How the Republicans washed out under Katrina

  1. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,521
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. SOS2008

    SOS2008 1,553
    Gold Member

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

    Uh-oh, could Rove find himself out of favor?
    The man has left the Bushies and is heading for 2008!

    What? You think?

    Now that really hurts.
     
  4. LURCH

    LURCH 2,512
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. 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?
     
  7. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    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:
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2005
  8. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    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:
     
  9. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  10. Since he is not one to toot his own horn I guess you missed this "Liberal" and his efforts.

    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.

    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!
     
  11. SOS2008

    SOS2008 1,553
    Gold Member

    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.
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2005
  12. 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:
     
  13. 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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2005
  14. LURCH

    LURCH 2,512
    Science Advisor

    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?
     
  15. SOS2008

    SOS2008 1,553
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  16. 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?
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. 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.
     
  19. LURCH

    LURCH 2,512
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  20. 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".
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2005
  21. 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

    Well thanks for clearing it up for us Mr. Bush. :rolleyes:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?