Possibly not but did he take it terrorism seriously enough before the attack? I agree with the feds not stepping in until asked, however Bush demanding a full take over which the governor refused to sign stalled this process to a degree which I would equate to a Bush f up. Don't get me wrong there are lots of errors on both ends, but to hold Bush blameless on it is just as wrong as those stating Bush has full responsibility. FEMA director with no prior experience, democrat or republican in office doesn't matter anyone should be outraged over that point alone. Full fed take over is a bit different than fed assistance. I'm sure there is more facts on this subject now, haven't realy looked into it much lately. How about another point though, funds being taken from the leavy repair to be sent to Iraq? I think there is plenty of blame to go around, but Bush totally blameless not likely. Not to mention billions going to the war which could have been used to fix the leavy system, or used to help New Orleans and those effected now, which instead is going to take more cuts in education, agriculture and feeding the poor?
From what I heard the original funds for the levies were not used on the levies but you would have to ask LA were it is. Later funding was cut but not after money was "used" for who-knows-what. I think all areas of our governments are full of crooks that siphen the money for their own projects, etc.. I have friends who have worked or do work in government departments who have seen how these things work. Take the schools for an example: If the money alloted for supplies is not fully spent they know they will not be able to get the same for the next budget year, hence, they spend it carelessly even if they had saved tons of money up to the end of the fiscal year. One friend talked about the computer he was told to build to help spend that money in the college. He build a very nice game machine for a professor who didn't need a computer so that computer stayed in the office of my friend for them to play some nice games on. Cost was around 5,000 if I remember correctly. Some of the other cuts I am not educated in, so I won't try to guess at why or how. I also know that in Oregon, instead of cutting the unnessary items when we cut the budget, they went and cut the schools, and elderly programs. WHY? so that it would hurt the most amount of people. Why didn't they cut the pork spending? Cause those who are in charge benefit the most from the PORK. Big fat lazy jerks who could care less about others!
Debunked I actually do agree with most of what you stated above, but who are the big fat lazy people in the case of cutting education, ag, and feeding the poor in this case? From what I've read the current administration are the ones suggesting we do just that. As far as the leavy funding goes I'm sure there was waste, where I live for example they salt the roads in winters much more than they need to. I've heard county workers state that if they don't their funding will be cut. This is common around the country, it does not make it right. It however also does not make it right to cut the funding instead of fixing the actual problem. If that would of taken prosecuting those who took funds away from the project are spent it unwisely and or illegaly that would be fine, but to cut the funding to the degree they did I honestly don't see it as a valid point or the correct thing to do especially after what happened. Cutting the funds doesn't solve the problem, making certain the funds are spent properly may have.
You're right we can't blame anything on Bush.. especially the Levees breaking , It's much more important to spend $10+ billion a month in Iraq than keep our own citizens safe from flooding... and the need less than 1/10th of what bush spending monthly in Iraq!!!! Don't blame bush though, blame the Army Corps for not doing an $11 million job for $3 million. Now that they broke it's going to end up costing us a lot more then the $11 million originally needed to the job right. Go Get Em Cowboy!! http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313
But when someone get $3 million to do something that they spend only $100k on then who did what? I think you are missing the point Yoyo - but I think you are missing it on purpose because you only care about how much you hate bush and not what would solve the problem. So if we send 100 million to fix the levies maybe they will use 10 million to do it?? I wish I knew... no accountability...
Requesting clarification: Just so I know the facts and that I'm reading them correctly. Anyways to the point according to this following link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9618577/page/2/ If the unemployment rate edged up by .2% from 35,000 jobs, I would assume the deployment in Iraq would make a much larger jump than this. Am I reading this incorrectly?
I went to your website Will and I must say that you are one silly mother fucker that lives in a right wing Republican fucking dream world and idiots like you are why America is hated worldwide! Do the world a favor and use that gun control to shoot yourself between the eyes asshole!
I think you're missing the point. If the Army corps needs $11 million to do the job correctly, what the hell is $3 million going to do? If I need 10 pieces of wood to build a bridge and i get 3 pieces of wood, whats the point of using them? I think you're missing the point - the point is to be safe they needed $11 million, bush only wanted to give $3 million why we spend $10 BILLION A MONTH in Iraq that wasn't even neccessary!!!!! THERES YOUR POINT. Nearly 1,000 people died and billions of damage that could have been avoided by fixing the damn levees in the first place. You always try to twist everything to be everyone else's fault but Bush's. Do you not think the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and his adminstration should be held responsible FOR ANYTHING!?
EXACTLY -fix the stinkin damn - still it is currently (according to the media) only being rebuilt to the same as before - Why?? No I don't try to twist anything, that is not who I am. I am a very factually based person. I try to view things from others points of view and also look at the facts. That is why I said what I did. I have a heard time listening to anyone who just flat out hates bush and bases all of their thinking on the hate instead of facts. So if someone comes in to only attack bush it takes away any credibility, just like those who think he had done nothing wrong. If they come in with some ideas for solutions that aren't just repeat ideas of those opinions of media.
If common sense means bush does nothing wrong and is unaccountable for anything negative Just curious but do any of you war supporters, think there has ever been a "bad" war? Do you guys just think that massive use of force is jsut positive all the time. Did you guys see that one general saying that we should expect to be in Iraq for the next 8-10 years? I have been trying to find the quote, I saw the footage, smae meeting where that one general and mcain where having their little sissy fight. So how many years, before tis too many years?
Right fix it after it destroyed everything, and make sure not to blame Bush for not giving the Army Corps the money they needed the first time. I don't "hate" Bush. I didn't have any problem with Bush being elected president the first time. I didn't dislike him until he started making horrible decisions about the economy, start un neccessary wars and hurt the people of america in general.
The Spanish-American War, the Boer War, every war you lose... This does not appear to be unrealistic. How many more years do you believe we will have hurricanes? When can we get done with this annoying "flood" thing? Frankly, I am tired of hunger. Why are we still doing that? How many more years do you think we will have hunger? Disease? Please -- whose idea was that? How many more years will we be doing that? I am completely amused by people who think they are somehow intellectual giants because they came up with the brilliant conclusion that war is bad. Wow! No shit? And rain is wet. Did you know that one too? It doesn't make war, or rain, any less likely. Our choices here are not: 1. War 2. No War Duh, of course we would pick #2. Our choices are: 1. War now, on our terms. 2. War later, on their terms. People who optimize for long-term planning and responsibility choose #1. People who optimize for LOLR (The Line of Least Resistance) choose #2. Be an ant, grasshopper.
Often, I blame George W. Bush for failing to explain the need to go to war properly to the American public. At other times, I am forced to accept that this is an impossible task. Some people you just can't reach. It's like being in a lifeboat with a leak in one end. Half the people want to bail out the boat, the other half say "I don't see a problem. Prove to me that there is a problem. This isn't my issue, the leak is in your end of the boat."
Tell that to Gtech. Can a Bush hack please tell exactly what Bush does get the blame for? You all know damn well if Gore was in office and the same exact things happened it would have all been his fault. To say otherwise is a lie. The typical Republican tactic is to only take responsiblility for the good things that happen and blame Democrats for all the bad things that happen. Just look at the good that happened under Clinton. That wasn't his doing, that was the Republican Congress' succuess. Yet when Reagan was president the Democratic Congress doesn't get the credit. Oh no. The 80's boom was all Reagan's doing. See, that's called a double standard. Spin. Disingenuousness.
Discussion sounds interesting, this one and the Iran one of which Will I will be responding to you but i'm supposed to be going out to the local watering hole in a few.
I see it the other way around. You always try to twist things to make it Bush's fault. No new oil refineries since the mid-70s...Bush's fault. Everything is his fault. Debunked made a correct observation. http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16582 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...46.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true Timelines and information: http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2005/09/who-is-responsible.html Debunked, as to where some of the money may have gone: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/law/news/wdl20041129.html http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...actors_hampered_rescue_efforts_officials_say/