Ya whatever. You sound so stupid when you make those kinds of comments. I put the head of Fema in the same places as the mayor and governor. They all seem to be chickens with their heads cut off, but I am not there and don't have all the facts to say which, if not all, are guilty of being idiots and not doing what they should have. Still FEMA is not the 1st responder, but you problably didn't know that. Bush is a man, and I still don't see why people want to point at him, nevermind I do, it is the seaving hatred that causes blindness to only point at one person and his "cronnies" but then again I thought he was the "cronnie"??? Why I answer you posts I don't know, I am assuming you only write stuff to try to make people mad. Sorry you failed. You just sound foolish.
I wasn't trying to make you mad, just made an observation that you are not capable of criticizing anything related to Bush. It seems I made you mad anyway just by mentioning him since your posting doesn't make any sense, were you too mad to formulate your thoughts?
He was reassigned, not fired. Also worthy to note during a string of hurricanes last year, he was in charge and no one quested his abilities then. In fact, he was approved by the Senate, both Democrat and Republican. What you were you saying earlier about the negligence of the Mayor and Governor? I missed it. Don't think anyone ever answered what FEMA's response time is.
I think he summed it up best himself, when asked if he was being made a scapegoat. "By the president, no, by the media, yes."
your right gtech its all the mayor and governers fault, along with stupidity of the people in New Orleans maybe now they will create some sort of federal agency to step in when giant emergencies happen that local governments can't handle what do you think they should call that new agency Gtech ..... maye we can call FEMA salon has this funny montage of fox people frantically tryignt o place blame on the local government its sort of funny http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon.salon/blame_game.mov
Just wanted to post that the story I linked to (which Will decided was 100% propoganda) has been confirmed by several others sources, although the Police didn't say weather shots were fired or not...but the did confirm they turned hundreds of people back at the bridge (a bridge that just so happened to lead into an affluent neighborhood). The NY Times ran an article on it.
This is more than a bit late, but I just saw the funniest video of looting in New Orleans: http://www.evtv1.com/index.asp-itemnum-598 Note: Yes, the advertisement preceeding the amusing video is very annoying.
More good stuff from my mailbox. If you are not familiar with Walter Williams -- you should be. ---------------------------------------------- Is it permissible? By Walter E. Williams Sep 21, 2005 Professor, George Mason University and syndicated columnist. Last week, President Bush promised the nation that the federal government will pay for most of the costs of repairing hurricane-ravaged New Orleans, adding, "There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again." There's no question that New Orleans and her sister Gulf Coast cities have been struck with a major disaster, but should our constitution become a part of the disaster? You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" Let's look at it. In February 1887, President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas, said, "I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." President Cleveland added, "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood." President Cleveland vetoed hundreds of congressional spending measures during his two-term presidency, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." But Cleveland wasn't the only president who failed to see charity as a function of the federal government. In 1854, after vetoing a popular appropriation to assist the mentally ill, President Franklin Pierce said, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, argued Pierce, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." In 1796, Rep. William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying that Congress didn't have a right to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." A couple of years earlier, James Madison, the father of our constitution, irate over a $15,000 congressional appropriation to assist some French refugees, said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Here's my question: Were the nation's founders, and some of their successors, callous and indifferent to human tragedy? Or, were they stupid and couldn't find the passages in the Constitution that authorized spending "on the objects of benevolence"? Some people might say, "Aha! They forgot about the Constitution's general welfare clause!" Here's what _* James Madison said: *_ _* "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was NOT contemplated by its creators." *_ _* Thomas Jefferson explained *_, _* "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." *_ _* In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said*_, _* "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?" *_ Don't get me wrong about this. I'm not being too critical of President Bush or any other politician. There's such a _* broad ignorance or contempt for constitutional principles among the American people *_ that _* any politician who bore truth faith and allegiance to the Constitution would commit political suicide. *_ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2005/09/21/155654.html
so the world is full of heartless shitheads who cares take a poll of country and see which people would perfer billions of their tax dollars spent on Iraq and subsides for energy companies or to help rebuild the gulf, which contains ports vital to our national health I wonder which one people would perfer you guys are so worried about a couple of dollars of your tax money going to something that actually helps people its pathetic, and petty and you know what even funnier will, if your family lived in New Orleans they would be the people stranded on those roof tops by your own admission you were so poor growing up that you couldn't afford food and furniture, that would be your family stuck at some super dome, and you you would vote to leave them there if it cost a nickel of your taxes. its so funny you are outraged by the spending of taxes on disaster relief, yet the government handouts to oil companies, farmers, and million pork barrel projects in that transportation bill doesn't seem to bother you a bit. I don't think I have heard you once object to any other of those ongoing tax suckholes.