Hey Signym, did ya see this? AP retracts Katrina story on Bush. by AURaptor

You started a whole thread for this?

Bush didn't need to know specifics, breech or over run- can you say FLOOD? This is so not important, only an idiot would even reply to your post.

I mean, uh

Chrisisall

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You started a whole thread for this?

Bush didn't need to know specifics, breech or over run- can you say FLOOD?

No kidding- You are aware, AURaptor, that New Orleans sits below sea level, right? What exactly does that tidbit of information change?
A. Bush was warned one way that NO would flood
vs.
B. Bush was warned a different way that NO was going to flood

Looks like a grasp at straws to defend the indefensible, IMO.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Looks like a grasp at straws to defend the indefensible, IMO.

Actually, what is indefensible is the assumption that there is some kind of criticism of Bush at all, implicit in this. To suggest that Bush should have done something other then call for evacuation based on a warning that was neither descriptive of what actually happened nor particularly convincing the day before said event occurred is to elevate Bush’s expected reaction to the level of divinity.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:18 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You started a whole thread for this?

Bush didn't need to know specifics, breech or over run- can you say FLOOD?

...because if there's one thing a president can do, it's control the weather.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:48 AM

The AP is run by the govt, and in case everyone is a blind sheep, which saeemingly they are, and missed this not at all subtle fact, is increasingly under the arm of the executive. Actually, it's little more than a state-run propoganda machine. This is not a political statement, but an objective one of pretty obvious fact. The fact that sometimes it criticizes Bush is not surprising, since America is sill a free country. Even Tass sometimes criticized it's govt, as has Xinhua done. In American, even members of the executive have critized the executive. But boggles the mind is that there are voters who refuse to do so.

Bush's handling of Katrina was deplorable. Beyond horrid. Not only did he totally fail to respond in any way which would at all help the people, he spent the time arranging profiteering rings. If someone doesn't see this, they're really not paying any attention at all.

This isn't a partisan issue. For some reason the Busheep seem to be offended by the left placing all the blame on the feds, and yet want to do the same to state and local officials.

But state and local officials were doing the exact same thing as Bush, ie. profiteering, ignoring the pights of the people, etc. Particularly I think they are siezing on the opportunity to make use of Kelo. Whether Ray Nagin is more corrupt than Bush, which I would probably say, sure, he is, but that's really not the point. That's like saying Michael Moore is fatter than Rush Limbaugh, as an attempt to imply that Rush is thin. They both need a little distance between themselves and donuts.

The harsh reality is we've lost utter control of our government. Bush is a disaster, totally corrupt and truly devoid of merit. The only way in which he's really a worse disaster than Clinton is that he fails to cover it up, and so it's in the open for all to see. Clinton had a habit of doing more or less exactly what Bush is getting in trouble for, and getting away with it. For instance, no one has pointed out in this whole Dubai port deal that Clinton sold the ports in the first place.

Contrary to what some of you guys probably think, I used to support this guy. In the beginning I thought he was going to be like his father. But he's not. He's Clinton. Even if he were to be solidly conservative, if he were this corrupt, I'd still have a problem with. But what we've got here is a perpetual run of candidates and elected officials who are somewhere between Marie Antoinette and Czar Nicholas.

What I see when I look at these posts is Merry and Pippin arguing about which Orc captors they like more.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:50 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To suggest that Bush should have done something other then call for evacuation based on a warning that was neither descriptive of what actually happened nor particularly convincing the day before said event occurred is to elevate Bush’s expected reaction to the level of divinity.

Can't explain color to blind people, Finn. In their eyes, Bush is at fault for all of the accumulative wrongs of mankind.

Everyone involved in emergency management knows that responsibility begins with local responders, then state, and lastly the federal government. Although, that could be repeated ad naseum, and still they will fault Bush.

In my opinion, the main fault lies with the idiots (local residents) who didn't evacuate when they KNEW that the city was below sea level and a major hurricane was enroute. The local municipalities were responsible for evacuating anyone who didn't have the means to leave on their own -- and they (the local authorities) failed miserably in that respect.

The federal government could not force people to leave their homes or fix a levee system in the hours (or days) before the hurricane hit. The federal government recommended evacuation, which the local authorities did not properly enforce or enable.

If I built my home on the side of an active volcano, it would not be the government's fault if my home was subsequently destroyed by that volcano. I cannot fathom the mindset of people who intentionally build/live in a city below sea level in an historically active hurricane zone, then willingly ignore evacuation orders when a category 5 hurricane is predicted to make landfall there.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:07 AM

Quote:
Can't explain color to blind people, Finn.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm really here.

After I just indicated that this was the most sheepish thing someone could now post, you do it anyway. Sorry, but B-a-a-a-a.

I'm sure I could dig up countless places where Bush said he was goung to federalize first responders, in fact that he had already done so was pretty much his whole reelection platform.

Quote:
In my opinion, the main fault lies with the idiots (local residents) who didn't evacuate when they KNEW that the city was below sea level and a major hurricane was enroute.

I'm beginning to think I was wrong about you. You might be an idiot. Yes, they were so dumb as to be poor and not have cars. Some were dumb enough to get caught in traffic or turned back by police. How stupid can people be, don't they know when people point guns at you and threaten to open fire that the thing to do is run at them unarmed and hope for the best? I can't understand why they didn't do that. Oh, but then they'd get shot and die. Hmm, maybe black people aren't as dumb as you say.

Quote:
The local municipalities were responsible for evacuating anyone who didn't have the means to leave on their own

Oh really? Shucks. (Really not disagreeing with you here)

Quote:
-- and they (the local authorities) failed miserably in this.

Oh really? Shucks. Well, that's it. I guess Nagin is a corrupt corporate tool, and well, they elected him, or most of them, and so, oh well, I guess everyone dies. I mean, after all, it's not like we have a federal response team, or a dept of homeland security.

Quote:
The federal government could not force people to leave their homes or fix a levee system in the hours (or days) before the hurricane hit. The federal government recommended evacuation, which the local authorities did not properly enforce or enable.

Apparantly not. Apparantly it couldn't do anything at all. Pretty sucky federal govt. huh?

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:25 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You started a whole thread for this?

Bush didn't need to know specifics, breech or over run- can you say FLOOD? This is so not important, only an idiot would even reply to your post.

I mean, uh

Chrisisall

The 2 things are not as similar as you'd like for us to believe. The AP corrected itself for a reason. Try to keep up and pay attention.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The AP is run by the govt, and in case everyone is a blind sheep, which saeemingly they are, and missed this not at all subtle fact, is increasingly under the arm of the executive. Actually, it's little more than a state-run propoganda machine. This is not a political statement, but an objective one of pretty obvious fact.

The AP is a nonprofit organization cooperatively own by US newspaper and television news networks. As far as I know not a single person who sits on the AP board of directors is a member of the government, but the AP is not run or owned by the government or any member of, and furthermore the AP enjoys the benefits of the Free Press clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution just like every other legitimate news organization in the United States. [1] [2]

[1] http://www.ap.org/pages/about/faq.html#2
[2] http://www.ap.org/pages/about/about.html

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:29 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
AP FRIDAY NIGHT CLARIFICATION ON BUSH/KATRINA VIDEO
Fri Mar 03 2006 19:48:29 ET

Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches.

You'll note that the release was Friday NIGHT, which is typically the time releases are made to ensure the least amount of attention in the news cycle. Still frustrated at all those Bush apologist now ? I suppose you'll have to inclued the AP itself now along w/ the rest of us kool-aid drinkers.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Good God, how old ARE you?

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:41 AM

HAYWARD79

"The AP is run by the govt, and in case everyone is a blind sheep, which saeemingly they are, and missed this not at all subtle fact, is increasingly under the arm of the executive. Actually, it's little more than a state-run propoganda machine. This is not a political statement, but an objective one of pretty obvious fact"

Dreamtrove, you always seem to make very broad, sweeping assertions without ever actually backing anything up with direct evidence or facts. This is not a very effective method of getting your point across or swaying anyone's viewpoints, and as such everyone you speak to is less likely to accord you any real measure of intellectual respect. You also really need to stop spewing out standard rhetoric. Everything you say seems to follow a VERY predictable formula. Honestly, I think you've lost any sense of objectivity or neutral analytical reasoning. Ironically, this is the same sort of thinking you continually condemn in your rants. Time to take a serious look in the mirror.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Can't explain color to blind people, Finn. In their eyes, Bush is at fault for all of the accumulative wrongs of mankind.

I certainly think that there is more then enough criticism to go around. I don’t think the events following Katrina were handled as well as they could have been and should have been, by any branches of the government; though I don’t think that was a result of gross negligence or malice for the most part. I think that the Katrina incident was such a huge catastrophe that it stressed the limits of what our national emergency response apparatus can achieve. We need to take the lessons of Katrina and, if possible, find out a way in which we can quickly and effectively respond to massive catastrophes in real time. If a nuclear terrorist attack occurs in a major city, it could be orders of magnitude worse then Katrina. So it behooves us as a nation to come together and try to figure out, NOT who is to blame, but rather what we can do better next time.

However, I do agree with you that some of the anti-Bush crowd do seem to blindly follow an ideology of Bush hating more then any kind of constructive criticism. Their whole Bush-Cheney perspective, if it can be called that, is one big ad hominem.

And I also agree with you that the first responders must be the local government. You can’t rely on the federal government to respond as quickly as the local governments can. The local government is on the scene; they are there when it occurs and, assuming they continue to be there, they must act with rapid and competent first response. I’m not saying this to criticize the New Orleans and Louisiana government, but I think that the first change we need to make is in this philosophy to rely on the federal government for first response. The US is just not set up that way.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

However, I do agree with you that some of the anti-Bush crowd do seem to blindly follow an ideology of Bush hating more then any kind of constructive criticism.

The problem- as usual Finn- is that neither Bush nor his supporters ever take any criticism; they just call it an "attack" or say that the person criticizing "hates Bush," basically sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALALA." Just like you all are doing now. I'll elaborate:

1.

Quote:
You can’t rely on the federal government to respond as quickly as the local governments can.

and

2.

Quote:
with rapid and competent first response. I’m not saying this to criticize the New Orleans and Louisiana government,

and the doozy,

3.

Quote:
but I think that the first change we need to make is in this philosophy to rely on the federal government for first response.

1. No one expected the Feds to be the first responders, so stop acting like that's the argument. It isn't.

2. Yes, you are saying it to criticize the local and state gov't; anyone who prefaces something with "now, I'm not saying this to..." is doing exactly that. It's a deflection, nothing more, nothing less. You're calling attention to something unrelated to the larger issue in order to make your "team" look better. Anyone that has your so-called "constructive criticism" in mind is shunted off by that, as you try and pin the blame on the donkey instead of seeing what went wrong on the Fed level. Did the locals screw up? Yes, but a hurricane hitting NOLA like that is something above and beyond what even the best local response can handle - that's why we HAVE a federal response in the first place, and the feds screwed the pooch.

3. THEN, after your failed attempt at deflection, you ignore the fact that the gov't sat on their hands after it was declared a disaster (which was even BEFORE the damn thing hit in the first place); were warned the levees would OVERFLOW (happy, AURaptor? Finn?) then acted surprised when NOLA flooded; sat on their hands during, relying on the paper for info about where refugees were and conditions(remember that quote? I can't remember if that one was Chertoff or Browne); Bush played guitar in Cali and had cake with McCain then did a flyover after a few days, another of his little vacations, instead of being down on the ground where he should have been; then, they mismanaged the supplies getting in to NO (ice trucks anyone?), and have since mismanaged recovery relief (housing and monetary dispersement).

Seriously, explain to me how the Feds should be completely absolved of any wrongdoing in this, because as we all know, it was entirely the locals' fault. No one is blaming Bush for the weather, we're blaming Bush for the half-assed government response.

I'll bold this, Finn, so you get the full thrust of the point I'm making. The role of the federal government is partly to handle problems too large for the state and local governments to handle. When the federal government screws that up, there's a serious problem, and the buck stops with the man in charge.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
1. No one expected the Feds to be the first responders, so stop acting like that's the argument. It isn't.

I think that a lot of people do, including you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Yes, but a hurricane hitting NOLA like that is something above and beyond what even the best local response can handle - that's why we HAVE a federal response in the first place, and the feds screwed the pooch.

But I thought you just said that no one expected the Federal government to be the first responders? Now you’re saying that the federal government should be the first responder when the local governments can’t handle the problem? First of all, if the local governments can't handle it, what makes you think the federal government can? The federal government is just another government, just further away. To say that the state and local government is absolved of responsibility because the federal government should have come in to manage a crisis that was beyond the scope of the local government is to not only demand that the federal government be the first responder, but to assign impossible expectations on the federal government.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Seriously, explain to me how the Feds should be completely absolved of any wrongdoing in this, because as we all know, it was entirely the locals' fault. No one is blaming Bush for the weather, we're blaming Bush for the half-assed government response.

When did I say they should be completely absolved of any wrongdoing. Show me where I said that? What I actually said was that there was more then enough criticism to go around.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I'll bold this, Finn, so you get the full thrust of the point I'm making. The role of the federal government is partly to handle problems too large for the state and local governments to handle. When the federal government screws that up, there's a serious problem, and the buck stops with the man in charge.

And President Bush said exactly that the buck stops with him. He took responsibility as he should as the head of the government. But that’s meaningless. That gets us no where, except right back where we started, with you claiming that the federal government should be the first responder, when they clearly cannot do that. What about the events during Katrina makes you think that they can? Our system of government is a federal republic, and it is designed that way so that the local government is on the scene and not a thousand miles away in Washington, DC. Are you actually suggesting that we should have a temporary change of governance right in the middle of a major disaster? You’ll spend half your time changing over jurisdiction when you should have people out there dealing with the crisis. This is exactly what I’m saying we need to change.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 2:06 PM

Hayward,

Not really out to convert anyone, just sounding off.
Just ignorant savage me.

Finn,

My sister worked for the AP. It seemed pretty much an integral part of Capital Hill to her. Even if I didn't know that, anyone reading the result could see that it was just by reading it. Besides, it's common sense. An institution that close to people on the Hill are not going to tick them off. It would be a dumb thing for them to do. You're never going to see the AP with an all out assault on the executive.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 2:19 PM

Quote:
However, I do agree with you that some of the anti-Bush crowd do seem to blindly follow an ideology of Bush hating more then any kind of constructive criticism. Their whole Bush-Cheney perspective, if it can be called that, is one big ad hominem.

As a hater of Bush, well I agree that the left has this virile unnatural hatred of the right based on nothing but lefties talking to lefties and repeating lies such as 'the nazis were a right wing party' or 'empires are right-wing' or 'wars are a right-wing thing' to one another and then never talking to an actual conservative - Bush hating is something else.

If I loved Bush today, I would still hate him tomorrow because of something else he would do. About Bush. Pretty much ideologically, his administration is Trotsky-inspired, and the fact that Blair just admitted his was, and there's almost no discernable difference between the two, I think that supports my argument. I agree with you on Alito and Roberts being good choices for the bench, but they were the choices of Arlen Specter and the members of the Senate Judiciary. Bush made it known that his own choices were Miers and Gonzalez, who would have been disasters. Fortunately neither ever came to a vote. Just because Bush is a disaster doesn't mean the Senate GOP is. But just because the Senate GOP does its job doesn't mean that Bush isn't a disaster.

I'm really daily forced to re-examine the situation, as every new disaster unfolds. Stalwart Bush supporting isn't stalwart at all, because Bush is not a stationary position but a rapid trip over a waterfall. Whether or not Bush is better than a democrat isn't really the point.

I mean, sure, objectively, he's still batter than Kerry, but again, that's like thinner than Michael Moore. I feel confident now that he's not better Feingold, I'm not certain that he's better than Dean, even though there's a possibility Dean is an idiot. I guess, it's theoretically possible to have a better democrat. Maybe.

But as republicans, we can do a lot better than Bush, which is sort of the point. We control the entire govt., as a party, and thus we are guaranteed to pick the replacement. That position is put into jeopardy by the constant disaster known as Bush. Bush is so amazingly unpopular 66:34 that he is going to cause democratic party upsets in '06. I'm actually suspicious enough to think he might do it intentionally, the way he undermined Pirro to support Hillary. (Someone today just told me again about page-10-gate as if it was a 'boy that woman has no business running for public office' wow-the media does spin.)

Or it could just be incompetence, but anyway, assuming there's more Bush fumbles, and democrats win big in '06, we could get a democratic SotH who the democrats would then try to make president by impeaching Bush. Given that only 34% of the people support Bush, and that feeling in the Senate is far more hostile towards Bush, and growing daily, it's either get rid of him today for Hastert or someone of the GOP's choosing, or face the possibility of president Pelosi.

Okay, that last was too far. If democrats had backbones, they could easily make it happen, but they don't. They're fish. Instead they'll do nothing and hold out for President Hillary. And oh yeah, win. Not because she's popular, but because the system is seriously I've been trying to reel in these rants. I guess my point is Bush-hating is not a position of ideologic irrationality. It's a pragmatic one based on everything he does every day. Or Cheney does, since Bush himself does nothing. Which is preferable. For some people sure. I tend to identify these people by their use of the word "Republican" in certain contexts to me "all that is evil and wrong." Okay, sometimes I use democrat that way, but I try to bring up good democrats when I can. There are others, Leahy, Durbin, Dodd, who I should bring up more. But anyway, some democrats take the position of "But McCain is okay" thus showing that they don't view us as the enemy, just Bush.

I guess, if I want to make a final point about Bush, which I may have said before, Bush was put into office by the former 'social democrats' a socialist-leaning wing of the democratic party, he appointed more democrats to office than any other republican president, and quite frankly, if Bush had been elected on a democratic ticket, no one in America would look at him and say "Wow, by that guy's policies, I would have thought he was a republican." No, everyone would say "F^&king democrats."

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 2:27 PM

7%,

I don't think you're being fair to Finn. I dont think, correct me if I'm wrong, that he's one prepared to follow Bush over a cliff when the point comes. I think he just thinks of him as better than the competition.

To which I agree, for what it's worth, Bush is better than the competition. As long as that competition is Hillary Clinton or John Kerry or someone from the Clinton camp. While I believe Bush is someone from the Clinton camp, he's a Clinton who has to occasionally bow to republicans (as with the supreme court nominees, or on torture, etc.) rather than a Clinton who has to bow to democrats (very few of whom took Bill Clinton to task for committing genocide against the people of Iraq, and croatia or preventing it against the people og Rwanda/Burundi/Congo.)

But I still think Bush isn't up to a level I consider acceptable, by any means, and is not better than the competition from within his own party. An overthrow of Bush/Cheney in favor of McCain or Hastert would be most welcome from my point of view.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 5:11 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Good God, how old ARE you?

Not only is my age irrelevent to the point, I see that you don't even address the facts. How old are YOU?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 5:23 PM

My guess is Auraptor is 45 and works for a defense contractor. But I'm just guessing.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We need to take the lessons of Katrina and, if possible, find out a way in which we can quickly and effectively respond to massive catastrophes in real time. If a nuclear terrorist attack occurs in a major city, it could be orders of magnitude worse then Katrina. So it behooves us as a nation to come together and try to figure out, NOT who is to blame, but rather what we can do better next time.

I agree wholeheartedly, Finn.
But I'd still like everyone from top to bottom lose their jobs for Katrina's mishandeling.
And for the record, if it was Kerry or even Nader in office, I'd say the same.
We have a bunch of self-satisfied lame dorks running things, all happy to see others do their jobs for them.

I, with as little experience as I have at emergency management, would have done better.
So would you.

We should be in command, I say.

*Dreams...*

Finn:
Send in Chrisisall to set up the evacuation!

Chrisisall:
Uh...okay.

AURaptor:
I'll handle the looters!

SignyM:
I'll check on emergency aid.

Dreamtrove:
I'll kick FEMA into gear.

Seven%:
I'll make sure the Govener doesn't weasle out of declaring martial law...

Finn:
All right people, let's move like we got a purpose! Lives are at stake!

Hero:
Yeah, there's lots of inevitable lawsuits to handle!

Bush:
Good. Now I can play golf in peace.
Ride, my white knights, RIDE!

SignyM:
If I didn't know better, I'd think he didn't give a shit...

AURaptor:
He cares, he just has a hard time showing it.

Cartoon:
I'll do a pro-Bush press release.

Waking Chrisisall

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think that a lot of people do, including you.

I don't, or I wouldn't have posted it. First responders are police, trauma teams, and firemen.

Quote:
But I thought you just said that no one expected the Federal government to be the first responders? Now you’re saying that the federal government should be the first responder when the local governments can’t handle the problem?

What part of "they aren't first responders" is confusing you? Is it the part where I said, "they aren't first responders?" They should, however, be on the scene at the same time or shortly after, when called in advance of a major problem.

Quote:
First of all, if the local governments can't handle it, what makes you think the federal government can?

Oh, I dunno, how about a national guard, massive resources, and the abililty to bring in equipment from around the nation? I mean, are you kidding, trolling, or what? How can you even make the statement that the local level has more resources than the feds? Because, really, NOLA should have had its own troops, billions of dollars, and thousands of trucks for ice, right?

Quote:
is to not only demand that the federal government be the first responder, but to assign impossible expectations on the federal government.

That's why we have it, AGAIN, to do the things the locals cannot. What is an impossible expectation? Getting ice trucks there? Knowing where personnel and civilian centers were located? Bringing in the guard? Having Bush on the scene instead of at a fundraiser? Show me, where was anything they did impossible? You're accusing me of being a bush-hater, but again are unwilling to accept that your GOP controlled crisis handlers messed up. And yes, the state and locals did too, but there's only so much they can do.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 8:26 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wow. I go away for a real-life day of being sick and look what I find!

Auraptor, you're right- Nobody told Bush explicitly that the levees might fail. The more excuses I read about this, the more I realize that you're describing a mental midget that can't add one (Category 5 huuricane) plus one (city below sea level) to equal an effective response. Apparently, all he's fit for is signing a piece of paper and going on vacation. So keep making excuses for him, it's increadibly funny, in a sad sort of way (Sad little king of a sad little hill

)

And for those say that NOLA should have been able to handle this on their own... You really don't think that. I KNOW you don't think that. You've convinced yourself by repetition that it MUST be true, but you also know it's impossible. It would be the same as expecting a single state to defend against an international attack- say, expecting Hawaii to successfully defend against Japan. Somewhere along the way, you went off the "common sense" rails.

And six month later, the Federal government is as successful at nation-building in NOLA as it is in Iraq. And, I might add, the "free market" system is following right behind.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

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

Saturday, March 4, 2006 8:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Chrisisall: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
gasp!

The sad truth is that Federal money is being pulled from first responders (fire fighters, police, hospital emergency personnel etc.) and being shoved into anthrax detection. (BTW I find it interesting that the programs that are furthest advanced are related to anthrax. Recall the anthrax letters... the presence of an anthrax detection program tells me that they REALLY don't know who mailed those letters...)

You can never keep a city 100% safe. The two worst terrorist attacks on American soil were low-tech. It would take an intolerable level of everyday intrusion in order to monitor for/ prevent that kind of attack.

What you CAN do is ensure a robust and well-trained response. Just getting all of the first-reponder agencies on the same emergency frequency and setting up flexible communication systems would be a giant useful step in ANY emergency situation. But we haven't gotten there YET.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:05 AM

CITIZEN

Chris:
You forgot me, I could of offered British Aid and been turned down...

*Resumes lurking*

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Chris:
I could of offered British Aid and been turned down...

LOL!!
That's great.
Sorry I left ya out, I had literally 4 minutes to post that...
Just trying to unite us a little; no one here likes to fight..
*starts choking on his Pepsi*
Well anyway, I don't..
*continues choking on his Pepsi*

Chrisisall, a Warrior, YEAH, RIGHT!

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
What part of "they aren't first responders" is confusing you? Is it the part where I said, "they aren't first responders?" They should, however, be on the scene at the same time or shortly after, when called in advance of a major problem.

That might work for most hurricanes and some earthquakes, but my professional expert opinion for all its worth is that it will not work if an adversary wants to detonate a nuclear device in an American city since most such terrorists will not be so courteous as to offer advanced warning. Any scenario that relies on the federal government to be the first or even a co-first responder in the advent of a major catastrophe is risking failure. Under even the best circumstance the federal government might not be on the scene until, resources are mobilized and reallocated, possibly from as far away as the other side of the country, and an operating picture has been developed. You can expect that to take between 24 and 48 hours after the event even under the best of circumstances; it might be quicker, but it’s reckless to count on it. I don’t think that what I’m saying is that controversial, but I also don’t think you really care, so I’m just going to shut up now.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
My sister worked for the AP. It seemed pretty much an integral part of Capital Hill to her. Even if I didn't know that, anyone reading the result could see that it was just by reading it. Besides, it's common sense. An institution that close to people on the Hill are not going to tick them off. It would be a dumb thing for them to do. You're never going to see the AP with an all out assault on the executive.

With all due respect to your sister and your confidence in her is admirable, but I don’t think that going on an all out assault on the executive or anything else is a criterion for impartiality.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I don't think you're being fair to Finn. I dont think, correct me if I'm wrong, that he's one prepared to follow Bush over a cliff when the point comes. I think he just thinks of him as better than the competition.

Well, I doubt I’d follow anyone over a cliff, at least without appropriate safety equipment and a method of traversing the descent.

I’ve never been a 100% behind Bush or any political figure, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I think he’s a bad guy or that I don’t support him as President; it just means I haven’t always agree with him on everything, and I don’t think the issues are that black and white. And whether he’s better then the competition depends a lot of on the competition, but in this last election, I think this country made the right decision between Bush and Kerry.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Chris:
You forgot me, I could of offered British Aid and been turned down...

As the apparent de facto leader of Chris’ fictional government, I can assure you that British aid will be appreciated and willingly accepted. As a firm believer in Churchill’s Anglo-American alliance, if any of my staff turns you down, I might have to hammer on some people.

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 7:23 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As the apparent de facto leader of Chris’ fictional government, I can assure you that British aid will be appreciated and willingly accepted. As a firm believer in Churchill’s Anglo-American alliance, if any of my staff turns you down, I might have to hammer on some people.

Good too know. Just give us plenty of warning, after subsequent Budget cuts and closure of Naval ports we'll have to hitch-sail accross the Atlantic, might take awhile...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 7:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
My guess is Auraptor is 45 and works for a defense contractor. But I'm just guessing.

I'm a bit surprised you didn't just come out and say Halliburton!

I'm only 40, and don't work for any large corp.

( not that any of that matters )

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 8:25 AM

NUCKLES87

Or mount a better response. Thats good to.

How's my firefly speak? Good? Bad? Fee-oo?

...It's fee-oo isn't it?

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That might work for most hurricanes and some earthquakes,

Isn't that what we're talking about here?

Quote:
but my professional expert opinion for all its worth is that it will not work if an adversary wants to detonate a nuclear device in an American city since most such terrorists will not be so courteous as to offer advanced warning.

Just what, pray tell, does that have to do with this thread? We're talking about government responsibility for an event they knew was coming and were called in to assist with. WTHLF (what the holy living fark) does a nuclear device have to do with this debate? Absolutely nothing, and had that happened in NOLA we wouldn't be having this debate (but it wasn't, and we are). Just come out and say, "yes 7%, you got me on this one," and leave it at that.

Quote:
Any scenario that relies on the federal government to be the first or even a co-first responder in the advent of a major catastrophe is risking failure.

In this instance, a disaster area was declared in advance of the hurricane (by 2 days, and by your own admission they need 24 to 48 hrs to mobilize

Quote:
You can expect that to take between 24 and 48 hours

, so you shot yourself in the foot on that one) and the federal government was warned that a city that sits below sea level would have its levee system topped. Are you advocating that the federal government be abolished? What, then, is the role of the federal government in disaster relief? None? I don't understand your reasoning. We have a FEMA (which, if I recall corectly, the EM stands for emergency management) because of problems too great to be handled by first responders and local officials.

Quote:
I don’t think that what I’m saying is that controversial, but I also don’t think you really care, so I’m just going to shut up now.

It is controversial, and I do care, and I'd like you to explain your logic to me.

You're saying that in any disaster situation too great for the local government to handle it, we should just let a city fall into chaos; because if a city can't handle it, all the massive resources we pay taxes for are ill-equipped for the task and if they aren't utilized correctly, then it's no one in the federal government's fault? That we should abolish FEMA, Homeland Sec., etc., because they're useless in a crisis, even if they'd been notified beforehand? That my dear sir, is highly controversial.

And the "you aren't listening?" Fancy way of tactically retreating, IMO. I assure you, I'm awaiting the explanation eagerly.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 8:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
It is controversial, and I do care, and I'd like you to explain your logic to me.

You're saying that in any disaster situation too great for the local government to handle it, we should just let a city fall into chaos; because if a city can't handle it, all the massive resources we pay taxes for are ill-equipped for the task and if they aren't utilized correctly, then it's no one in the federal government's fault? That we should abolish FEMA, Homeland Sec., etc., because they're useless in a crisis, even if they'd been notified beforehand? That my dear sir, is highly controversial.

I never said any of that. That’s not even remotely similar to what I said. And if you actually did care what I had to say, you would at least know what I said. We can both see that this is a waste of my time. And there’s nothing tactical about my retreat. I’m just throwing in the towel. I give up. Sometimes, the only thing to do with crazy people is just smile and nod.

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:

all the massive resources we pay taxes for are ill-equipped for the task

Seven, I think this is the point right here.
We pay taxes primarily so rich folk can protect their resources and livelihoods. Near middle and at bottom, it's the law of the jungle; we're all on our own. Any assistance from government is a bonus in this game. And any obstruction from government is to be expected.

Finn says it needs work, I'd say a complete overhaul is in order. We need to wipe the system clean, and re-load the Constitution, minus the self-serving viruses that distort it's basic principles.

I think we basically all agree on the underlying problems of what we're discussing, we just disagree on how far we need to go to fix them, and how vehemently we label the dorks responsible for the messes.

Suddenly, Moderator Chrisisall

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I’m just throwing in the towel. I give up. Sometimes, the only thing to do with crazy people is just smile and nod.

Yep!

FWIT- I think the first thing we should do is create a single-frequency nation-wide emergency communication system, preferably satellite and microwave-based. I know that for everyday kind of responses you don't want firefighter communication tromping on police communication, but this would be special-purpose.

The emergency-call systems (911) needs a major infusion of cash, and the institution of a nationwide non-emergency number. The chain of command- and when which chain comes into play- must be made absolutely crystal clear. No, the Feds don't need to get involved in every single building fire or refinery explosion. But what happens when you're out of the realm of what an "incident commander" can handle? From my experience, I can tell you that as the scope of emergency gets bigger, the lines of authority become progressively more and more tangled.

Ok- so what do YOU think we be doing?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:31 PM

RUE

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

The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

I thought I'd chime in here - the levees failed because they were over-run. The cascading water on the 'dry' side dug out the foundation which then caused the levees to collapse.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
-- ...create a single-frequency nation-wide emergency communication system, preferably satellite and microwave-based.
-- The emergency-call systems (911) needs a major infusion of cash, and the institution of a nationwide non-emergency number.

Both good suggestions.

We need to make private contractors an integral part of the supply train. Governments, at all levels, are notoriously slow and often mind-numbingly bureaucratic, but private contractors who stand to make a reasonable profit will quickly jump in the game with often already handy warehouses of supplies. Supplies might be brought to bear faster from the private sector, more efficiently and maybe even cheaper. After all, it’s unlikely that a private contractor will be as likely to allow hundreds of trailers to go to ruin. We are already set up to do this. During the Katrina incident, the private sector stepped up into the mess of bureaucratic infinite loops that crippled both the local and the federal governments and started supplying the people with water, food, medical supplies and even personnel. If this had been harnessed and put to a concerted effort from the beginning much of the suffering could have been avoided. The federal government already relies heavily on very capable defense contractors for advanced weapons systems, mission planning and specialized infantry, using a similar set of contractors for disaster relief can’t be that much more difficult (one imagines probably easier.) And this is something that the state and local governments can enact immediately.

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 1:55 PM

RUE

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

SevenPercent,

I just thought I'd look up some figures about the rich and the rest of the US.

Here they are:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h02ar.html
In 2004 the lowest quintile (one-fifth) in the US made 3.4% of all income, the second quintile 8.7%, third (middle, which is the median US income) 14.7%, fourth 23.2%, and top quintile 50.1%. The mode is near the second quintile.

http://bernie.house.gov/economy/today.asp
If you look at wealth rather than annual income, "Bill Gates, owns more wealth than the bottom 45% of American households combined."

According to another inequality measure (Gini index) the US gap between rich and poor has grown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Gini coefficients in the US over time according to the US Census Bureau:

1970: 0.394
1980: 0.403
1990: 0.428
2000: 0.462

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 3:53 PM

Quote:
I thought I'd chime in here - the levees failed because they were over-run. The cascading water on the 'dry' side dug out the foundation which then caused the levees to collapse.

Well, no sense chiming in; apparently anyone who offers "constructive criticism" of the federal government's role is in the mentally deficient crowd, according to Finn.

He and Cartoon don't believe there was any problem with the fed's response, and I can't even get a straight answer out of him about what the role of the federal government should have been in the first place without him trying to change the subject to nuclear terror attacks (which is typical Bush-supporting behavior - whenever criticized for a mistake, make the issue about terror).

Lets look at the facts:
1. The federal government was asked to declare a disaster in advance of the hurricane by 2 days
2. The President was notified that flooding of some sort would occur
3. A catagory 5 hurricane looming over a sub-sea level city is unmanageable by a local gov't
4. The restructuring of FEMA into HOSEC and the appointment of Brown was a colossal mistake
5. Bush's action of being on vacation and doing the flyover, if not a mistake in itself, gave the impression of uncaring

Lets look at other occurrences of a similar nature:
6. When the Mississippi flooded in '93, I worked sandbag crews in my area. The National Guard was ahead of possible breaches with the necessary supplies all along the river, and the Corps of Engineers was with them, ready to go where the first responders needed them. That didn't happen in NOLA.

I have no clue whatsoever how the fed can be exempt from criticism for its role in the problem; but any criticism makes me a "Bush hater." I'm not a hater, I'm thanking God that I didn't live in NOLA and paid my taxes like a good little citizen to get nothing from my government in return. If I was a NOLA resident, I'd want somebody on the federal level's head on a pike in my flooded front yard.

Does the fed's management need to be better streamlined? Certainly, but just because that's the case doesn't mean no one's responsible.

I mean, seriously - what do you have to do with our leaders to get them to admit a mistake? And we wonder why our kids are growing up like they are.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

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

Sunday, March 5, 2006 4:25 PM