Bush should be blamed

[freethefly 6]

He is in charge of this country and under him it is in a handbasket on its way to hell. During his administration the good things that were being done before him have gone downhill. Loss of good paying jobs, health care (lost my health care and I have a terminal illness, I have zero care now thanks to this administration), rising energy cost, a country at war with a country that did not attack us. There is a long and growing list of blunders. All the while him and his cronies have done nothing but pat themselves on the back and have turned this country towards civil unrest. This current crisis with the aftermath of Katrina is just one example of how little they have done to prepare this nation at any level to handle a catastrophe. If they were as quick to help Americans as they were to get into Iraq I would say differantly. Their arrogance is appalling and they should be ashamed of their wastefulness of time and resources. Bush calls for zero tolerance towards looters no matter if it is food or TV sets. Well if they were prepared and quick like they were to wage war in Iraq much of the looting would had been TV sets and not food. The government had dropped the ball terribly on this one and should be held accountable much like the CEO's of failed corporations. Heads should roll and no one at the top should be allowed to pat their own back.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[mnealtx 0]

If there is any blame to be placed for Katrina, it should be placed on the local gov't of New Orleans first, and the state of Louisiana second. Contrary to your belief, it takes a while for FEMA to "spin up" and get moving toward the area.

I'm interested in your claim about the health care, though - how did the President cause you to lose your health care?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

If there is any blame to be placed for Katrina, it should be placed on the local gov't of New Orleans first, and the state of Louisiana second. Contrary to your belief, it takes a while for FEMA to "spin up" and get moving toward the area.

I'm interested in your claim about the health care, though - how did the President cause you to lose your health care?

The Army Corps of Engineers, not the local government, is in charge of NOLA's flood control. Last time I checked the CoE was a Federal operation with a budget from (and cut by) the Feds.

35% of the LA National Guard personnel and much of its equipment is in Iraq, courtesy of GW Bush.

What exactly do we send tax dollars to Washington for, if not to deal with emergencies affecting multiple states.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StevePhelps 0]

Feel better now?

[freethefly 6]

First on healthcare. Medicaid and medicare cuts. The lowering of the poverty level have knocked a huge number off of the list of those in need. When I was on the list I did pay a large amount out of pocket for care and medication. I had to choose between healthcare and food. It is one or the other, can't have both. Now that I have no source of healthcare, the choice is simplified. Treatment for HIV/AIDS is extremely high and the government flatout refuse to help those in need. Part of funding for a lot of people infected came through organizations such as the Ryan White Fund. Being that it is not a faith based group the Bush administration took them off of the list of groups that they will fund. Not many groups on their short list. If you are not christian you are basically out of luck when in need. I can no longer afford to seek treatment and more or less resign myself to just letting the illness run its course. Untill then I will just jump and enjoy life.

You are right about the local gov't in NO also I would add that a small number of local "citizens" are also to blame for what has happened down there. It seems that catastrophes bring out the worst in some people. But I would also add that the people at the top should had seen this coming, the civil unrest. The disorderly conduct of the few has made it a quagmire for the rest who are doing their best with what little they have. Yet much more could had been done beforehand in the way of prepareness. I realize that that sounds like hindsight. But fact is we all know that lightening can strike anywhere at any time and that we all need to be prepared and never let the guard sleep. Lots of blame to be passed around on this one and it should start at the top.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

The Army Corps of Engineers, not the local government, is in charge of NOLA's flood control.

Yep, and the past CoE chief got fired for telling congress the truth about the direct dangers.
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=32144&dcn=todaysnews

I find it vey telling that Bush's first conference call was to Rove, Card, and Bennett; ruthless political operatives whose only job was to get Bush re-elected and to craft an "image" for the Republican Party...
"Ok guys, this is not going to look good, what are we going to do?" Thugs.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If there is any blame to be placed for Katrina, it should be placed on the local gov't of New Orleans first, and the state of Louisiana second. Contrary to your belief, it takes a while for FEMA to "spin up" and get moving toward the area.

I'm interested in your claim about the health care, though - how did the President cause you to lose your health care?

The Army Corps of Engineers, not the local government, is in charge of NOLA's flood control. Last time I checked the CoE was a Federal operation with a budget from (and cut by) the Feds.

35% of the LA National Guard personnel and much of its equipment is in Iraq, courtesy of GW Bush.

What exactly do we send tax dollars to Washington for, if not to deal with emergencies affecting multiple states.

Please explain ACE's role in crisis management, John... we already saw the post about the budget being cut, that's not what we're discussing in this thread...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

First on healthcare. Medicaid and medicare cuts. The lowering of the poverty level have knocked a huge number off of the list of those in need. When I was on the list I did pay a large amount out of pocket for care and medication. I had to choose between healthcare and food. It is one or the other, can't have both. Now that I have no source of healthcare, the choice is simplified. Treatment for HIV/AIDS is extremely high and the government flatout refuse to help those in need. Part of funding for a lot of people infected came through organizations such as the Ryan White Fund. Being that it is not a faith based group the Bush administration took them off of the list of groups that they will fund. Not many groups on their short list. If you are not christian you are basically out of luck when in need. I can no longer afford to seek treatment and more or less resign myself to just letting the illness run its course. Untill then I will just jump and enjoy life.

You are right about the local gov't in NO also I would add that a small number of local "citizens" are also to blame for what has happened down there. It seems that catastrophes bring out the worst in some people. But I would also add that the people at the top should had seen this coming, the civil unrest. The disorderly conduct of the few has made it a quagmire for the rest who are doing their best with what little they have. Yet much more could had been done beforehand in the way of prepareness. I realize that that sounds like hindsight. But fact is we all know that lightening can strike anywhere at any time and that we all need to be prepared and never let the guard sleep. Lots of blame to be passed around on this one and it should start at the top.

Can you point me to where this list is? I'd like to check it out.

It was my understanding that Medicade and Medicare couldn't be cut if you were on it and unable to secure other treatment options, or at least it was that way for my sister - has that changed?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Mike111 0]

good things?

Clinton did nothing - he was a people pleaser.

At least Bush is prepared to act and not sit on his arse - whether his decision were right or wrong, at least he tried to do his job.

CLinton did nothing - when he did, Somalia 1991 went to pot.

Bush might have been wrong, but at least he acted as his role.

If you think that so many people hate bush, why not do a poll and find out exactly?

[billvon 3,096]

>If you think that so many people hate bush, why not do a poll and find out exactly?

From the most recent poll:

-----------
The August 25-28 survey of 1,006 adults with a three percent margin of error found that 53 percent of Americans disapproved of how Bush was handling his job as president.
-----------

This was, of course, before Katrina hit.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

At least Bush is prepared to act and not sit on his arse - whether his decision were right or wrong, at least he tried to do his job.

You are happy with very little, aren´t you?

IMO you don´t elect someone to try to be a president, or to try to do the job of a president.
Have you ever tried, to tie your shoe? i bet you cannot. Either you tie it, or you don´t. Either the president does his job and gets popular aproval or he doesn´t and get sacked.

A bussinesman who tries to run a bussiness and fail put the company in trouble. How many bussiness has bush tried? Do you think that he will have better luck running a country instead of a company?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

good things?

Clinton did nothing - he was a people pleaser.

At least Bush is prepared to act and not sit on his arse - whether his decision were right or wrong, at least he tried to do his job.

CLinton did nothing - when he did, Somalia 1991 went to pot.

Bush might have been wrong, but at least he acted as his role.

If you think that so many people hate bush, why not do a poll and find out exactly?

I never understand the "he may be wrong, but at least he tried" mentality.

Let's say I was in college again. I could TRY to take a master degree physics exam even though I never took physics. And that may get me a better score than the guy who decides not to show up...even if my score is a 15% just for effort. But that is not going to make me pass. There is a CHANCE I could do really great.

But if we are basing things on chance, then I am pretty worried.

And please, would everyone who loves Bush please PLEASE stop comparing him to Clinton? I may not like Bush that much but that does not mean I was a big fan of Clinton either.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Mike111 0]

IMO - agreed totally about you don't try to elect.

But the original post was referring to how things were better before - thast why i refferring to clinton and Bush.

i see your point, but what Bush turns out to be or not to be is only found out after the election.

I think Bush would do very well in a busines, and i think some people do not realise that he is leading in hard times - clinton had it relatively easy in comparison.

So i support Bush, im more towards not on Iraq NOW, because it seems it wasn;t worth strategically and tactically.

But i am content with what he has done, although i don't live in America.

You would probablu have a different of Blair than most people, i dunno, cause most Brits hate him now - im nto affected by Bush action so havea differet viewpoint.

just my o.02- but im happy with Bush overall

[Mike111 0]

Well , at first when elected, noone knew how good or bad he would be - noone does until the leader acts and his results are discussed .

Obviosely in a lot of eyes here, Bush has failed.

But when the original post referred to things being better, that was because Clinton never lead his nation in hard times in comparison with what Bush has to have done.

So if he has failed, then at least he tried to do his job than nto at all.

Wouldn't it also be fair to say that to expect success from a commander is oft en unrealistic - sometimes they are forced to except things that they wouldn't want to.

Assuming everything goes right for that leader is unfair, when for all countries,failure or comprimise is sometimes the option for them - thast badly explained but the message is understandable.

I wonder what thew response would be if Bush had succedded in these "illegal" things? It might be slightly more in favour of him.

And when they say they elected him, well who else was there that could have made a differenceKerry? doubt it.

So Bush was the only real option. So whether he failed, thats all they had, and THEY ELECTED BUSH
and then complain when things go wrong - well don;t elect him then the second time round. They had 5 yrs to decide previosuely whether they liked him and stucked with him.

of course, that doesn;t include those that NEVER elcetced him.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

They had days to prepare for the disaster when they knew a high power storm was headed to an area that has suffered several storms in the last year. They had close to two days to start prep work when they knew they had a 4/5 storm about to hit an area that was not built to withstand that type of storm.

Failure across the board. Mobilization can start before a hurricane.

Homeland Security is a joke when a large portion of National Guard have been shipped off. It's also a joke when they fail to see a possible emergency approaching this country.

Fact is - full force relief support should have been on site within 24 hours.

I'm glad Bush has taken a harsh tone about it - but he put these people in place. You think the Bush family would have learned after Hurricane Andrew.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[windcatcher 0]

now people are blaming BUSH for the HURRICANE?

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[Mike111 0]

Ditto - its ridiculous. Maybe emergency proceedures could have been uptodate but it wasnt hs fault it happaned. Thats nature.

I remember before i asked whether leaders should take the rap for bad things and they go it isn;t the policy anymore.

Well because there were indiviuals who were irresponsible in protecting against floods, then all of a sudden BGush the leader should get the blame when i was told that doesnt happen anymore.


Maybe it could be fair to say that if Bushhad acted in Iraq and there weren't enough resources - but how could see hurricane comnig 1 year ago?

Funny how one a minute he can be blaimed, but the rule is that blaming leaders for others failure isn't done anymore.

[EricTheRed 0]

Republican talking point of the day #2.

It's the mayor of NO that is responsible.

illegible usually

[Newbie 0]

Quote

now people are blaming BUSH for the HURRICANE?

The war in Iraq stopped the flow of the money needed to bolster the levee's which burst. This was not new news. The hurricane is the not reason you are seeing the chaos in New Orleans, it's because the levee's could not contain the water's it produced which IS directly attributable to cuts in federal cut backs.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0831-04.htm

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[lawrocket 3]

All these complaints.

Ask the Brits - it's much worse in the rest of the world. Just about every place else in the world would be jumping for joy if the poverty level was set at $15k per year and there was de minimus health care available.

Jeeezzz....

Quote

You are right about the local gov't in NO also I would add that a small number of local "citizens" are also to blame for what has happened down there. It seems that catastrophes bring out the worst in some people. But I would also add that the people at the top should had seen this coming, the civil unrest. The disorderly conduct of the few has made it a quagmire for the rest who are doing their best with what little they have. Yet much more could had been done beforehand in the way of prepareness. I realize that that sounds like hindsight. But fact is we all know that lightening can strike anywhere at any time and that we all need to be prepared and never let the guard sleep. Lots of blame to be passed around on this one and it should start at the top.

To blame those at the top, you HAVE to go back at least 50 years. Was it coming? Yeah, for a long time!

We all have had circumstances that we should have seen coming and yet did not take the steps to even protect ourselves. For example, I saw the possibility of kids coming my way if I wasn't careful 12 or 13 years ago. And had I had kids (which I didn't, and damned if it wasn't easy to bring one along when I decided I was ready) 10 years ago, it'd be my fault. And I sure as hell shouldn't "Blame Bush" if my WIC forms and welfare do not cover eveything I want.

I really took forward to the day when individuals take care of themselves and their own problems without always looking first to the government to do it for them. Only in extraordinary circumstances, like on the gulf coast right now, should governments be there as a first responder and to be the first line of defense for the common defense.

In that role I've described, the governmentS have failed miserably though the decades.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If there is any blame to be placed for Katrina, it should be placed on the local gov't of New Orleans first, and the state of Louisiana second. Contrary to your belief, it takes a while for FEMA to "spin up" and get moving toward the area.

If I were in the Super/Astro Dome, I'd be taking signatures for a recall right now of the LA leadership. Crying on TV isn't the shining example of effectiveness.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Clinton did nothing - he was a people pleaser.

That's an excellent defense for this GW Bush. You've convinced me -- now I like him.

Quote

At least Bush is prepared to act and not sit on his arse - whether his decision were right or wrong, at least he tried to do his job.

You've got to be kidding me. Bush was on vacation when this hurricane hit.

Please tell me you're joking/being sarcastic.

Yeah right.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Mike111 0]

its not a defence at all, you assume it is.

Oh right so Bush can tell when a hurricane will hit and thus must never take a break?

geez i nevr knew Bush could predict the future!!

no im not being sarcastic. i support Bush and will always do.

Go and try his job, im sure you will see why he might need the odd break or two.

[billvon 3,096]

>geez i nevr knew Bush could predict the future!!

He can't, nor can anyone. But you can plan for the future. Getting a cheap car without airbags, good brakes, windshield wipers or headlights may be a great deal financially. But if you get hurt in a wreck in a rainstorm one night, saying "Hey, I couldn't predict this wreck could ever happen!" comes across as sort of short-sighted.

>Go and try his job, im sure you will see why he might need the odd break or two.

Or 300. He's taken more than 300 days off so far. That's 60 days a year. Now, he's the president, and can take off whenever he likes. Indeed, he enjoyed a relaxing day off on Monday, as New Orleans was being destroyed. To his credit he was back to work on Tuesday.

[kelpdiver 2]

the President is never on vacation. He may not be in the white house, but it's a full time job. Using that number shows an ax to grind.

Besides, it's not like he's ever really on the job, is he? Roll the Michael Moore footage!