News How the Republicans washed out under Katrina

[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 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 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. Maybe the inept handling is a ploy so they can argue for more state autonomy.

I hope this makes sense I need sleep

 

[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.

 

[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.

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 believe 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.

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.