So where is the opposition to Bush anyway ? by GinoBiffaroni

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

In this instance? Dean. Maxine Waters. Landrieu. A couple of others I'm not familiar with. That's about it. Pitiful, ain't it?

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 4:43 AM

LOFWYRR

Quote:
...so the inquiry and blame can come later

In neocon-speak this means never.

Exactly my question. When will the inquiry and blaming take place? In 2-5 years, when the city is rebuilt? How long will the people have to wait for some kind of legitimate response?
The questions the should have been asked about the invasion of Iraq still haven't been asked, let alone answered.

Where are the people protesting in the streets? Why hasn't the President and his administration been called to answer for the lies they've told and the damage they've done?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lofwyrr:
Quote:
...so the inquiry and blame can come later

In neocon-speak this means never.

No, guess not.... the blame game will happpen sooner than that.... and It'll be Bush pointing the finger :

" US President George W Bush says he will lead an investigation into how the Hurricane Katrina disaster was handled. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4220246.stm

I guess the best coverups are when you have the moral authority to investigate yourself.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 6:51 AM

OURMRREYNOLDS

As has already been pointed out, a lot of the LA politicians are Dems. So of COURSE Bush will be leading the inquiry. Wanna hear what he's gonna say? My psychic powers are telling me it wasn't FEMA's fault, or the extra beaurocracy FEMA has to deal with now that they are under the Dept. of Homeland Security. It wasn't Bush's vacation plans. It wasn't the fact that our National Guard is not IN the nation they are supposed to guard... nope. It's the democrat mayors and govenor. In fact, they actually summoned the storm with their wicked voodoo magic, just to make Bush look bad. Another product of the shadowy and cabalistic liberal conspiracy to undermine our simple and honest prez. OK, so I won't expat. I wonder if I'll get sent to Gitmo or shot as a terrorist if I join and anarchist group...

I am planning on growing a big black moustache. I'm a traditionalist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 7:03 AM

Chrisisall detailled in the other thread what he would have liked to see from Bush...

But imagine this fantasy response from a ( lower end ) democrat canidate...

On the same day as the flooding, a relativly low level democrat charters a dozen buses, one of which he personally drives to New Orleans to load up with the sick and injured...

He then lets out a rant about if Bush will not allow the miltary or goverment to help these people the god dammit we will

A) would have been the right thing to do

B) suddenly you have national exposure as the guy who would do what Bush ( couldn't or wouldn't )

This scenario would have been sweet for any opposition withen the Rupublican party as well........

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 7:49 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But imagine this fantasy response from a ( lower end ) democrat canidate...

On the same day as the flooding, a relativly low level democrat charters a dozen buses, one of which he personally drives to New Orleans to load up with the sick and injured...

He then lets out a rant about if Bush will not allow the miltary or goverment to help these people the god dammit we will

A) would have been the right thing to do

B) suddenly you have national exposure as the guy who would do what Bush ( couldn't or wouldn't )

This scenario would have been sweet for any opposition withen the Rupublican party as well........

That would have been nice. Could also have been nice for any relatively unknown potential candidate, regardless of party.

Still having a Democrat actually trying to solve a problem would be a nice change.

Instead we had Democratic politicians, with buses, in New Orleans, choosing not to use them. We had others, appalled by the tragedy trampling each other to reach the nearest camera to blame the President for anything and everything they could.

Take Nancy Pelosi, for example, for whom the first objective after the hurricane hit last Monday was to have an investigation of the President's failure to stop the hurricane followed closely by a desire to end the war in Iraq, after which we could get down to the serious business of putting a liberal on the Supreme Court, and if time permits saving people still in harms way.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 8:35 AM

Since we're sharing fantasies, I had this thought yesterday: the Democratic party has already lost all credibility trying to cling to whatever miserable power the system still grants them; now, the Republican party will lose all credibility with the voting public for backing a criminally negligent administration. Yay for democracy, both parties in our so-called two party system discredited! No more Republicrats! Massive campaign and voting reform across the board! People will start having to run on their policies again!

Well, it's certainly more likely now than it was two weeks ago.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 4:14 PM

I would agree with the arguement that all levels dropped the ball... local, state and Federal...

but now we are trying to say who screwed up the worst right ???

the city showed us how to mess up an evacuation, the states responses had issues as well...

but when a Canadian rescue team from Vancouver, ignoring your FEMA, deploys and is helping people FIVE days before your US Army shows up and that would be a total of eight days after FEMA took command of the situation...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/09/08/louisiana_canada_tha
nks_20050909.html

I'd say the Federal response is really flawed as well...

Maybe the Mexicans can learn yah'all to how its done

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KATRINA_MEXICO?SITE=RIPRJ&S
ECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-09-07-00-26-20

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 4:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Where is the opposition?

Less than half the people are happy with Bush, and more than half are unhappy. Do you see that reflected on radio, TV, or in the news? So 'the opposition', which is really a substantial majority, think of themselves as isolated individuals, lone voices in a wasteland, while the minority, a tissue-thin facade, projects a substantial image.

There ARE voices of protest. But they just don't get coverage. What the majority opposition needs right now is some place for the rage to coalesce past the point of being minimized and hidden. Once that happens, positive feedback will take place and the Bushites will be swept away in the flood.

I've adopted SignyM's signature for now:

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

Remember however, that President Bush used to be a southern US governor and there is tremendous resentment still in the region about the US federal government coming in and overriding the local governments. It may have been a short term improvement to disaster response but it would have had serious long term ramifications. In addition, it would basically send the message that the federal government has no confidence in local governments, especially in the South.

Short term would have meant the world to some.
F**K the ramifications!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 5:35 PM

" Mostly, I think, in that the federal government were overly deferential to local and state officials who were completely overwhelmed. I think in some hindsight President Bush could have been more assertive and taken more authority away from the city and state "

It was my unstanding FEMA had taken command of the relief effort on the Monday ( I may have the timing a little off )

Now, if they had assumed command, turned the red cross, etc away from stepping in... my feeling is they own every call made after that point ( and every call not made )

Even the military deployment from what I have been able to read was questionable, not really what I would expect at all. Sure, one could point at the OiC or the Pentagon... but I believe FEMA issued the military its prioritys, and it seems guard Wal-Mart was more important than sending advance parties forward and sussing out what needed to be done, and how.

Intel, is the key to the success of any operation... Making contact with suviviors, finding out their numbers, condition, requirements, etc... info on routes, what roads are passible, where can you get helicopters in, what structures could be pressed into forward deployment bases or aid stations, or supply points

1. That gives the planners a whole lot to work with

2. By making contact you let people know they are not forgotten... hope

3. People tend to obey the law, when there is some pressence about, but some is alway better than none...

4. Prioritys could have been assigned, who HAS to be pulled out right now, who should just get some supplies and put on the list to be pull out later...

5. Grouping survivors together for better managment and support.

Simple things, but things that for the large part didn't happen... and from what I think I would point the finger at FEMA, and I think enough has been said about the patronage appointments involved there

Both FEMA and your Homeland security are serious lacking the neccesary operational planning ability to make things happen...

Perhaps the solution would be to disband FEMA, take the politics out of it. Start a planning cell in the Pentagon, Domestic Aide to Civil Power Operations or some such. They are tasked to stay in contact with local authoritys, and deploy on their own hook...

the Blame game and hanging those who messed up is one thing ( neccersary, but not the more important )

Its next time that is the primary concern

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 8, 2005 6:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Soldiers at the first checkpoint, in Jefferson Parish, refuse to let us pass, despite our valid press credentials. The young man at the window explains that FEMA has made it clear to them that press is not allowed past their post.

Be double back and head south—some paramedics told us that if we took the West Bank expressway, we’d be able to get in. These paramedics, by the way, had apparently been deputized and were carrying guns.

Our intrepid blogger finds a way into the city, but mainstream TV trucks turn around and go away.

Does anyone find it weird that we don't even have a running tally of the dead? That bodies are not to be shown? According to the above blogger in a radio interview, the workers at a refinery right acrss the road from a mortuary said that refrigerator trucks are coming and going 24/7. I dunno, but the lack of news is weird.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 3:08 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Does anyone find it weird that we don't even have a running tally of the dead? That bodies are not to be shown?

You must not be looking hard for body counts. I found them in the Washington Post and the BBC web site. Here's a link to the Beeb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4228400.stm

I would suggest that bodies are not to be shown out of respect for the dignity of the dead, since that's the way I feel about it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 6:07 AM

BARNSTORMER

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

Remember however, that President Bush used to be a southern US governor and there is tremendous resentment still in the region about the US federal government coming in and overriding the local governments. It may have been a short term improvement to disaster response but it would have had serious long term ramifications. In addition, it would basically send the message that the federal government has no confidence in local governments, especially in the South.

Short term would have meant the world to some.
F**K the ramifications!

Chrisisall

Hmmmmm

If Bush wants the patriot act, which is a temporary measure to fight terrorism, you call that bad. Bad because it infringes on our rights ect, ect, yada yada yada.

If Bush chooses NOT to do the same sort of thing in the case of a hurricane, which was forseen well before it happened, You call that bad to? Bad because he should have said "to hell with their rights, I'll do this even without the approbval of congress" ect, ect, yada yada yada.

What a f*ckin hypocrite you are.
Your worse than that flip floppin pussy Kerry. Nobody could make sense out of what passes for logic in his head either...

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 8:29 AM

Barnstormer,

You're not an unreasonable person, but there's no hypocracy here. The Patriot Act is designed to look like it's protecting us against terrorists, when in actuality it is merely a ploy to increase the government's control of undesirables. You don't agree with that assessment, but I believe Chris does. Katrina, on the other hand, is a real catastrophy that required real action by the federal government. Even you can see that Homeland Security has demostrated vast incompetence to deal with a real desaster on our soil. What if we'd been bombed, would Homeland Security suddenly start working as promised? Homeland Security is a sham, the Patriot Act is a sham. This adminstration has been very busy selling the fantasy of a terrorist ridden world. When you create an agency to fight an illusion, you don't need competent or experienced people running it and you don't have to do anything when these agencies can't do their jobs. You may not agree with any of this, but it doesn't make me a hypocrite. At all.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 8:45 AM

OURMRREYNOLDS

Comparing the Patriot Act and the response to Katrina is apples and oranges. The debate over Katrina boils down to state government and agencies vs. federal govt and agencies... who did what, who's responsible, which aspects of government are in charge etc. The most questionable parts of the Patriot Act is between the federal government and PRIVATE CITIZENS. Also, it could end up being one of those things that is "temporary" until my grandchildren die of old age. The Katrina effort is black and white. Either New Orleans (and other victim cities) are repaired and inhabitable or they ain't. Now try to imagine the classic proof of a negative. Could anyone ever PROVE that the terrorists have been dealt with and we no longer need the "additional security" the Patiot Act is supposed to offer? Even if they did prove it, Bush has already used the argument of "Well that just shows it is working so well that we need to keep it up...". This is how "temporary" becomes de facto permanent.
While I'm on the subject I will reiterate that putting FEMA under the control of the Dept. of Homeland Security was stupid and not needed. FEMA should be a quick reaction agency to render aid in times of sudden disaster. Why put a whole other level of beaurocracy on them? Is it helpful? I seem to recall them doing a pretty damn good job in the past... why are they dropping the ball now?

I am planning on growing a big black moustache. I'm a traditionalist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 8:52 AM

Barnstormer, Hero, Lynch, and Geezer, do you guys really need to expose your vast stupidity so frequently on an open forum? What a pack of clowns you are.

=======================================
Why did FEMA block Wal-Mart shipments of water to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA block fuel shipments to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA cut emergency communication lines from the New Orleans area?
Why wouldn't FEMA let the Red Cross deliver food to the New Orleans area?
Why wouldn't FEMA let the people in downtown New Orleans leave?
Why wouldn't FEMA let others come in to deliver relief supplies or
transportation out from New Orleans?
Why did it take the government 5 days to give a "yes" to airlines who had asked to
ferry refugees out of New Orleans for free, immediately after the storm?

The problem isn't that FEMA botched rescue efforts -- it's that they PREVENTED rescue. They PREVENTED survival. They didn't just "oops!" screw up -- they actually CAUSED death by their actions, not through their lack of action. They have actually slapped sanctions on the city of New Orleans and are slowly finishing off any hold-outs. I wonder how many people will die getting shot for refusing to be removed from their own homes?

The best we could have hoped for from any level of government was the get the hell out of the way, but how can they resist the opportunity to absolutely ruin absolutely everything they touch, and then say "See? We needed more money and power"? Breathtaking.
==================

Please be informed that of the $51.8 billion congress just okayed for relief, $50 billion of it is going to FEMA. I'm not making that up.

At least "Brownie" has now been taken off the case.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 9:15 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Barnstormer, Hero, Lynch, and Geezer, do you guys really need to expose your vast stupidity so frequently on an open forum? What a pack of clowns you are.

=======================================
Why wouldn't FEMA let the Red Cross deliver food to the New Orleans area?

This one, at least, is explained in another thread. It was the state Homeland Security, not FEMA, who asked the Red Cross to stay out of New Orleans proper, because they wanted people to leave for relief centers, not stay in, or worse yet return to, the city.

Gotta go now, my red rubber nose just fell off and rolled under the desk.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 9:41 AM

Ruxton, absolutely, those are the questions that matter. I can't even begin to speculate, however, on a reasonable answer.

I've learned from history that if you want to commit enormous evil, an effective strategy is to do it absolutely blatantly and in the open, because people will make up rationales for your crimes to protect themselves from the realization that true evil is being done in their name. Christopher Hitchens, for instance, has created some very plausible, reasonable, even morally sound (as far as they go) justifications for the war in Iraq. Problem is, they have nothing to do with why we went. It's all wishful thinking.

So, do you have any idea what FEMA was/is up to? What could they possibly mean to achieve?

My only guess is still a little convoluted, but I'll try to put it into some coherent shape here: The War on Terror is a marketing stunt for Bush's style of government. To the extent that they can control information, they can say anything they want and go ahead and do whatever they like anyway. This system has been working very well for them so far. I'd say, even better than they'd hoped. So as long as Bush can keep his smirking and giggling to a minimum in public, these guys can continue celebrating their victory over reality in private.

Then reality hits us right between the eyes and they're still high from 4 years of vitual dominion over the truth, so they don't see it. Just as any drunk would tell you, "they're feeling no pain." But Katrina doesn't just go away. They read in the papers that there really does seem to be some kinda problem down south so they reflexively go into action as if this is part of the Terrorism Show. First control the flow of information and then spin it however they like. Trouble is, it's a lot harder to do on your own soil, with your own people, than on the other side of the globe in a country hardly anyone over here cares about anyway.

Anyway, your thoughts?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 9:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I would suggest that bodies are not to be shown out of respect for the dignity of the dead, since that's the way I feel about it.

Same thing would apply to pictures of tsunami victims or the starved in Africa? Or is "respect" only accorded to something that might be pinned on Bush? (say, like dead US soldiers or Iraqi civilians?)

Quote:
Why wouldn't FEMA let the Red Cross deliver food to the New Orleans area?

This one, at least, is explained in another thread. It was the state Homeland Security, not FEMA, who asked the Red Cross to stay out of New Orleans proper, because they wanted people to leave for relief centers, not stay in, or worse yet return to, the city

And while I frankly think this was unconscionable, you have not explained the FEMA screwups and you probably never will. You argue ONE point (the utility of bottled water- and BTW you're wrong on that) and ignore the big picture. Well, whatever floats your boat, so to speak.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 10:37 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Same thing would apply to pictures of tsunami victims or the starved in Africa? Or is "respect" only accorded to something that might be pinned on Bush? (say, like dead US soldiers or Iraqi civilians?)

I think the tsunami, African, etc. pictures are exploitation as well. I know if I had family on the Gulf Coast I'd sure be upset to find out the status of a loved one by seeing a picture of their body on the nightly news, or spread around the internet.

Quote:
And while I frankly think this was unconscionable, you have not explained the FEMA screwups and you probably never will.

I explained that keeping the Red Cross out of the city was not a FEMA screwup, which was in response to one of Ruxton's questions, since the info was right at hand. I haven't researched the rest yet.

Quote:
You argue ONE point (the utility of bottled water- and BTW you're wrong on that)

Prove it. I've given my arguments and all you say is I'm wrong? Tell me how. The Red Cross in my area is asking for donations of four things: Money, disposible diapers, baby wipes, and bottled water. Oh. I forgot. The Red Cross is probably in the pocket of the bottled water trust.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 10:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Why did FEMA block Wal-Mart shipments of water to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA block fuel shipments to the New Orleans area?
Why did FEMA cut emergency communication lines from the New Orleans area?

These three claims apparently come from a Meet the Press interview with Aaron Broussard, the Jefferson Parish (La) President. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179790/ That's the only source I can find online. Jefferson Parish is south of New Orleans about 10 miles and extends down to the mouth of the river, so it's not really the city proper. I haven't been able to find any other info that either validates or disproves these claims. Anyone have any proof one way or the other?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 1:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The Red Cross does not have water purification systems on-hnad, not do they have the expertise to operate them, so of course they're ging to ask for bottled water. I was talking about the military.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 2:10 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Red Cross does not have water purification systems on-hnad, not do they have the expertise to operate them, so of course they're ging to ask for bottled water. I was talking about the military.

Please don't think they give a shit.

Still doesn't give me any reason to believe centralized water filtration sites (no matter who runs them) within the disaster area, with no means to distribute the water they produece, would be more efficient than bottled water produced and shipped from existing commercial plants.

So why would military water purification units be more effective than bottled water?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 2:55 PM

HKCavalier,

No, I have no ideas what FEMA was trying to achieve. I am afraid that the problem is actually quite simple: too much government combined with massive stupidity. Too many wanted to follow strict protocols because his/her thinking and experience are limited to ordinary events. There was no one on watch, from the top down, who had the brains to figure out that protocols don't mean much when people are dying from lack of water.

I am afraid it's just that simple: massive stupidity at the highest levels.

Yet it may be, as is starting to be touted, that agendas were being served by the failures of FEMA to take action. But I can't imagine whose agendas they might be. Surely those in power don't look good as a result, so it seems like it's not their agenda. We come back to simple but wide-spread stupidity. I suspect we'll see more of it when the next hurricane hits.

(BTW, Cavalier, I envy your quiet demeanor. I lost mine long, long ago, back before Rachel Corrie (sp?) was murdered by the IDF.)

I recommend anyone interested in researching some of the untold or quietly mentioned stories to refer to www.whatreallyhappened.com, and be sure to read the letters section for what others think. These letters have been most revealing during the past 10-11 days.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 3:04 PM

HKCavalier,
Actually, I like your analysis, though it reflects my conclusion of stupidity. Knee-jerk reaction by the administration is to control information, hide the bodies, make press releases like I heard this evening, to the effect that those looking for dead bodies aren't finding many, so the death toll MAY NOT be as bad as expect. (I agree...it'll be a lot worse. I predict at least 50,000 dead along the southern coast.) But as you noted, it's impossible to keep a lid on things here at home, thought they try to keep people out.

Actually, keeping people out now may be a good thing. A doctor friend predicted wide-spread disease will be really bad in the coming weeks, particularly in New Orleans. My personal prediction is full-blown cholera, despite the fact that "we don't have cholera" in this country. But keeping people out of what will become a death pool of disease, and getting survivors out of there even if at gunpoint, may be good to keep them alive until cleanup has killed off the incipient diseases.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 4:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- More effective in certain circumstances, and definitely cheaper. The circumstance would be providing thousands of people with water...for example, a refuge or collection center where you may not be able to evacuate people out in less than several days. They can take the scummiest water and make it potable, and they can do it very quickly and cheaply.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Basically, President Bush was going to get hammered by the hardcore Left no matter what he did in response. Those are the breaks of being the Boss.

It's not a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation except in the area of public relations. Bush is not rendered helpless because a group for whom he has no respect to begin with, will be critical of him. If he'd have acted, lives would have been saved, period.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 9, 2005 6:42 PM

Well, the blame game will roll on...

I think all levels of government will have to take their share, as will your laws and procedures in reguards to crisis situations.

Having so many agencys with different chains of command, different agendas, and different objectives is a recipe for the chaos that happened...

Also having vital calls made by people without any relative background is crazy as well...

In a good system, you can point at one guy and say " he was in charge ", and that guy had the power to make the neccesary calls... and that guy should have earned his position through a career of similar work...

Instead you had people dead and dying while your political system fought to decide who can do what

Nobody willing to take command, only posture

Bullshit

If that doesn't change, if your country doesn't demand that to change... and anything like this happens again...

You'd deserve it

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 1:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hey- lookit HERE!

Quote:
t the request of CNN, a federal judge in Texas Friday night blocked emergency officials in New Orleans from preventing the media from covering the recovery of bodies from Hurricane Katrina.

Attorneys for the network argued that the ban was an unconstitutional prior restraint on news gathering.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison issued a temporary restraining order against a "zero access" policy announced earlier Friday by Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who is...

www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/10/katrina.media/index.html

Finally! After 5 years- some media gumption!

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Apparently you did not read the Federal declaration of disaster, which not only requires FEMA to coordinate state and local response, it also requires FEMA to pay for 75% of the costs and to PROVIDE ASSISTANCE. Since I've linked to this declaration in other posts, I'm not going to link it again. Just go to www.whitehouse.gov to see a copy of the declaration of Federal disaster for LA on Aug 27 (retroactive to Aug 26) and for Mississippi amd Alabama on Aug 28. And by the way, FEAM did a tabletop exercise with State and local officials in 2003. Facts, man! Check your basic facts!

Since the declaration requires coordination by the Feds, where were they BEFORE landfall?? On vacation, apparently!

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:39 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- More effective in certain circumstances, and definitely cheaper. The circumstance would be providing thousands of people with water...for example, a refuge or collection center where you may not be able to evacuate people out in less than several days. They can take the scummiest water and make it potable, and they can do it very quickly and cheaply.

Please don't think they give a shit.

Since you aparently aren't willing to do any research to back up your claims, let me do it for you. Here's a link to descriptions of the military's current water purification systems.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/rowpu.htm

Based on this, only the 600gph and 3000gph units would be practical for rapid deployment, since the 150,000gpd unit takes three days to assemble. There are about 1400 of these units worldwide. http://federalvoice.dscc.dla.mil/federalvoice/030507/weapon.html There probably aren't that many 3000gph units since they attach to larger military formations. So the 600gph would be the workhorse. Note also that production and filter life degrade if using "the scummiest water", which would be the only kind available.

Distribution from a ROWPU is in bulk (hook up a hose and fill your tanker) or in bags (from my experience, these are large (50 gallon or so) rubber bags hanging from a framework with a pushbutton valve at the bottom). Both assume that the follow-on infrastructure is there to further distribute the water to the individual soldier.

So, if units were available and deployable, you'd still have to figure how to get water from tanks or bladders out to the individuals in shelter, some with limited mobility. Lining up with cups to get to a tap just isn't practical.

On the other hand, bottled water can easily be transported by commercial truck or military helicopter, is easy to break down from pallets to cases and individual bottles for disbursement, is portable for the individual, doesn't rely on the operation of a single piece of equipment, and is readily available.

So the only argument left is cost. I fail to see how that should be of overriding concern.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey- lookit HERE!

Quote:
t the request of CNN, a federal judge in Texas Friday night blocked emergency officials in New Orleans from preventing the media from covering the recovery of bodies from Hurricane Katrina.

Attorneys for the network argued that the ban was an unconstitutional prior restraint on news gathering.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison issued a temporary restraining order against a "zero access" policy announced earlier Friday by Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who is...
www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/10/katrina.media/index.html

Finally! After 5 years- some media gumption!

Please don't think they give a shit.

Oh boy! SignyM gets to see pictures of dead people! Bloated bodies all over the internet! Whoopee!

Well, so much for death with dignity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 3:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I care about not repeating unecessary deaths. Appointing three fuckups to the highest positions in FEMA was not a cost-free decision and people will not know the cost unless they see it on TV.

The one lesson that Reagan, Bush and Bush learned from Vietanm was: CONTROL THE MEDIA. IT was those nightly newreels from Vietnam that brought the war home to Americans. That was NOT to be repeated if they were ever to have a happy wartime adventure (Panama, Gulf I, Gulf II) or had a coverup to implement. Nope- our actions were sanitized. Warm fuzzy news all the time. No cost, and no guilt.

OF course, you would rather cover up the problem. If that is what your comfort requires, then don't watch the gory details. Nobody is requiring you to to give a shit and you can join the happy news crowd.

EDITED TO ADD: As far as the water is concerned, cost is not "the" major itme. With bottled water, you need someone to bring the water in, unstack, and distribute it EVERY DAY. Once someone has a bottle they can re-use it, like a canteen. (I do this all the time at home.) So the distribution to the individual is the same problem in both instances, but bottle re-supply is more time-and-labor-intensive. (And then, there are all those empties to consider.) Re-supplying several thousand people sounds like a full-time helicopter job to me. That helicopter and pilot might be better used doing something else, like search and rescue.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 3:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

When you say "If he'd have acted, lives would have been saved", precisely what do you expect President Bush to do? Are you suggesting that President Bush declare Louisiana to be in a state of insurrection? Would you have President Bush just disregard the Constitution and the law?

Where to begin?
Ah, an ad hominem...
Andrew, you dumass!
The presidents have been disregarding 'law' to get things done since we began! If Bush can do as he wants to promote his personal political agenda, I EXPECT AND DEMAND he do the same to SAVE LIVES ALSO!!!
Barnstormer called me a hypocrite, well, I say as long as you're gonna

the law, at least do it for a good reason sometimes!!!!!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 4:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

SignyM.

It was the New Orleans authorities who asked for a ban on pictures of the dead, not Reagan or the Bushes. The Federal involvement was to implement that request. (I know. The locals didn't really care and it's all just part of the grand conspiracy)

A single tractor trailer should be able to carry 60,000lb (about 7500 gal) of bottled water. True, a 600 gph ROWPU could create this in maybe 12 hours, if working to capacity, but then where do you store it until needed? The unit comes with a couple of rubber bladders, but these are 500gal max, based on their size in the photos I've seen. BTW, this assumes that the relief centers would be near enough to water for the ROWPUs to hook up. Not every center is in the middle of the flood. What good is purification equipment if there's no water to purify?

We both know that if the powers that be had sent in ROWPUs you'd be complaining that bottled water was more practical. It's not about the water for you, it's about the blame. Just like it's not about the dignity of the dead, it's just so you can dance around the bodies (metaphorically speaking) and point fingers. I think the word is "monomaniacal".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 4:44 AM

Barbara Bush: It's Good Enough for the Poor

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050906/cm_thenation/120080

Now I'm not one for rolling little old ladies into the bog... but I'd be pulling towards an exception......

Finally, we have discovered the roots of George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism."

ADVERTISEMENT

On the heels of the president's "What, me worry?" response to the death, destruction and dislocation that followed upon Hurricane Katrina comes the news of his mother's Labor Day visit with hurricane evacuees at the Astrodome in Houston.

Commenting on the facilities that have been set up for the evacuees -- cots crammed side-by-side in a huge stadium where the lights never go out and the sound of sobbing children never completely ceases -- former First Lady Barbara Bush concluded that the poor people of New Orleans had lucked out.

"Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them," Mrs. Bush told American Public Media's "Marketplace" program, before returning to her multi-million dollar Houston home.

On the tape of the interview, Mrs. Bush chuckles audibly as she observes just how great things are going for families that are separated from loved ones, people who have been forced to abandon their homes and the only community where they have ever lived, and parents who are explaining to children that their pets, their toys and in some cases their friends may be lost forever. Perhaps the former first lady was amusing herself with the notion that evacuees without bread could eat cake.

At the very least, she was expressing a measure of empathy commensurate with that evidenced by her son during his fly-ins for disaster-zone photo opportunities.

On Friday, when even Republican lawmakers were giving the federal government an "F" for its response to the crisis, President Bush heaped praise on embattled Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown. As thousands of victims of the hurricane continued to plead for food, water, shelter, medical care and a way out of the nightmare to which federal neglect had consigned them, Brown cheerily announced that "people are getting the help they need."

Barbara Bush's son put his arm around the addled FEMA functionary and declared, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Like mother, like son.

Even when a hurricane hits, the apple does not fall far from the tree.

Don't think they give a shit

Their parents obviously don't

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 4:53 AM

More food for that damn bog

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-struggling-with-
katrina,0,4954860.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

" Bush had raised eyebrows on his first trip by, among other things, picking Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. -- instead of the thousands of mostly poor and black storm victims -- as an example of loss. "Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch," Bush said with a laugh from an airplane hangar in Mobile, Ala. "

AJ and company nearly sold me on some of the Feds didn't do it arguements... but then you read stuff like this was said...........

roll'em into the bog

Don't think they give a shit

I'm with Signy and Rue

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

You blame President Bush for not acting but were he to do such a thing you would hold him accountable with impeachment, right? Catch 22

Where to begin again?
Ah, an ad hominem...
Andrew, you dumass!
He has done, is doing, and will do more illegal things. Plausible deniability and such will help him remain impervious. He is above the law, I see this now. Hopes for impeachment are nill. You pro-Bush types have won.

FYI, you and Finn and Jadehand among others made me see it wasn't ALL Bush, and that local dips**ts have earned their place in the Hell of being skinned alive, just like our Prez.

All emotional pissed Buddah Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 9:48 AM

Lynch, you still don't get it. It ain't the LEFT who is hammering Bush, it's left, right, up, down, Repub, Democrat, Independent, green, pink, yellow, whatever party or group one can name.

Do you understand yet that your DRIVEL shows nothing but blind faith in Bush and his gang of thieves, liars, thugs, and general incompetents?

Of course you don't get it. You never will, so take the advice Dr. Ben Marble gave to Cheney.

Also, it was Bush himself who wanted to be dictator, not those who aptly compare him to Hitler (whom his grandfather supported, BTW). Once again you don't have all the facts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 10:19 AM

Lynch, you asshole, you deserve every name everyone here calls you, ten times over. What part of "Bush LIED to start a war in Iraq" do you fail to understand? There are scores of websites that have lists of his lies, and yes, it's illegal for the President to lie, and to commit murder as he has done in Iraq and now in New Orleans.

You are unquestionably a non-thinking toadie for the Bush administration, and I again recommend you be kicked the hell off this forum because of YOUR continued lies.

Take the Ben Marble option again.

If you are not angry with this government -- all of it -- you are asleep.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 10:25 AM

GEEZER, it seems it was at least partly the FEDS who tried to block news coverage of dead recovery:

"U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison issued a temporary restraining order against a "zero access" policy announced earlier Friday by Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who is overseeing the federal relief effort in the city, and Terry Ebbert, the city's homeland security director."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 10:53 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"In today's "Blame Bush First" political environment ANY transgression under the law would likely result in impeachment hearings."

This is so incredibly silly I don't know where to begin.

Constitutionally, who brings impeachment charges? That would be, oh that's right, the House of Representatives. And it is controlled by Democrats? Or impartial, non-partisan folks? Oh, THAT'S right, it's controlled by Republicans and Republican party flaks like Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert, but all very ethically reliable and non-partisan, I can assure you. And the investigation into the Katrina response, surely it is in the hands of an independent party. What's that you say? Bush is investigating himself? Well then, there you have it. For sure he will get to the bottom of things. Don't you agree? And the investigation into the pre-Iraq intelligence that led up to the war. That was done by the Senate, right? Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, it was never finished. The whole second part about the administration's role in skewing the intelligence. But for sure we know enough to have it all figured out.

Yup. I can see all sorts of accountability being brought to bear.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 10, 2005 11:27 AM