Originally posted by buckkyBush has already shown that he doesn't need nature to do his dirty work.
Bush is responsible for the Hurricane and everything else that has ever went wrong in America. I hear the man set up giant fans out in the ocean and wipped up the hurricane just so he and his buddies could raise the gas prices. He wanted to kill off all the poor negros in the south and this was the best way to do it. Face it Bush will produce an earthquake so ...[text shortened]... wipe out the liberals in California. When it comes to a bad guy Bush is the babbest of them all.
Originally posted by TheBloopThat makes no difference whatsoever.
NEWS FLASH:
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462.html
...In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But OVER THE FIVE YEARS OF PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION, LOUISIANA HAS RECEI ...[text shortened]... times as large...
(emphasis mine, of course).
y'all can read the rest of it yourselves...
Bush is still proposing over $400 billion in defences each year.
$1.9 billion over 5 years to safeguard tens of thousands of
Americans to a known high risk area is pittance in comparism.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckDefending the country is one of the very, very few things that the federal government is actually SUPPOSED to do. They're not supposed to buy anyone's Rx drugs, they're not supposed to subsidize television programs that woulnd't survive in a free market, they're not supposed to throw taxpayer money at 'artists' who put a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it art... but they ARE supposed to defend the country.
That makes no difference whatsoever.
Bush is still proposing over $400 billion in defences each year.
$1.9 billion over 5 years to safeguard tens of thousands of
Americans to a known high risk area is pittance in comparism.
"Pittance" is relative, but the point of my post was that anyone who says that the Feds (i.e. G W Bush) haven't spent enough on thest things (levies, etc) should get a clue.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI believe that one of the reasons for USSR's downfall was that they had their priorities wrong with massive spending on their defences.
That makes no difference whatsoever.
Bush is still proposing over $400 billion in defences each year.
$1.9 billion over 5 years to safeguard tens of thousands of
Americans to a known high risk area is pittance in comparism.
Can anyone clarify this ?
Here is undisputed proof that even the most fanatical Bush supporters cannot wriggle out of his responsibility:
"Perhaps the lowest point in Bush's abject performance last week was when he claimed that no one could have predicted the breach in the New Orleans levees, when report after report commissioned by him, not to mention a simulation just last year, had done precisely that. But he had cut the budget appropriation for maintaining flood defences by nearly 50%, so that for the first time in 37 years Louisiana was unable to supply the protection it knew it would need in the event of catastrophe. Likewise Fema, which under Bill Clinton had been a cabinet level agency reporting directly to the president, had under his successor been turned into a hiring opportunity for political hacks and cronies and disappeared into the lumbering behemoth of Homeland Security. It was Fema that failed the Gulf; Fema which failed to secure the delivery of food, water, ice and medical supplies desperately asked for by the Mayor of New Orleans; and it was the president and his government-averse administration that had made Fema a bad joke.
In the last election campaign George W Bush asked Americans to vote for him as the man who would best fulfil the most essential obligation of government: the impartial and vigilant protection of its citizens. Now the fraudulence of the claim has come back to haunt him, not in Baghdad but in the drowned counties of Louisiana."
read the full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,16441,1567841,00.html
Originally posted by howardgeeYou forget to mention that the updates to the levees were slated for 06... that's right, a full year from now.
Here is undisputed proof that even the most fanatical Bush supporters cannot wriggle out of his responsibility:
"Perhaps the lowest point in Bush's abject performance last week was when he claimed that no one could have predicted the breach in the New Orleans levees, when report after report commissioned by him, not to mention a simulation just last y ...[text shortened]...
read the full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,16441,1567841,00.html
And that the levees that broke, were completed... from a project that started 40 years ago.
Oh, and you also forgot to mention that, at the federal level, Bush has taken responsibility for the (lack of a speedy) response.
There is nothing left to throw back at Bush, lets start looking at _all_ levels of government.
Originally posted by TheSkipperHow about the incompetent Mayor of New Orleans and the equally incompetent governor of Louisiana? The levees haven't been up to a Cat 5 standard since the beginning. To blame Bush is really kind of silly considering that previous administrations have funded projects to build up the levees only to have the money used on other things. Kerry lost so get over it.
FEMA did not plan for the levees to break? Why? Three days prior to the storm weather prognosticators started say New Orleans is going to get a ton of wind and RAIN in what we call a hurricane. They predicted over 20 inches of rain actually. 20 inches of rain in a city that is directly next to a large lake, the biggest river in the country and the Gul ...[text shortened]... somebody else to defend because Bush does not deserve even your attempt to do so.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by howardgeeread somewhere that joe lieberman's bill pushed FEMA under HomeSec and that Hillary voted for it .... weren't the Democrats clamoring for that?
Here is undisputed proof that even the most fanatical Bush supporters cannot wriggle out of his responsibility:
"Perhaps the lowest point in Bush's abject performance last week was when he claimed that no one could have predicted the breach in the New Orleans levees, when report after report commissioned by him, not to mention a simulation just last y ...[text shortened]...
read the full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,16441,1567841,00.html