the republicans and the Bush administration to thank for it.

This - large scale disasters - was not just a priority, it was the priority for Bush, and this is the Bush legacy - the bodies floating in the streets of New Orleans.
When you think about it, the political aftershock of Katrina is going to be a bit of a challenge for Bush and Republicans. Generally, Republicans like to promote the benefits of federalism, states rights and responsibilities, over a central government. This is one reason I think Blanco and Nagin will face a pretty strong campaign assigning blame to them. It's going to be important to show New Orleans and Louisiana should have been able to handle this disaster themselves and their failure to do so has to be due to Democrats wanting to push responsibility onto someone else.

The political effects of Katrina will still be with us in the 2006 and 2008 elections as Democrats blame Bush's federal government for the disaster and Republicans blame bad local Democrats for the disaster.

[Ivan Seeking]

You can't respond to a disaster appropriately when at least half of the deep water HumVees and [would be] rescue helicopters are in Iraq. I would bet that with twice the equipment, rescues would have proceeded, say, twice as fast, just as a guess.

Note also that Rummy never talks about the NG equipment, he always talks about the personnel. But without the equipment, what good are the people?

Coordination at the federal level shows how effective Bush's "homeland security" has been handled. Even Bush was forced to admit this yesterday. Maybe he's starting the realized just how badly he has screwed this country with his big oil shenanigans and his illegitimate war in Iraq.

This is also why the Dems were pushing for a draft. The national guard is for homeland security, not "freeing the Iraqi people". Who would have thought that these fools would leave us less protected than before 911? That is why we assumed that they [Bush and the Reps] must be planning a draft: "No one is that stupid", we thought.

The first job of the Federal Government is the security of the United States and its citizens. Bush has betrayed his responsibilitiy as C&C, and it has cost many American lives and great suffering. And this doesn't even count the many lives lost in Iraq, which I am sure will be for naught.

[Informal Logic]

You can't respond to a disaster appropriately when at least half of the deep water HumVees and [would be] rescue helicopters are in Iraq. I would bet that with twice the equipment, rescues would have proceeded, say, twice as fast, just as a guess.

Note also that Rummy never talks about the NG equipment, he always talks about the personnel. But without the equipment, what good are the people?

Coordination at the federal level shows how effective Bush's "homeland security" has been handled. Even Bush was forced to admit this yesterday. Maybe he's starting the realized just how badly he has screwed this country with his big oil shenanigans and his illegitimate war in Iraq.

This is also why the Dems were pushing for a draft. The national guard is for homeland security, not "freeing the Iraqi people". Who would have thought that these fools would leave us less protected than before 911? That is why we assumed that they [Bush and the Reps] must be planning a draft: "No one is that stupid", we thought.

The first job of the Federal Government is the security of the United States and its citizens. Bush has betrayed his responsibilitiy as C&C, and it has cost many American lives and great suffering. And this doesn't even count the many lives lost in Iraq, which I am sure will be for naught.Absolutely right (except the part about Bush realizing anything except that PR wasn't getting him out of this one). And speaking of deterrence to war, the draft works great.

[Ivan Seeking]

...Iraq versus domestic concerns
After Katrina, 75 percent now believe the United States is not adequately prepared for a nuclear, biological or chemical attack. That’s an increase since June 2002, nine months after Sept. 11, when 66 percent believed this.

When asked to choose between rebuilding Iraq and establishing a democratic government there or rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, 60 percent of respondents said New Orleans is the greater priority, while just 5 percent mentioned Iraq. Thirty-four percent said both are equally important. [continued]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9332076/page/2/

From: Bush approval at lowest level of his presidency
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9332076/

[Mk]

Precisely how many deaths did Bush cause here? Anyone care to place an actual number on it? So far, I see 40. Does anyone want to go for 50?
I may not understand where you're coming from, but who did Bush kill? In the Middle East he killed, but not in Louisiana?

[kyleb]

That was just hyperbole in response to this potion of Ivan's original post:

Above all, any emergency worker will tell you that in an emergency, time is the most important factor in determining who lives and who dies. Time is what the 40 critical patients who drowned in their hospital beds didn't have. And they have the republicans and the Bush administration to thank for it.

[Skyhunter]

When you think about it, the political aftershock of Katrina is going to be a bit of a challenge for Bush and Republicans. Generally, Republicans like to promote the benefits of federalism, states rights and responsibilities, over a central government. This is one reason I think Blanco and Nagin will face a pretty strong campaign assigning blame to them. It's going to be important to show New Orleans and Louisiana should have been able to handle this disaster themselves and their failure to do so has to be due to Democrats wanting to push responsibility onto someone else.

The political effects of Katrina will still be with us in the 2006 and 2008 elections as Democrats blame Bush's federal government for the disaster and Republicans blame bad local Democrats for the disaster.
Actually I see this as more of a problem for republicans. The levees are the responsibility of the Army Corp of Engineers, a federal agency. Homeland Security is a federal agency charged with coordinating Federal, State, and Local response to disasters.

I totally disagree that the Cities and States could have handled this themselves. Katrina has exposed the flaws with in the Republican, Federalist, Ideology. Bush and Chertoff, through homeland security, have been given nearly unprecedented executive powers. :bugeye: Maybe the inept handling is a ploy so they can argue for more state autonomy. :wink:

I hope this makes sense I need sleep :redface:

[russ_watters]

Admittedly, 'safer' is an assumption. I don't think so. It seems to me that you can conclude it directly from the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and no attacks on the US by al Qaeda outside of Iraq. That was just hyperbole in response to this potion of Ivan's original post: Yes! Actually I see this as more of a problem for republicans. The levees are the responsibility of the Army Corp of Engineers, a federal agency. That isn't quit true. While the Corps of Engineers administers the projects, the state has a pretty high level of control over them since they pay a fair percentage of the cost of the project. Had NO or LA chosen to, they could have funded a better levee system decades ago.

So far, the people of NO seem to be blaming the federal government, but the way I see it, the city and state take a fair bit of the blame as well. Contrast how they did with how New York did on/after 9/11: New York had a pretty good disaster relief infrastructure that they put in place after the first WTC attack in '93 and they seemed to handle the situation very well.

Whether the people of NO come to realize that the initial blame-game was somewhat mistargeted depends a lot on the investigations that will inevitably be done. Like with 9/11, the knee-jerk reaction is always against the guy in the big office in Washington, but like with 9/11, the investigation will show much deeper problems than just those in the scope of Bush's job.

[SOS2008]

I don't think so. It seems to me that you can conclude it directly from the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and no attacks on the US by al Qaeda outside of Iraq.If P than Q? There are many reasons why there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. For example (and this is most likely) because it would not achieve their goals as well as opposition in Iraq, and attacking U.S. supporters such as Britain, etc.
So far, the people of NO seem to be blaming the federal government, but the way I see it, the city and state take a fair bit of the blame as well. Contrast how they did with how New York did on/after 9/11: New York had a pretty good disaster relief infrastructure that they put in place after the first WTC attack in '93 and they seemed to handle the situation very well. You are comparing apples and oranges. Though the death toll was much higher in NY, the area was very confined so did not wipe out all infrastructure and emergency capability.

Whether the people of NO come to realize that the initial blame-game was somewhat mistargeted depends a lot on the investigations that will inevitably be done. Like with 9/11, the knee-jerk reaction is always against the guy in the big office in Washington, but like with 9/11, the investigation will show much deeper problems than just those in the scope of Bush's job.The investigation? The one that people are fighting so hard to keep independent? I agree there are problems much deeper with the big office in Washington than we will ever know including 9-11 (at which time Bush was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford...).

[russ_watters]

If P than Q? There are many reasons why there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. For example (and this is most likely) because it would not achieve their goals as well as opposition in Iraq, and attacking U.S. supporters such as Britain, etc. Why make idle speculations? Just ask him and he'll tell you: According to Bin Laden, he's been trying to attack us directly and continuously. That makes the line of reasoning quite direct. [Oct 7, 2001] As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1585636.stm [July 8, 2004] A plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members, senior intelligence officials said Thursday. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/08/ridge.alqaeda/ [Oct 30, 2004] "Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated," bin Laden said. So clearly, Bin Laden has been trying to attack us on a continuous basis now for the past 12 years (since the first attack on the WTC). He is now failing at it.

edit: And by the way, even if your speculation is correct above, your conclusion is still wrong: If Bin Laden had made a conscious choice not to bomb the US directly, the net result is still the same - the US itself is safer. And so you just inadvertently argued that the war in Iraq is helping reduce domestic terror! You are comparing apples and oranges. Though the death toll was much higher in NY, the area was very confined so did not wipe out all infrastructure and emergency capability. Different circumstances, yes, but there is a lot that can be gained by analyzing the responses. Guiliani's command presence vs that of Mayor Nagen, for example. Guiliani was always in command of himself and his people. He always had the leaders of the various city departments (police, fire, ambulance) around him to coordinate their response and he never lost his cool.

Mayor Nagen displayed nowhere near the leadership that Guiliani did. And it could have cost lives - how many police would have chosen not to leave had Nagen been a better leader? How many people died because the police were unable to keep control of the city and how many could have been saved by a stronger police force? How much of Nagen's hysteria did he pass on to the citizens of NO (strong words from a good leader can stop a riot)? These are questions that will need investigating in the next few months. The investigation? .... I agree there are problems much deeper with the big office in Washington than we will ever know including 9-11.... That isn't what I said. The 9/11 investigation resulted in a pretty clear picture of the failures leading up to 9/11. I fully expect there will be a similarly useful evaluation of the Katrina failures.

The entire reason I resisted early finger-pointing so strongly was that these situations are far more complicated than a one-liner soundbyte by a politician or columnist using the situation for political/personal gain.

[kyleb]

I don't think so. It seems to me that you can conclude it directly from the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and no attacks on the US by al Qaeda outside of Iraq.
That has been just over 4 years with no attacks on US soil, and in the 4 years before the WTC attack how many were there? It seems to me you have to overlook recent history to arive at your conclusion.

[SOS2008]

Why make idle speculations? Just ask him and he'll tell you: According to Bin Laden, he's been trying to attack us directly and continuously. That makes the line of reasoning quite direct.
[Oct 7, 2001] As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed.... "enjoy security" - have Americans enjoyed security? I do not see reference to a direct attack in this quote. Just as attacks can be achieved without WMD, security can be eroded via strain upon the economy, military, etc. Are you aware of new attacks in Iraq? I would not say Bin Laden is failing.
Different circumstances, yes, but there is a lot that can be gained by analyzing the responses. Guiliani's command presence vs that of Mayor Nagen, for example.About this I agree, if for no other reason than the intense profanity for all Americans to hear.
The entire reason I resisted early finger-pointing so strongly was that these situations are far more complicated than a one-liner soundbyte by a politician or columnist using the situation for political/personal gain.Gotcha.

[russ_watters]

That has been just over 4 years with no attacks on US soil, and in the 4 years before the WTC attack how many were there? It seems to me you have to overlook recent history to arive at your conclusion. Two, though they occurred on the same day so they can be considered one coordinated attack. Feb 22, 1998, when two US embassies were bombed.

If we broaden the scope to Al Qadea attacks in general against US interests in general, you also have the USS Cole and at 5 years, the barracks bombing in Saudia Arabia. 9/11 was, however, the first terrorist bombing in the lower 48 since the first WTC bombing in '93.

SOS is right, though: Al Qaeda has done little outside of Iraq since we went there. Personally, I consider that a good thing.

The point remains the same, however - people's perceptions that we are less safe are just perceptions. They aren't based on facts that show we are less safe. The only way to really tell is to wait another 8 years or so and see if there are any more successful attacks in the US.

[russ_watters]

"enjoy security" - have Americans enjoyed security? I do not see reference to a direct attack in this quote. Just as attacks can be achieved without WMD, security can be eroded via strain upon the economy, military, etc. Are you aware of new attacks in Iraq? I would not say Bin Laden is failing. Oh, jeez. The initial point by pattylou was about actual security. I'm arguing that terrorism is less of a real threat than it was 4 years ago. Opinion poll show people's perception that they are less safe. You're confusing perception with reality. Just because people are afraid to fly doesn't mean flying is unsafe.

Besides - you need a grammar lesson if you think that sentence means anything other than "Americans will not be secure".

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enjoy 1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health. The usage of the word is clearly definition #2: to have security.

[Astronuc]

I would not say Bin Laden is failing. Perhaps then one could say that bin Laden is not succeeding, at least in the matter of attacking the US within its borders.

bin Laden is largely isolated - but that is in Afghnistan or perhaps Pakistan, and that has little to do with US presence in Iraq. However, it is possible that the US invasion of Iraq has made countries which would otherwise support bin Laden less inclined to support or at least allow al Qaida to operate freely.

We seem to have been blown off course from the OT. :biggrin:

[kyleb]

Two, though they occurred on the same day so they can be considered one coordinated attack. Feb 22, 1998, when two US embassies were bombed.

If we broaden the scope to Al Qadea attacks in general against US interests in general, you also have the USS Cole and at 5 years, the barracks bombing in Saudia Arabia. 9/11 was, however, the first terrorist bombing in the lower 48 since the first WTC bombing in '93.
I suppose embassies are considered US soil, but I am gald to see from further down your post that understand that such a broad definition ignores the intent of my question.
SOS is right, though: Al Qaeda has done little outside of Iraq since we went there. Personally, I consider that a good thing.
The people in London, Madrid and Iraq probably look at things a bit differently.
The point remains the same, however - people's perceptions that we are less safe are just perceptions. They aren't based on facts that show we are less safe. The only way to really tell is to wait another 8 years or so and see if there are any more successful attacks in the US.
I'm actually more interested in focusing on eliminating any further motivation for people to resort to terrosim than sitting on my hands and waiting.

[loseyourname]

So far, the people of NO seem to be blaming the federal government, but the way I see it, the city and state take a fair bit of the blame as well. Contrast how they did with how New York did on/after 9/11: New York had a pretty good disaster relief infrastructure that they put in place after the first WTC attack in '93 and they seemed to handle the situation very well.

To be fair, Russ, New York has many times the resources that New Orleans does, and only a very small part of the city was actually affected by 9/11. A big part of the relief effort was conducted by the Port Authority, too, which is a joint operation of the states of New York and New Jersey.

That said, it's fairly inexcusable to not have seen this coming, though it would seem the city and state were both fairly strapped by just not being very prosperous, certainly not compared to New York. One thing to consider, though, which is probably attributable to both leadership and simply to the differences in local culture, is the disparity in civic pride shown between the two cities. New Yorkers banded together and did everything they could to help each other and get things taken care of. Historically speaking, it's always been a city that did what needs to be done to get the job finished. One thing I learned living there is that, even if there is class and race tension and all that, when it comes down to it, everybody there is a New Yorker. There's a love and a brotherhood there that I've never experienced in any other big city. I don't know that one could say the same about New Orleans.

Whether the people of NO come to realize that the initial blame-game was somewhat mistargeted depends a lot on the investigations that will inevitably be done. Like with 9/11, the knee-jerk reaction is always against the guy in the big office in Washington, but like with 9/11, the investigation will show much deeper problems than just those in the scope of Bush's job.

I just hope that legitimate restructuring and better planning takes place. The public always wants to see fall guys, but putting a different person into a failed system isn't going to help anything. We need good people at the top of system.

[loseyourname]

Actually, one more point to make about the safety thing is the safety of US travellers abroad. The government is entrusted with the protection of all of its citizens, not just those who are currently on US soil.

[SOS2008]

That has been just over 4 years with no attacks on US soil, and in the 4 years before the WTC attack how many were there? It seems to me you have to overlook recent history to arive at your conclusion.Precisely. Maybe I didn't notice before Bush, but it seems that faulty reasoning has become pervasive. The sidewalk is wet, therefore it rained. Or, come to find out it was the sprinkler system? If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops, and if you don't support the troops you are unpatriotic. The fallacy here is that being against a president's policies has nothing to do with supporting the troops, and certainly nothing to do with being patriotic. If terrorists have tried to attack, there have been no reports of a thwarted attempt--like Rove would pass that up.

Back to the topic...The failures of our Homeland Security have been made evident by Katrina. This is hurting the Republican party. Will it still be the case in 2006? In 2008? That's the question. Bush is in his last term, which tends to be a lame duck term anyway. Speculations are he does not have time to turn things around, even if he can find a way to do it. But it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, the republicans want this to be about anything but their miserable failure to ensure that American lives are protected by a strong and well equipped National Guard; that they should be here and not overseas fighting an illegal [no WMDs, no threat] war.

Did anyone notice that we are suddenly recalling troops from Afghanistan? Of course this has nothing to do with Katrina; just like Brown left La, but not to be fired. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The only way to make this war popular was to avoid the draft, so Bush sacrificed our national security for political gain.

Edit: Oh yes, we have not been attacked again by twenty guys with box knives; I give Bush that much.

[Ivan Seeking]

...not to mention that a number of Governors, including ours here in Oregon, filed law suits again the Feds for trying to pull our defenses. Here in Oregon they tried to take away our fighter jets. That makes one heck of a lot of sense if you want to leave us vulnerable to attack, Rummy. It really makes one wonder what their real objectives may be.

The counter argument is that naval ships off the coast can protect us. In other words, according to Rummy, we don't need the guard. So is Rummy going to guarantee that he'll park carriers off the coast of Oregon? Of course not. So where does that leave us?

[Ivan Seeking]

The real dichotomy: The republicans are allegedly the great supporters of the second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But it seems that rather than arising from due concern for constitutional law or the safety of U.S. citizens, this is only used as convenient leverage for the gun lobby. The undisputed purpose of this clause, which goes far beyond the hotly debated issue of private gun ownership, has been trashed at the deepest level by Bush and his shotgun PR clan. Many republicans, and in particular Rummy, are enemies of the second Amendment, thus the constitution, thus the nation, by any significant measure.

What follows, and in particular to aid in times of disaster, is how the guard has been used historically.

Under these provisions, the right of the states to maintain a militia, including what is now the National Guard, is always subordinate to the power of Congress. In 1795 Congress first gave the president authority to call out the militia to suppress insurrections. Presidents employed this power to enforce federal law during desegregation disputes during the 1950s, and later during the civil disturbances in various cities during the 1960s
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Edit: They are also our last line of defense against invasions.

One would think that they might also be helpful in patrolling the US Mexican border since this is the easiest portal through which terrorists can enter. The fact that this issue is not a first priority for Bush and Rummy speaks volumes.

[kyleb]

I quite enjoy seeing the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the Republicans pointed out here; but I feel it is important to point out that the Democratic minority in our congress had both the position and the responsibly to publicize these shortcomings long before they led to the current disaster. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shift the blame here; but rather I feel it is important to point out that swapping teams isn't going to change much as they are all still playing the same corrupt game.

[Ivan Seeking]

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the blame goes with everyone who supported Bush. The corruption of politics can only be kept in check by an informed citizenry.

As do so many that supported Bush, my uncle, for one, still thinks Saddam attacked New York. We also have an entire generation of people who think bs debate tactics matter.

[TRCSF]

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the blame goes with everyone who supported Bush. The corruption of politics can only be kept in check by an informed citizenry.

As do so many that supported Bush, my uncle, for one, still thinks Saddam attacked New York. We also have an entire generation of people who think bs debate tactics matter.

Agreed. It's not like they didn't know he was incompetent. Remember the old argument, "yeah, he's not that sharp, but he surrounds himself with intelligent, highly skilled people, and they'll do just fine."

Yeah, he surrounds himself with people like Mike Brown.

Reminds me of the story of the woman who brought the snake in out of the cold.

[kyleb]

We also have an entire generation of people who think bs debate tactics matter.
I wholeheartedly agree with that. Furthermore, it seems relevant point in this conversation for me to point out my opinion that the underlying cause for the fall of the Greek empire was quite simply due to their overwhelming respect for the craft of sophistry. Granted, I can't rightly prove that theory with conclusive evidence; but all the same, it seems counterintuitive to belive that one can run a stable government without a stable foundation of principles to base it on.

[russ_watters]

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the blame goes with everyone who supported Bush. The corruption of politics can only be kept in check by an informed citizenry. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: My daily Dilbert!

Corruption is unique to Republicans (or Bush)? People's biggest criticism of Bush over Katrina is that Brown was a political appointee who wasn't qualified for the job. You're saying Clinton didn't do the same thing? That's hilarious.

[pattylou]

People's biggest criticism of Bush over Katrina is that Brown was a political appointee who wasn't qualified for the job. You're saying Clinton didn't do the same thing? I don't know why the Bush/Clinton comparison comes up so often. I don't see people defending the Democrats as a party, I certainly don't, there *is* enough corruption to go around. I bash bush; I don't say that Democrats are pure as the driven snow.

If you have two questionable parties, then you would do well to clean house, get a third non-corrupt party, and so on. (Of course, I'm an idealist, being a liberal.)

Barring the ability to do that (creating a viable third party would take enormous resources) you have to demand greater accountability among politicians overall, and you also have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Between Bush Jr. and Clinton, that would be Clinton, no contest.

Between McCain and H. Clinton, that would be McCain.

It makes perfect sense also, that personal philosophies will lead someone like myself to view the Democrats as BY AND LARGE being less corrupt than Republicans. The reverse might hold for you, Russ. On the other hand, I rarely see conservatives say anything positive for a Democratic politician, and perhaps conservatives really do look at their personal finances more than at the (lack of) integrity of the people in office that are benefiting their finances. I'm curious for any opinions on this.

[Yonoz]

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Furthermore, it seems relevant point in this conversation for me to point out my opinion that the underlying cause for the fall of the Greek empire was quite simply due to their overwhelming respect for the craft of sophistry. Granted, I can't rightly prove that theory with conclusive evidence; but all the same, it seems counterintuitive to belive that one can run a stable government without a stable foundation of principles to base it on.
The Postmodernism Generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/)
Quite a few forum members should have a look at that.

[Astronuc]

G.O.P. Split Over Big Plans for Storm Spending
By CARL HULSE (NY Times), Sep 16

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - The drive to pour tens of billions of federal dollars into rebuilding the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast is widening a fissure among Republicans over fiscal policy, with more of them expressing worry about unbridled spending.

On Thursday, even before President Bush promised that "federal funds will cover the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone," fiscal conservatives from the House and Senate joined budget watchdog groups in demanding that the administration be judicious in asking for taxpayer dollars.

One fiscal conservative, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said Thursday, "I don't believe that everything that should happen in Louisiana should be paid for by the rest of the country. I believe there are certain responsibilities that are due the people of Louisiana."

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, called for restoring "sanity" to the federal recovery effort. Congress has approved $62 billion, mostly to cover costs already incurred, and the price tag is rising. The House and Senate approved tax relief Thursday at an estimated cost of more than $5 billion on top of $3.5 billion in housing vouchers approved by the Senate on Wednesday.

"We know we need to help, but throwing more and more money without accountability at this is not going to solve the problem," Mr. DeMint said.

Their comments were in marked contrast to the sweeping administration approach outlined by Mr. Bush in his speech from New Orleans and a call by Senate Republican leaders for a rebuilding effort similar to the Marshall Plan after World War II. Congressional Democrats advocated their own comprehensive recovery program Thursday, promoting a combination of rebuilding programs coupled with housing, health care, agriculture and education initiatives. The president also emphasized the importance of private entrepreneurship to create jobs "and help break the cycle of poverty."

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said he believed that providing rapid and extensive help overrode the need to cut spending elsewhere. "I think we have to understand that we have a devastation that has to be taken care of," Mr. Reid said. "And I'm not into finding where we can cut yet."

That mindset is troubling to other lawmakers who fear that in addition to a reborn Gulf Coast, something else will rise from the storm: record federal deficits.

"We know this is a huge bill," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. "We don't want to lay it on future generations." Given the fierce political backlash to the stumbling relief effort in the days after the hurricane struck, House Republican leaders have been reluctant to stand in the way of any emergency legislation. After the speech, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert acknowledged that the price tag means that "for every dollar we spend on this, it is going to take a little bit longer to balance the budget." He said he was willing to listen to ideas to pay for the aid, but, "Quite frankly, we have to get this job done."

Despite those comments, many Republicans are increasingly edgy about the White House's push for a potentially open-ended recovery budget, worried that the president - in trying to regroup politically - was making expensive promises they would have to keep.

"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior House Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration.

The fears about the costs of the storm are building on widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives about spending in recent years by the Republican-controlled Congress. That unrest was already high after Congressional approval of a transportation measure that critics denounced as bloated with marginal home-state projects.

That sore spot was rubbed raw earlier this week when Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, suggested that the Republican Congress had already trimmed much of the fat from the federal budget, making it difficult to find ways to offset hurricane spending.

Mr. Coburn called such a claim ludicrous and other Republicans took exception as well. :033102luf_1_prv.gif:

"There has never been a time where there is more total spending and more wasteful spending in Washington than we have today," said Pat Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania and the head of the conservative Club for Growth. "There is ample opportunity to find the offsets we need so that this does not have to be a fiscal disaster as well as a natural disaster."

On another front, Republicans and Democrats continued their dispute over how to investigate government failures in the storm response. The House approved a select committee to oversee the inquiry despite Democratic objections that only a special commission outside of Congress could do a credible job.

The House voted 224 to 188 to establish a 20-member panel to work in concert with a similar Senate panel in studying the adequacy of local, state and federal preparations for the storm and why the relief effort was so troubled, stranding thousands in chaotic conditions without sufficient food, water or medical care.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said the special committee was an effort to "whitewash" the inquiry though she later said she would not stand in the way if Democrats want to sit on the panel. In another effort to reduce Democratic opposition, Mr. Hastert on Thursday named Representative Thomas M. Davis III, a sometimes Republican maverick from Virginia, to lead the panel.

As for paying for the recovery, Ms. Pelosi raised the possibility of 50-year bonds tied to the reconstruction.

The conservative Republicans worried about the outlays said the president and Congressional leaders need to ask the public to share in the sacrifice and suggested savings could be easily wrung from federal agencies or in Congress in ways like eliminating pet projects.

"Katrina breaks my heart," said Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana and chairman of a caucus of more than 100 House Republicans who advocate conservative spending policy. "Congress must do everything the American people expect us to do to meet the needs of families and communities affected by Katrina. But we must not let Katrina break the bank for our children and grandchildren."

If the Republicans are for less government - why to the federal budgets keep increasing. The Republicans control the Executive Branch and Congress. Where is all that money going? And on top of that, my combined state and local taxes (more local than state) have doubled because the federal government has reduced spending in my state! We have a Republican governor and most local officials are Republican. :biggrin:

[Yonoz]

my combined state and local taxes (more local than state) have doubled because the federal government has reduced spending in my state! We have a Republican governor and most local officials are Republican. :biggrin:Funny, I always thought the Aborigines in Uluru to be democrats.
Guess that US-Australia trade agreement was quite influential.
:tongue:

[pattylou]

From page 2:


Originally Posted by BobG
We are safer against terrorist threats, but at a cost of being more vulnerable to natural disasters.
2 questions:

1. Can you give me a good reference that shows we are safer from terrorist threats under Bush?

2. Is domestic increase in safety worth increasing the risk of terrorism in other countries? At what point do we start to equate a foreign life with an American life?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5042601623.html


Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.
(incidentally, 2003 was higher than 2002, etc.) I have seen several people address question #1. I have a recollection that in fact studies (rather than opinion polls) say that we are *not* safer than we were, but I have been unable to find them. I'll post them later if I track them down.

But! Question #2 is the more interesting question anyway.. Why is no one (particularly those people that are arguing that we are safer) answering this???

How many foreign lives equate to one American life? If you truly believe it is one to one, then the roughly quintupling in terrorist events over the last four years should present an ethical problem to any focus you might put on domestic terror.

If you believe one American life is worth 10 or 20 foreign lives, then please explain how you reach such a conclusion.

[pattylou]

Posted by Astronuc:"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior House Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration.This puts me in stitches.

[Astronuc]

Funny, I always thought the Aborigines in Uluru to be democrats.
Guess that US-Australia trade agreement was quite influential.
:tongue: Uluru is a spiritual home. I live in the US, at least for now.

I actually prefer to be nomadic, but my wife and kids need stability. :biggrin:I

I consider the whole planet to be my home, and national borders are arbitrary. Unfortunately, too many people like to impose artificial boundaries against others.

[Astronuc]

The conservative Republicans worried about the outlays said the president and Congressional leaders need to ask the public to share in the sacrifice . . . Well I was somewhat amused by the conservatives who want Bush to ask the public 'share in their pain'.

I can't imagine that too many millionaires, particularly Bush, will make much in the way of sacrifice. :rolleyes: I could be wrong though.

"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior House Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration. This puts me in stitches. I had to chuckle at that one, too! :rofl: :rolleyes:

[BobG]

From page 2:

I have seen several people address question #1. I have a recollection that in fact studies (rather than opinion polls) say that we are *not* safer than we were, but I have been unable to find them. I'll post them later if I track them down.

But! Question #2 is the more interesting question anyway.. Why is no one (particularly those people that are arguing that we are safer) answering this???

How many foreign lives equate to one American life? If you truly believe it is one to one, then the roughly quintupling in terrorist events over the last four years should present an ethical problem to any focus you might put on domestic terror.

If you believe one American life is worth 10 or 20 foreign lives, then please explain how you reach such a conclusion.
I'm not sure how question 1 affects question 2. I guess you could say if a 3rd grade bully has a choice of picking on an unarmed 1st grader or a 1st grader carrying a baseball bat, he'll probably choose to pick on the weaker target, but you could hardly expect either 1st grader to intentionally make themselves the weakest, most appealling target.

Obviously, the best option would have been to continue focusing on eliminating international terrorism to the point that it's not a serious threat to any country - the way we did with the Afghanistan invasion to eliminate al-Qaeda's center. But I don't think it's very fair or realistic to expect the US to be able to pursue terrorists internationally at the same time we're fighting a war in Iraq. Maybe Russia could chase them down for awhile - after all, we lured a large number of Chechnyan 'insurgents' into Iraq where they're not bothering Russia anymore.

[kyleb]

The Postmodernism Generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/)
Quite a few forum members should have a look at that.
I'm sorry but is there any chance you could reiterate the intent of writing in something at least vaguely resembling formal English composition? I forced myself to read though it once and started a second time; but the collection of loosely related, mostly two sentence "paragraph" like things, failed miserably in communicating anything of value to me.

[pattylou]

I'm not sure how question 1 affects question 2. I guess you could say if a 3rd grade bully has a choice of picking on an unarmed 1st grader or a 1st grader carrying a baseball bat, he'll probably choose to pick on the weaker target, but you could hardly expect either 1st grader to intentionally make themselves the weakest, most appealling target. I am trying to point out that our actions (aggression) increase terrorism.

If you are concerned *only* with American soil, this may not be a problem. (No one bothers the bully.) If you are concerned with the entire planet (or the entire 3rd grade classroom), then you try to eliminate the fighting all around - you don't allow the kid that is "right" (whatever that means) to continue to beat up the kid that is "wrong."
Obviously, the best option would have been to continue focusing on eliminating international terrorism to the point that it's not a serious threat to any country - the way we did with the Afghanistan invasion to eliminate al-Qaeda's center. I disagree. To me it is obvious that the only way to "eliminate" an enemy is to increase communication with them --- I realize this is pollyannish but as I look at the results of our actions and see increased global terror, I tentatively conclude that terrorism does not respond to aggression the way we would like. Another clue here is that terrorists often claim past grievances as the basis for their actions.

This is somewhat distinct, in terms of basis of aggression, from the types of complaints that spur nations to war; historically they war over resources, or political ideologies.

But this is tangential. I would like to see conservatives place a number on what foreign lives are worth, compared to American lives. Barring that, I would like to see them *not* make the argument that we are safer because of our aggression, as the global incidents are escalating very rapidly.

[kyleb]

The obvious way to eliminating international terrorism is to avoid any future actions which would motivate people to turn to terrorism. Those who have already walked down that path will eventually die off, and without motivation there will be none to take their place.

[BobG]

The obvious way to eliminating international terrorism is to avoid any future actions which would motivate people to turn to terrorism. Those who have already walked down that path will eventually die off, and without motivation there will be none to take their place.
This would basically require an end to change.

The primary beef with Western culture is its infiltration into Middle Eastern countries. The money from oil has been used to buy worthless products like Coca-Cola and Levi jeans. Worse, Western influence isn't just limited to products. It affects the attitude of Middle Easterners - women wanting a different role in Middle Eastern culture than they have traditionally had, for example.

It's hard to convince people that their new ways are corrupt - it alienates the people the fundamentalists are trying to reach. It's more effective to point out bad things Western culture has done that doesn't implicate the Arabs they're trying to convert. Fundamentalists point out the bad effects of European colonization, it's creation of Israel, and the US's continued support for Israel to turn Arabs against Western powers. If the Middle East is at war against all Western countries, then all of the Western influence in the Middle East should disappear, including Western products.

Those opposed to recent cultural changes in the Middle East will eventually die off in any event. Your fundamentalist groups aren't that different from, say, the ranchers that were so glad to have the railroad finally reach the prairies until they realized that the railroad also brought farmers (it may not be much fun herding cattle to market, but cattle can at least walk on their own, something wheat and corn can't do). The range wars ended over a hundred years ago - you'd be hard pressed to find a rancher roaming the range shooting farmers and sabotaging fences today.

[SOS2008]

G.O.P. Split Over Big Plans for Storm Spending
By CARL HULSE (NY Times), Sep 16



If the Republicans are for less government - why to the federal budgets keep increasing. The Republicans control the Executive Branch and Congress. Where is all that money going? And on top of that, my combined state and local taxes (more local than state) have doubled because the federal government has reduced spending in my state! We have a Republican governor and most local officials are Republican. :biggrin:Since the Republicans control both of these branches of government, and are the one's who voted for the invasion of Iraq, the energy bill, highway bill, etc., how can they complain about spending? Oh, I know, it's different when the pork is going to your state and/or getting you reelected, but NOT when it is going elsewhere.

[kyleb]

This would basically require an end to change.
I'm of the opinion that it would only require an end to our subjugation of the people of the Middle East as well as our support for those who subjugate their own. While it is true that many of them have a lack of respect for our culteural values, I do not belive that this in-itself motivates terrorism.

[BobG]

I'm of the opinion that it would only require an end to our subjugation of the people of the Middle East as well as our support for those who subjugate their own. While it is true that many of them have a lack of respect for our culteural values, I do not belive that this in-itself motivates terrorism.
You miss the point. They probably wouldn't care one or the other about our cultural values as long as our values stayed out of the Middle East.

There's more than way for our cultural values to infiltrate the Middle East than political subjugation. Commerce has created a greater influx of Western culture than anything the US or Europe has done politically or militarily.

[BobG]

Since the Republicans control both of these branches of government, and are the one's who voted for the invasion of Iraq, the energy bill, highway bill, etc., how can they complain about spending? Oh, I know, it's different when the pork is going to your state and/or getting you reelected, but NOT when it is going elsewhere.
It's the dawning realization that they rode the wrong horse.

I'm wondering what happens if Iraq becomes a Shi'ite theocracy. Then even the religious right will abandon Bush.

[kyleb]

You miss the point. They probably wouldn't care one or the other about our cultural values as long as our values stayed out of the Middle East.

There's more than way for our cultural values to infiltrate the Middle East than political subjugation. Commerce has created a greater influx of Western culture than anything the US or Europe has done politically or militarily.
Actually you are missing my point; I do not belive that the influx cultural values you previously noted are the root of the hostility.

[pattylou]

It's the dawning realization that they rode the wrong horse. But we told them. When are we allowed to punch them?

[Ivan Seeking]

With disaster costs estimated at $200 billion and beyond, Al Hubbard, director of Bush's National Economic Council, said, "It's coming from the American taxpayer." He acknowledged the costs would swell the deficit projected at $333 billion for the current year before Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1132385

The Cost of War calculator is set to reach $204.6 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005). The Cost of War calculator is occasionally reset based on new information and new allocations of funding.
http://costofwar.com/numbers.html

Note that fighting or preventing terrorism has not been mentioned yet.

[Astronuc]

I heard that the funding for the Iraq war is being done as supplemental bills, so its not part of the budget and therefore it is not counted in the deficit either. :rolleyes:

So the deficit (excluding Katrina) is much larger, and then including Katrina it's even greater.

Robert Reich had a great idea. Reopen the highway bill and strip out the pork. The money has been authorized, but not spent - so basically they can start over and eliminate unnecessary programs to cover Katrina.

[Ivan Seeking]

So just this year, and not counting Katrina, the Rep led government has cost every man, woman, and child, about $1000. ACtually I should say added to our debt since this doesn't count taxes paid.

Weren't we in the Black [annually] under Clinton?

[Astronuc]

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 17 Sep 2005 at 01:16:45 PM GMT is:
$7,964,818,252,945.36 give or take - so each time one looks its greater

The estimated population of the United States is 297,188,609
so each citizen's share of this debt is $26,800.55.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.66 billion per day since September 30, 2004!

Under Clinton, there were some years of surplus. Part of that was due to the inflated stock market - which between 1999-2001 fell by $6 trillion, although since then it has recovered by $ 2-3 trillion. Nevertheless, the represents a significant reduction in future spending.

[Astronuc]

Reading this thread I couldn't help but think of a comment by P.J. O'Rourke and reiterated IIRC by Robert Fulghum.

"Democrats are...the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected to prove it." :biggrin:

More political commentary at - http://www.heartsandminds.org/humor/fundemrep.htm :biggrin:

[pattylou]

Weren't we in the Black [annually] under Clinton?Well, yes, we were. But we can't vote Democrat because they'll raise taxes.

[Skyhunter]

Historically speaking, it's always been a city that did what needs to be done to get the job finished. One thing I learned living there is that, even if there is class and race tension and all that, when it comes down to it, everybody there is a New Yorker. There's a love and a brotherhood there that I've never experienced in any other big city. I don't know that one could say the same about New Orleans.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't NY a very liberal city?

[kyleb]

I wouldn't say "very", the current and previous Mayor are both Republicans.

[Skyhunter]

On the other hand, I rarely see conservatives say anything positive for a Democratic politician,
Not true. I have heard conservatives say wonderful things about Zell Miller.

[Skyhunter]

The Postmodernism Generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/)
Quite a few forum members should have a look at that.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Sounds like someone I know. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kyleb]

Oh, heh, now that I click on the link again and get a new essay it makes much more sense. I suppose I was trying to be too serious before and should have read the fine print at the bottom the first time around. :tongue2:

[loseyourname]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't NY a very liberal city?

Well, as Kyle points out, the last two mayors and the governor are Republicans, although the city has gone democratic in the last several presidential elections by a fairly wide margin. The city certainly has a liberal feel to it, but it also may be the most commercially driven city in the world. They know that business is what has made them great, and that the bulk of their public revenue comes from business - a lot from sales tax, granted, but that is still dependent on retail sales. Giuliani pulled the city out of the squalor it was in during the 80s and 90s by cracking down on crime and making the city one of the most favorable business environments in the country. It was largely Disney that rebuilt and cleaned up Times Square. Even most of their public works projects, like the great bridges and parks they have, were funded by public authorities, which obtain their money largely through user fees rather than taxes. New Yorkers are practical, and being conservative in the right ways resulted in their property values quadrupling over the last 15 years. There is a flip side, of course, as almost no one can afford to live in Manhattan any more. Ultimately, though, I think that if we look at New York under Giuliani and contrast it with the US under Bush, the difference isn't so much that one is conservative and the other isn't. Both are conservative. The difference is that one knows how to lead and implements clear, well thought-out plans of action. I honestly doubt that Bush would be doing any better if he flipped and implemented Kerry's platform.

[BobG]

Katrina hasn't been bad for all Republicans.

Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi, should come out of this looking very good - maybe good enough to push him to a Presidential contender.

Barbour is a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and has very close ties with the Donald Segretti-Lee Atwater-Karl Rove line of political strategists (in fact, Barbour worked directly with both Rove and Atwater in Republican campaign finance). Having Rove's group helping Barbour campaign means McCain and other Republican candidates can expect another very effective 'lowball' campaign in the Republican primaries.

His close ties with Rove and with Bush give him an advantage in getting federal help. Mississippi should wind up with more help in proportion to their losses than New Orleans, where a Republican federal government will be dealing with Democratic politicians they have little sympathy for. That gives Barbour a good opportunity to contrast how well Mississippi recovers from Katrina to how well New Orleans recovers from Katrina. So far, Barbour ranks second to General Honore of the National Guard in opinion polls about how officials have responded to Katrina - his overall popularity has increased 15% while Blanco (Governor of Louisiana) has dropped 9%.

Dirt wise, he had some problems with Hong Kong money being used to finance Republican campaigns while Barbour was Chairman of the Republican National Committee and he was also embarrassed by the Council of Conservative Citizens when, on their website, they posted a picture of him meeting with CCC leaders at a fundraiser conducted by the CCC (the CCC is the legal, non-violent political wing of the KKK). He claimed he didn't know anything about the CCC when he met them and appeared at their barbecue fundraiser. It is understandable the CCC would like having Barbour appear at one of their functions, since his stance on affirmative action and other peripheral racial issues (Mississippi state flag, etc) line up well with the CCC's views.

[Yonoz]

other peripheral racial issues (Mississippi state flag, etcWhat's the issue with the Mississippi State flag?

[faust9]

What's the issue with the Mississippi State flag?

http://www.50states.com/flag/msflag.htm

see the "X" in the upper left? That was the confederate flag---the flag used by the southern states during the civil war. That portion is offensive to a lot of minorities because it represents a time and a system where they were enslaved and the fact that a state---any state---would honor that fight to enslave is offensive.

http://www.paulduncan.org/files/confederate_flag.jpg
http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/ms_flag.htm
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feature2/histconflag.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_flag

[Yonoz]

http://www.50states.com/flag/msflag.htm

see the "X" in the upper left? That was the confederate flag---the flag used by the southern states during the civil war. That portion is offensive to a lot of minorities because it represents a time and a system where they were enslaved and the fact that a state---any state---would honor that fight to enslave is offensive.

http://www.paulduncan.org/files/confederate_flag.jpg
http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/ms_flag.htm
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feature2/histconflag.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_flagRather odd how that hasn't been changed.

[faust9]

Rather odd how that hasn't been changed.

I agree, but old prejudices die hard.

[Yonoz]

I agree, but old prejudices die hard.Do you mean that in the state of Mississippi there is still such strong prejudice? Or is it simply sentiment to that period - do people not feel enough regret?

[selfAdjoint]

Recent statistics show that the percentage of white votes for republicans in southern states has tracked accurately with the size of the black population in each state. For the gulf states with large black populations it's up around 60% but much lower in border states with lower numbers of blacks. This doesn't prove "racism" but it does show that whites tend to have a political preference correlated with their perception of black numbers.

[SOS2008]

Katrina hasn't been bad for all Republicans.

Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi, should come out of this looking very good - maybe good enough to push him to a Presidential contender.

Barbour is a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and has very close ties with the Donald Segretti-Lee Atwater-Karl Rove line of political strategists (in fact, Barbour worked directly with both Rove and Atwater in Republican campaign finance). Having Rove's group helping Barbour campaign means McCain and other Republican candidates can expect another very effective 'lowball' campaign in the Republican primaries.

His close ties with Rove and with Bush give him an advantage in getting federal help. Mississippi should wind up with more help in proportion to their losses than New Orleans, where a Republican federal government will be dealing with Democratic politicians they have little sympathy for. That gives Barbour a good opportunity to contrast how well Mississippi recovers from Katrina to how well New Orleans recovers from Katrina. So far, Barbour ranks second to General Honore of the National Guard in opinion polls about how officials have responded to Katrina - his overall popularity has increased 15% while Blanco (Governor of Louisiana) has dropped 9%.

Dirt wise, he had some problems with Hong Kong money being used to finance Republican campaigns while Barbour was Chairman of the Republican National Committee and he was also embarrassed by the Council of Conservative Citizens when, on their website, they posted a picture of him meeting with CCC leaders at a fundraiser conducted by the CCC (the CCC is the legal, non-violent political wing of the KKK). He claimed he didn't know anything about the CCC when he met them and appeared at their barbecue fundraiser. It is understandable the CCC would like having Barbour appear at one of their functions, since his stance on affirmative action and other peripheral racial issues (Mississippi state flag, etc) line up well with the CCC's views.Bush was an unknown with exception of a well-known name. Grass roots movements have grown tremendously since then to prevent this kind of candidate in the future. Any association with the likes of Rove will be greatly publicized, and dirty politics will be less acceptable to fed-up American citizens. The playing field has changed--maybe even the media will do their jobs (if they don't, the bloggers will?).

Edit: Not to mention ongoing election reform.

[BobG]

Bush was an unknown with exception of a well-known name. Grass roots movements have grown tremendously since then to prevent this kind of candidate in the future. Any association with the likes of Rove will be greatly publicized, and dirty politics will be less acceptable to fed-up American citizens. The playing field has changed--maybe even the media will do their jobs (if they don't, the bloggers will?).

Edit: Not to mention ongoing election reform.
How so? Was there ever a proven direct link between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Vets? How well did the Swift Boat adds go over?

A lot of people say they are fed up with that type of campaigning, but I haven't seen much sign that its effectiveness is diminishing. The idea that it will be less effective in the future is a hope, not a likelihood.

[BobG]

Edit: Not to mention ongoing election reform.
Even that is an ongoing struggle. A significant portion of it was very nearly circumvented: McCain forces Frist retreat (http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/092105/frist.html).

Issues like this hurts Frist much more than something like the HCA stock. McCain is more influential in the Senate than the Republican Majority Leader. Frist loses credibility as a Republican leader nearly every time he comes in conflict with McCain.

[Informal Logic]

How so? Was there ever a proven direct link between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Vets? How well did the Swift Boat adds go over?

A lot of people say they are fed up with that type of campaigning, but I haven't seen much sign that its effectiveness is diminishing. The idea that it will be less effective in the future is a hope, not a likelihood.The lack of WMD was known before the 2004 election, with the 9-11 Commission Report released in August the summer prior. Many thought the lies about the war would hurt Bush's chance for reelection. After the election, polls showed that many Americans still believed the lies, so you are correct.

However, it has made others realize the need to counter propaganda, monitor religious organizations, push for election reforms and investigations, etc. In the meantime, there has been one bungle after another within the Bush regime (Iraq, paid pundits, Terri Schiavo, deficit spending, Katrina) and the GOP (DeLay, Rove, Frist). I don't think people are as complacent now, and opposition has been invigorated (Cindy Sheehan). I do not have an ounce of trust left, and I am already wary about upcoming elections.

[2CentsWorth]

Even that is an ongoing struggle. A significant portion of it was very nearly circumvented: McCain forces Frist retreat (http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/092105/frist.html).

Issues like this hurts Frist much more than something like the HCA stock. McCain is more influential in the Senate than the Republican Majority Leader. Frist loses credibility as a Republican leader nearly every time he comes in conflict with McCain.If the public is made more aware?

These riders attached to bills, or giving themselves a raise in the wee hours of the night, or what DeLay did to siphon funds in his direction... You would think they would be ousted. From the link, here are the names of our trustworthy congressmen:
A spokesman for Senate Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has long opposed campaign-finance regulation and is suspected of masterminding the latest effort to water down fundraising limits, said the provision belonged to Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Bob Bennett (R-Utah). McConnell’s aide referred questions to their offices.

[Astronuc]

Today - Bush avoids Texas and Republican Governor Rick Perry, and sneeks off to Colorado to avoid facing the fiasco of the evacution around Houston.

Hiding out in Colorado, Bush will pretend to be in charge. :biggrin:

Meanwhile, Democrats are trying to get some accounting of the $billions spent by the administration and federal government.

The $400 million allocated to the Corp of Engineers sure didn't help New Orleans.

[russ_watters]

Bush was an unknown with exception of a well-known name. You mean in 2000? Bush was governor of Texas! :confused:

[Astronuc]

I think SOS means nationally, Bush was unknown to the general population. He was well connected through his father's associates, of course.

Meanwhile in Beaumont -

Nearly 1,300 patients were airlifted out of an airport near Beaumont in a rush Thursday night and Friday morning, but only after the county's top official made a panicked call to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson for help. Why does it take a call to a US Senator to get help?

Seems even a state run by a Republican governor can't deal very well with a major hurricane.

And Tom Delay promised a federal response like they did with Katrina. :rofl:

[BobG]

Today - Bush avoids Texas and Republican Governor Rick Perry, and sneeks off to Colorado to avoid facing the fiasco of the evacution around Houston.

Hiding out in Colorado, Bush will pretend to be in charge. :biggrin:

Meanwhile, Democrats are trying to get some accounting of the $billions spent by the administration and federal government.

The $400 million allocated to the Corp of Engineers sure didn't help New Orleans.
His original plans had him going to San Antonio or somewhere closer to the activities. He actually listened for once and went where he could monitor all of the response activities without getting in the way.

Bush is at NORTHCOM's headquarters on Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs. That's where different response activities are being coordinated and actually the best place to get the big picture on the overall relief effort.

It makes more sense than the New Orleans photo op with the firemen. If located in the area of the hurricane, you only get a small slice of the picture, plus the security requirements of having a President on site will disrupt the response.

[SOS2008]

His original plans had him going to San Antonio or somewhere closer to the activities. He actually listened for once and went where he could monitor all of the response activities without getting in the way.

Bush is at NORTHCOM's headquarters on Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs. That's where different response activities are being coordinated and actually the best place to get the big picture on the overall relief effort.

It makes more sense than the New Orleans photo op with the firemen. If located in the area of the hurricane, you only get a small slice of the picture, plus the security requirements of having a President on site will disrupt the response.Certainly better than being on vacation at his ranch.
You mean in 2000? Bush was governor of Texas! :confused:I think SOS means nationally, Bush was unknown to the general population. He was well connected through his father's associates, of course.Yes.

[Astronuc]

BTW - Bush is the essentially the same person he was in 2000, then governor of Texas. Makes one wonder on what basis people voted for him as president? Competence, capability, leadership, foresight? :rolleyes:

[Astronuc]

When Storm Hit, National Guard Was Deluged Too
By SCOTT SHANE and THOM SHANKER, NY Times - Sep 28.

In interviews, Guard commanders and state and local officials in Louisiana said the Guard performed well under the circumstances. But they say it was crippled in the early days by a severe shortage of troops that they blame in part on the deployment to Iraq of 3,200 Louisiana guardsmen. While the Pentagon disputes that Iraq was a factor, those on the ground say the war has clearly strained a force intended to be the nation's bulwark against natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

Reinforcements from other states' National Guard units, slowed by the logistics and red tape involved in summoning troops from civilian jobs and moving them thousands of miles, did not arrive in large numbers until the fourth day after the hurricane passed. The coordinating task was so daunting that Louisiana officials turned to the Pentagon to help organize the appeal for help.

At the convention center, 222 soldiers trained in levee repair, not police work, locked themselves into an exhibit hall at the convention center rather than challenge an angry and desperate crowd of more than 10,000 hurricane victims at the center.

All I can get from Michael Brown's testimony yesterday is :cry: :cry: :cry:
- paraphrasing - "It wasn't my fault. It was the Mayor, it was the Governor - they are both Democrats you know - it was Homeland Security - it was the president. It wasn't me!" :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Ivan Seeking]

A 25 year FEMA veteran, Leo Bosner, talks on Nightline
http://www.afge.org/Documents/2005_09_13NightlineBosner.wmv
From:
http://www.afge.org/index.cfm?page=hurricanekatrina&fuse=document&documentID=961

[SOS2008]

Associated Press
Updated: 3:29 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2005

WASHINGTON - Millions of dollars in federal contracts for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts that were handed out with little or no competition will be rebid to prevent any waste or abuse, FEMA chief R. David Paulison said Thursday.
----------
In the weeks after the storm, more than 80 percent of at least $1.5 billion in FEMA contracts were awarded with little or no competition, or had open-ended or vague terms that previous audits have cited as being highly prone to abuse.Also there is criticism that the contracts went to other states. On the other side of the coin (literally):
The leaders of the Senate Finance Committee told Snow to carry a message back to the White House that they’re frustrated with the administration for fighting their effort to expand Medicaid health benefits for hurricane victims.

“Unfortunately, the White House is working against me behind the scenes, and I resent that considering how I’ve delivered for the White House so much over the last five years,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

“It’s six weeks now. Where is the administration?” asked Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the panel’s top Democrat. “It is slow-walking, it is opposing, it is obfuscating, it is delaying.”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9612060/page/2/