advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Jimmypoo
Date: March 05, 2006 03:56PM
Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching


News sources have reported that President Bush lied when he said he wasn't warned that the levees in New Orleans could be breached during Hurricane Katrina.

But a videotape of a key meeting between Bush and hurricane officials supports the president's contention that the breaching of the levees was unanticipated.

On September 1, four days after Katrina struck, Bush said: "I don't think anybody anticipated a breach of the levees."

OK, left wing cretins....what do you have to say to your brothers, the right wing cretins?

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 05, 2006 04:35PM
If Bush hadn't cut $ 70 million from levee repairs maybe they wouldn't have breached?

Is a cretin the same thing as a moron? I can't afford any more club memberships right now. Besides, we morons get cooler hats, literally. We recycle Shriner fezes, turning them upside down to catch rain that then evaporates through the felt for a swamp-cooler effect.

The bottom line for me is that we've dumped $400 billion into the Iraq rat-hole and washed it down with (as of today) the blood of 2,300 US soldiers, and the total cost of dealing with the 16.653 wounded, and rebuilding our military will run over two trillion $, so if we hadn't gone off on this fool's errand for lies about WMD, Al Qaeda & 9/11 connections, we could well afford to protect a vital port city and its low-income workers. Bush's priorities are for his elite corporate donors however, not for American citizens.

If Bush read, instead of relying on sycophants to read for him and only tell him what he wanted to hear, he would have known.

"In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm's likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show."
[www.washingtonpost.com]

So, is Bush a cretin or a moron?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2006 04:36PM by Refurbvirgin.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Jimmypoo
Date: March 05, 2006 05:28PM
He's both.... and so are you!

But he shoulders your blame for what
every administration before him didn't
do with regard to New Orleans.

You? You make posters about stuff.

Oh... and post here. Gotta know that counts for something significant.

sad smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: lafinfil
Date: March 05, 2006 06:03PM
Breach ? Maybe ... or not - still waiting for the video.

Over run or over flow, swamped or what ever ....


It was fuller than 'poo after a night of cheap beer and coeds and a 3 a.m. stop at XXX

[www.triplexxxfamilyrestaurant.com]

"On the hill, but always on the levee"







Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: March 05, 2006 07:26PM
Jimmypoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But a videotape of a key meeting between Bush and
> hurricane officials supports the president's
> contention that the breaching of the levees was
> unanticipated.

Unless my memory's faulty - and that's been known to be the case - I saw a videotape that did just the opposite.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 05, 2006 08:25PM
Pooboy -
Had I been in his position, knowing that "the big one," as many told him, was going to hit the gulf coast I wouldn't have been off on fundraising jaunts. If Bush hadn't sent the National Guard to Iraq along with their deepwater rescue vehicles, a lot few people would have died awaiting rescue. That's hardly "shouldering" responsibility, and his statement about "nobody anticipated" is a clear attempt to shirk the blame, not shoulder it. The people of New Orleans were abandoned by their government. When Bush said nobody could have anticipated a breach of the levees that was just a plain lie, as the link above clearly proves.

It wasn't Clinton that cut $70 million from levee repairs or sent the National Guard to fight an illegal, unnecessary war, so quit trying to blame this disaster on Bush's predecessors.

And I'm posting here in response to your post, so I think we tie in insignificance. :-)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Guitarman
Date: March 05, 2006 08:30PM
OH SHUT UP LOKI. CLINTON DIDN'T FIX THE LEVEES EITHER. AND NEITHER DID NAGIN. THEY'RE ALL A BUNCH OF GREEDY MORONS.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 05, 2006 08:41PM
I yield my title for "Most Insignificant" to the gentleman from New Jersey. He can share it with Pooboy.

Again, since it apparently didn't sink in the first time, Clinton did NOT cut $70 million from levee repairs or send the core of regional emergency response personnel and equipment to Iraq, like Bush did.

Don't try to blame this on Clinton, G'man. He's got plenty else to answer for, as in handing Colombia's death squad partner military $1.4 billion.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 05, 2006 08:44PM
New Orleans Drowned, and Bush Really Didn't Care
[www.commondreams.org]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: max
Date: March 05, 2006 08:46PM
It is sometimes a good idea to learn something about the subject, Loki, before you start foaming at the mouth.
The feds could not built, protect or maintain any levees; nor Bush, nor Clinton and neither Roosevelt. The levees were the responsibility of the thieving scum that are the Levee Boards in Louisiana. The big attempt the repair of the system, there, after Katrina, is an attempt to abolish the local Boards and come up with a statewide Levee Board. The corrupt machine that stole 96% of the previous federal funds allocated to building and improving levees, is fighting this tooth and nail....
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 05, 2006 09:37PM
max Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The corrupt machine that
> stole 96% of the previous federal funds allocated
> to building and improving levees, is fighting this
> tooth and nail....

Got a link? I was under the impression the Corps of Engineers was responsible for levee construction and maintenance.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Jimmypoo
Date: March 05, 2006 09:45PM
yes... provide a link from anywhere. With RV, if it is hosted at your house, that makes the info as good as if it came from an ultra-left, underwater think tank.

He's so blind, he can't even see the rare person who nods to both sides of the aisle.

Then it becomes "RFK says even Dems are 70% corrupt."

This from the VERY guy who was the last to see Marilyn Monroe alive, and was the spawn of someone who is in the corrupted politicians hall of fame - "I'm not buying one more vote than is necessary to win the election!" Joe.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: March 05, 2006 09:46PM
refurb- the corps does NOT construct or maintain levees. It's responsible for setting standards and such, but levees are the responsibility of the property owners.
[www.usace.army.mil]

Note also that these standards apply to '100 year floods'. Unfortunately this 'statistical' standard has been proven to be... stupid. St. Louis, for example, suffered two 500 year and one 200 year flood in.... 30 years.

Interesting read..

Oh, and of course it's somebody's fault. But unless you're willing to give all the local and state powers to the Federal Gummint, it ain't George's fault. Sorry. Move on.

besides, who cares whose fault it is ? How about fixing the damn thing, or admitting that it's gonna fail and moving someplace else ?

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Jimmypoo
Date: March 05, 2006 09:47PM
'Fil!

Last time I was at that place, I was attempting to have serious discussions with sober females, late at night, about their thoughts on the Strategic Defense Initiative.

(I was, however, hammered!)

I am certain that was the night I unscrewed their little bathroom soap containers with that yellow liquid soap that schools used, and refilled it with some yellow of my own.

grinning smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 05, 2006 09:50PM
Jimmypoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then it becomes "RFK says even Dems are 70%
> corrupt."
>
> This from the VERY guy who was the last to see
> Marilyn Monroe alive, and was the spawn of someone
> who is in the corrupted politicians hall of fame -
> "I'm not buying one more vote than is necessary to
> win the election!" Joe.

RFK,Jr. was the author of the quote, but you probably hate all Kennedys, so this won't really matter.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 05, 2006 09:56PM
cbelt3 Wrote:
> besides, who cares whose fault it is ? How about
> fixing the damn thing, or admitting that it's
> gonna fail and moving someplace else ?

A major port at the mouth of the nation's major river is a necessity, not an option. I would be condemning Clinton had he cut funding for levee repair (just as I condemn him for supporting Colombian death squads) and for sending vital local emergency response personnel and equipment overseas to fight an illegal, unnecessary war while bankrupting our nation, but he didn't. Bush did.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: max
Date: March 05, 2006 10:11PM
Refurbvirgin Wrote:

> Got a link?

What, your normal propaganda sources, have not made something up you can refer to?

> I was under the impression the Corps
> of Engineers was responsible for levee
> construction and maintenance.


Just as accurate view as the rest of your impressions?....
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 05, 2006 10:21PM
max Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What, your normal propaganda sources, have not
> made something up you can refer to?

It was your statement, max. All I asked was that you back it up with further info.

> Just as accurate view as the rest of your
> impressions?....

I see further discussion is not possible. Welcome to my ignore list.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: max
Date: March 05, 2006 10:34PM
Discussion is done with reasonable people, people who can understand and follow rules of logic. That counts you out.
I will admit that I did try to help you, by directing you into situations where you would have to do some independent research, yourself.
I have failed, miserably.
Thats OK, I did not expect more.
Lighting fuses under methane emanations also known as your pronouncements, is another entertaining alternative...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Never mind the facts, it's just what you want to believe...
Posted by: cassie
Date: March 06, 2006 12:01AM
The media, and now this thread, is misrepresenting the warning that Bush got before Hurricane Katrina. Max Mayfield warned Bush that the levees could be "topped", but no one knew for sure. That means something totally different than "breached."

TOPPED: to reach the top and go over the side (a wall, barrier, or defense)

BREACH: make a gap in and break through (a wall, barrier, or defense)


Max Mayfield, conference call, 28 Aug 05:

MAYFIELD: I don't think anyone can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not. But there's obviously a very, very grave concern.


"Topped" does not mean "breached" and the anti-Bush media doesn't want to point that out. Rather, it is continuing to report the false assertion that Bush was told the levees could breach when he was told by Max Mayfield that they could be topped but that nobody knew.


Never mind the facts, when it is counter to what you want to believe and feel,


cassie
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sorry
Posted by: cassie
Date: March 06, 2006 12:08AM
My first sentence should have started:

"The media, and now SOME in this thread, ARE misrepresenting..."


Sorry, it's late and I lost my head,

cassie
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 06, 2006 04:56AM
Forbes: (for those who discount progressive news sources)
Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina
"On the eve of Hurricane Katrina's fateful landfall, President Bush was confident. His homeland security chief appeared relaxed. And warnings of the coming destruction - breached or overrun levees, deaths at the New Orleans Superdome and overwhelming needs for post-storm rescues - were delivered in dramatic terms to all involved. All of it was captured on videotape."
[www.forbes.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 06, 2006 04:57AM
"The president didn't ask a single question during the briefing but assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared." "
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 06, 2006 06:26AM
Fox & NBC watchers have been deceived:

"The administration now claims that Bush was warned only of the levees "overtopping," not breaching. However, some key facts undermine this White House explanation."
[mediamatters.org]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 06, 2006 06:30AM
CBS covers up for Bush, too:
[mediamatters.org]

The same corporations profiting from Bush's corporate/war agenda own the news media. GE, the world's tenth largest military contractor, gave $1.1 million to Bush's election campaign, and owns NBC.

Who owns the media:
[www.takebackthemedia.com]

More at:
[www.google.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2006 06:33AM by Refurbvirgin.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Patroklos
Date: March 06, 2006 06:32AM
Our President wasn't responding to a question about the differences between "topping" and "breaching". He was asked about the weak, slow Federal response and instead of saying something like "We're clearly not happy with everything that was done, but there are extrordinary difficulties, etc, etc." he ran away like the true coward he can be at times. He was covering his big fat a$$ in a homey, folksey way that should disgust every American.

What would things have been like if our "take charge" Pres had cancelled everything, told his aides "Get me to N.O." and let everyone know that he would hold personally responsible anyone who defended his/her turf, didn't share information and resources-basically taking a "let's cut through the red-tape and get help there NOW!" approach?

------------------------

Sawyer: "Mr. President, this morning, as we speak . . . there are people with signs saying 'Help, come get me'. People still in the attic, waving. Nurses are phoning in saying the situation in hospitals is getting ever more dire and the nurses are getting sick because of no clean water. Some of the things they asked our correspondents to ask you is: They expected -- they say to us -- that the day after this hurricane that there would be a massive and visible armada of federal support. There would be boats coming in. There would be food. There would be water. It would be there within hours. They wondered: What's taking so long?"

Bush: "Well, there's a lot of food on its way. A lot of water on the way. And there's a lot of boats and choppers headed that way. Boats and choppers headed that way. It just takes a while to float 'em! . . . "

Sawyer: "But given the fact that everyone anticipated a hurricane five, a possible hurricane five hitting shore, are you satisfied with the pace at which this is arriving? And which it was planned to arrive?"

Bush: "Well, I fully understand people wanting things to have happened yesterday. I mean, I understand the anxiety of people on the ground. I can imagine -- I just can't imagine what it is like to be waving a sign saying 'come and get me now'. So there is frustration. But I want people to know there is a lot of help coming.

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will."



-------------------------------------------------------
"We live in a fast-moving society, with short memories."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: mick e
Date: March 06, 2006 06:50AM
If you are going to split hairs on whether their concerns were that the levees were "topped" or "breached" you are missing the key point of the discussion.

In EITHER case, he didn't do a @#$%& thing. He sat through a meeting where experts voiced their concerns on a wide range of topics ranging from the Superdome to search and rescue, to evacuation. Then he gave everyone assurances that they would be supported on the ground before, during and after the storm by federal manpower and assets.

Do you know what he did about it for FOUR FRICKING DAYS??? Diddly Squat. That's what he did. He played the geetar in San Diego and puttered around his damn ranch until people started screaming bloody murder at him. The richest country in the world, and he couldn't get in there to rescue his own people.

You can whine about state and local inaction all you want, but the fact remains - under extreme disaster conditions, there is only one entity that has the resources to deal with such an operation. The federal government.





Unpaid Social Liaison



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2006 10:52AM by mick e.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: incognegro
Date: March 06, 2006 08:19AM
National Geographic, hardly an underground or leftist publication, showed what would happen if the levees were breached in February 2005.

For Bush to say "nobody could have anticipated the breach" is either a lie or gross ignorance, neither of which I'm comfortable with in a US president.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Jimmypoo
Date: March 06, 2006 12:07PM
Who in this land.... NEEDED ONE MAN TO TELL THEM THAT HURRICANES CAUSE DISASTER???

This is such an insane topic. Who is to blame for FL's beatings over the past 100 years (let alone millenia)??

Who ever is sitting in the White House?

OR THE IDIOTS WHO LIVE THERE AND MISMANAGE THEIR RESOURCES?

I know two people who live in the area, one in the Quarter.
For 16 years this friend has been saying "never happen. They always say that."

And even for him it CONTINUES to be true. His corner of Esplanda is STILL untouched, except by mold as a result of power down.

Some people always skate. Others never learn. I didn't need
George Bush to tell me to GET MY PIANO (just a piano! Not an infant!!!) and drive INTO it, and get it out of the path of Frances in 2004.

You need more than what you see on TV as motivation to get yourself to safety?? You are an IDIOT.

You need more than the history of the region to not live in a concrete dwelling? YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

You can't afford to live in the above? Then go slum somewhere that it doesn't mean the difference between life and death.

You people are amazing in the depths of ignorance I see displayed post after post after post.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: mick e
Date: March 06, 2006 01:34PM
Well - take comfort in the fact that the journey to the abyss of ignorance is completed in stellar fashion with your last post then, jimmy.

The topic may be insane, but wasn't it you that made the original post?





Unpaid Social Liaison
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 06, 2006 02:22PM
Jimmypoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who in this land.... NEEDED ONE MAN TO TELL THEM
> THAT HURRICANES CAUSE DISASTER???

Who in this land needs one man to tell them nuclear war causes disaster? And yet we empower one man to make the decisions necessary to protect us from nuclear war. We empower an executive to make crisis decisions when only the power we invest in him can save us. Bush accepted that role, and failed us drastically.

> This is such an insane topic. Who is to blame for
> FL's beatings over the past 100 years (let alone
> millenia)??

> Who ever is sitting in the White House?
>
> OR THE IDIOTS WHO LIVE THERE AND MISMANAGE THEIR
> RESOURCES?

When the hurricanes hit Florida, devastating the homes of rich white folk, you better believe the help was there the next day, not four days later.

> I
> didn't need
> George Bush to tell me to GET MY PIANO (just a
> piano! Not an infant!!!) and drive INTO it, and
> get it out of the path of Frances in 2004.

Um, how do you drive into a piano?

> You need more than what you see on TV as
> motivation to get yourself to safety?? You are an
> IDIOT.

Or too poor to afford a car, but need a job, which New Orleans provided.

> You need more than the history of the region to
> not live in a concrete dwelling? YOU ARE AN
> IDIOT.

Even a concrete rambler won't save you in a 15' storm surge.

> You can't afford to live in the above? Then go
> slum somewhere that it doesn't mean the difference
> between life and death.

People go where the jobs are. That meant N.O.

> You people are amazing in the depths of ignorance
> I see displayed post after post after post.

Same to you.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 06, 2006 02:57PM
Bush, lies, and videotape
"As for us, the beholders of this narrative, there can be no suspension of disbelief, no identification, and no recognition of our own fate being rescued by a confrontation with the truth. On the contrary, since this is not literature but life, there is only the increased awareness of the danger into which the world is plunged by having such a hollow creature in the position of ultimate power."
[www.boston.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Jimmypoo
Date: March 07, 2006 06:54AM
This thread was started with a news quote.

It ended with a comparison of the efforts of those that went on for MONTHS after Hurricane Andrew and others since then, by an arsehole diagonally across the country who doesn't know ANYTHING about how long people went without power, gasoline, food/ice, nor what the ratio of black/hispanic/white nor the balance of $$$ to no $$$ is in South Florida..... to SOMEONE WITH THERE FINGER ON THE NUCLEAR BUTTON???

THAT is the true ignorance. I lived there. I've experienced it. I STILL experience it because of belongings and family property there. EVERY YEAR. Last year NEARLY FORTY TIMES - EVERY TIME I TURNED ON THE COMPUTER BETWEEN JUNE AND JANUARY.

MY START PAGE WAS THE NOAA. WAS YOURS, RV?

RV has demonstrated for me, once and for all, the need for the IGNORE button. Congrats. You are my one and only. So much for your desire to be heard.

And that, my friends, is proof enough that he seeks to do nothing more than aggrivate and aggitate everyone in his wake.

Guitarman.... Have at it. This turd isn't worth my time.


Oh... and Mick? I like you. Always have. You, of all people I still hope would wear a button that says "blame yourself" instead of any individual (or hold to a different standard ).

Anyway.... my contribution to this side of the forum lasted about 10 days. 10 days too many.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2006 06:57AM by Jimmypoo.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 07, 2006 07:35AM
Jimmypoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread was started with a news quote.

Actually it started with your statement that "Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching."
This statement has been refuted many times within this thread, to your apparent consternation. You're taking this little, obscure forum way too seriously, Jimmy. What part of "Friendly Political Ranting" didn't you understand that allows you to descend to the level of calling me an "arsehole?"

> It ended with a comparison of the efforts of those
> that went on for MONTHS after Hurricane Andrew and
> others since then, by an arsehole diagonally
> across the country who doesn't know ANYTHING about
> how long people went without power, gasoline,
> food/ice, nor what the ratio of
> black/hispanic/white nor the balance of $$$ to no
> $$$ is in South Florida..... to SOMEONE WITH THERE (sic)
> FINGER ON THE NUCLEAR BUTTON???

The comparison I drew was "We empower an executive to make crisis decisions when only the power we invest in him can save us."

> THAT is the true ignorance. I lived there. I've
> experienced it. I STILL experience it because of
> belongings and family property there. EVERY YEAR.
> Last year NEARLY FORTY TIMES - EVERY TIME I
> TURNED ON THE COMPUTER BETWEEN JUNE AND JANUARY.

And you make this confession after characterizing those who live in areas prone to natural disasters "IDIOTS WHO LIVE THERE AND MISMANAGE THEIR RESOURCES?" If the people of New Orleans are idiots for living in an area that has been flood free for generations are you not an idiot for living in a hurricane prone area?

> And that, my friends, is proof enough that he
> seeks to do nothing more than aggrivate (sic) and
> aggitate (sic) everyone in his wake.

Again, Jimmy, what part of "Friendly Political Ranting" didn't you understand? This is just a game for me and I don't take bantering like this seriously. As you've pointed out, posting here has no effect on the real world, so why are you taking this so seriously?

>Guitarman.... Have at it. This turd isn't worth
> my time.

See? Is that your idea of "Friendly?"

> Oh... and Mick? I like you. Always have. You,
> of all people I still hope would wear a button
> that says "blame yourself" instead of any
> individual (or hold to a different standard ).

While you complain about the angst you experience having "possessions and property" in harms way who do you, by your own "blame yourself" standard, have to blame?

> Anyway.... my contribution to this side of the
> forum lasted about 10 days. 10 days too many.

I'm sorry to hear that, because it has been fun going head-to-head with you, despite your apparent inability to avoid resorting to name-calling. I'm sorry you're so stressed out by having your possessions and property in harms way, but please avail yourself of your own advice and move.

We are one people, and one nation, and when one of us is in peril the rest of us gather to defend them, not leave them to their own resources. Without that concern for our fellow citizens we lose the reason for existence as a nation.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: max
Date: March 07, 2006 07:47AM
Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm sorry to hear that, because it has been fun
> going head-to-head with you,

It is not. It is more like head (JP) to arse (Loki). You are trying to flatter your non existing intellectual abilities.
You have never been able to answer a factual argument without resorting to some false assumptions, inferences and propagandistic innuendoes, that have nothing, directly related to facts in question.

>despite your apparent
> inability to avoid resorting to name-calling.

It is not name calling. It is actual description of the subject, there is a difference....
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: mick e
Date: March 07, 2006 09:40AM
mick e didn't mean to upset you jimmy. He just gets frustrated when smart people get caught up in the smoke and mirrors.

The point he was trying to make was that the White House has been trying to dodge accountability for its inaction by engaging in debate as to the meanings of the word "breach" versus "topped". This is a classic case of "That depends on what your meaning of the word 'is', is.

The point in pushing these types of stories is to simply distract from the debate itself.

Yes - the able-bodied people who chose not leave NO, were stupid. They ended up learning a hard lesson. Yes - the local response was not great. Yes, the Governor is a stupid bich. All these things are true, and mick e agrees with max and jimmy on many of these points.

But there were also many people who couldn't have gotten out if they wanted to. How many disabled people do you think died down there jimmy? Probably pretty many. How many poor people who work as dishwashers, busboys, etc and had no transportation got stuck there? Probably quite a few.

But again - this is aside from the issue at hand. A discussion that exists to excuse the president from the fact that he fücked up royally.

The reason why these tapes were news was that they showed that the federal government was very much aware of the impending severity of the situation. The president then went so far to make grandiose promises regarding praparations, search and rescue, and recovery.

These promises proved empty. As people struggled for their lives for FOUR DAYS, none of those assets were anywhere to be seen. In the meantime, the country found out that the current president can play a mean geetar, and knows how to ride a mountain bike.

He needs to be held accountable. He made promises, and let a lot of people down.





Unpaid Social Liaison
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Jimmypoo
Date: March 07, 2006 12:29PM
My question is still “Don’t those people ever quit?” but today I can see “those people” are not America; they are just a rancid little slice, grandstanding opportunists who survey the corpses of New Orleans and see a soapbox.


I, personally, look at all those flooded buses, and multiply by 44 (not 66, for kid sizes) and ask... who should shoulder the blame for people left behind?

1000 buses.... 5 days warning (or let's just say 48 hours).... that's 44000 people.

Even just 10 people per bus. That's 10,000. Or 3 per bus. That's 3000 saved lives. With just ONE 75 mile one-way-trip run. More than enough to cover everyone.... that died.

So why not a round-trp and a one-way? Or two round-trips and a one-way (before the storm)???

It was not the evacuation plan authorities had envisioned for its sick, its elderly and its poor. As the floodwaters recede, serious questions remain about whether New Orleans and Louisiana officials followed their own plans for evacuating people with no other way out.

The mayor's mandatory evacuation order was issued 20 hours before the storm struck the Louisiana coast, less than half the time researchers determined would be needed to get everyone out.

City officials had 550 municipal buses and hundreds of additional school buses at their disposal but made no plans to use them to get people out of New Orleans before the storm, said Chester Wilmot, a civil engineering professor at Louisiana State University and an expert in transportation planning, who helped the city put together its evacuation plan.



Instead, local buses were used to ferry people from 12 pickup points to poorly supplied "shelters of last resort" in the city. An estimated 50,000 New Orleans households have no access to cars, Wilmot said.

State and local plans both called for extra help to be provided in advance to residents with "special needs," though no specific timetable was prepared. But phone lines for people who needed specialized shelters opened at noon Saturday — barely 30 hours before Katrina came ashore in Louisiana.

Many people from New Orleans ended up staying home or using a "last resort" special needs shelter state authorities and the city health department set up at the Superdome. Those who made it out of town initially found limited space. The state of Louisiana provided shelter in Baton Rouge and five other cities for a total of about 1,000.

- Sept. 8, 2005, 10:15AM
City had evacuation plan but strayed from strategy
By LISE OLSEN
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

--------------------------------------

I was stranded in Miami after the evac order hit for Hurricane Floyd. Floyd was reported to be the largest storm on record (larger than Texas).

There were busses... but I had a car. The Miami/Dade Mayor ordered the evacuation. The streets were EMPTY. No problem. I was on my way out.... late, but leaving.

And the car died as it was running, while I loaded the last of things, dead alternator/battery. All the city resources to leave had evaporated. But they were made available by the mayor, not the White House. I chose an alternate route.

I have never been so frightened. Nor was I ever so happy to see some other state take it in the shorts (Floyd bounced up the Coast on September 13th, 1999 and put much of NJ underwater a few days later, including my friends at Union Carbide, whose facility was 12 feet under).

If I had died... it certainly wouldn't have been Clinton's fault. There was ample warning, oppotunities to ride with strangers to get out, let alone city and school buses, trips to shelters with generators and emergency supplies.

Same was true in N.O. - - if it had been acted upon.

Levees have been an issue for a long time. Well known, most certainly, to theMAYOR of New Orleans!! Those unmoved/unused busses should result in mayoral/governor prosecutions for irresponsibility of the worst kind.

People like Ray Nagin, who biitched about the slow federal response, yet he didn't direct the use of city busses for evacuation efforts. An option specifically authorized by Louisiana law. Instead, hundreds of buses sat flooded and thousands of people were trapped. The feds might have arrived quicker than they did (after the storm) ...but the busses were already there, waiting to save people before they needed saving..

Some counts say about 500 city busses and at least that many scool busses were available. Where is the rage? AND WITH AN INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEVEE SYSTEM....? Where is the rage/outrage for this absolute moron of a major city? and the deaths that are the result of his mismanagement?

Of these, the office of the president, regardless of occupant, has no greater than locals who don't use what is at their disposal and authority, by law, to save the lives of their "own" constituencies at the local/state level.

Kathleen Blanco has complained about the National Guard’s response – which, in the state of Louisiana, she herself commands.

What about help from other states... The Michigan National Guard started preparing immediately, but wasn’t contacted by Blanco/LA for several days. “We could have had people on the road Tuesday (after the levees broke),” said Maj. Gen. Thomas Cutler. “We have to wait and respond to their need.”

One didn't need to move people very far. After the fact "response expectations" of the level I see everywhere, as opposed to the dramatic capabilities that existed beforehand, that went unutilized, are sickening.

FL can do it. And it is never without difficulty and extreme hardship. Ask anyone who has left the state. The few paths out of FL limit the movement of everything and everybody. There is no safety on a peninsula that is 300 miles long, all of it "below sea level" until you hit the GA/AL coast.

N.O. (and MS, etc.) residents needed only weather the storm 30 miles inland, for ~24 hours.

They couldn't get that right.

This entire argument is like a tobacco lawsuit, despite package warnings for 45 years. There is no secret about how to save yourself from a huricane. GET OUT OF ITS WAY.

I can help you "clean up your mess," but never as much as you can help "prevent your own."

LEAVING people to die wasn't the fault of anyone in D.C. Leaving people at risk of death (and to die) was the fault of one person: Ray Nagin.

Levees or not, the areas that bore the worst of the storm were not MY "tax paying" responsibility to move those people out of it. That belonged to the people themselves and the powers they elected.

My preference for buttons to wear is below. I'm talking about rsponsibility in actions, not words or blame seeking:



I'm not responsible for anyone beyond those I accept responsibility for. But first among those is me. And for local officials who spent far more money seeking the responsibility than the job pays, they failed to use it before disaster struck, when it is their job, their responsibility to do so. It is what they have the job for. It is what they sought --- it is what they were elected to do. It is why we have the division of power like we do, ocal/city/county/state/federal.

There is only so much that can be expected AFTERWARDS. Claims of how 150,000 people in Iraq, out of a total of 2,200,000, resulted in the calamity in LA, because of a shortage of people.... it's all excuses made to shift blame upon others from those who had direct authority / responsibility over the resorces of a city and a state.

The first line of defense (evacuate) was the largest and most capable.

It went unused, like a condom in the pocket of a crack house @#$%&. That shoulder of blame belongs to local authorities who were elected by people (who wrongly assumed that those they put into power could manage it). Now they know different, at great cost.

The St. Louis example serves so many great purposes here, and the magnitude of those events isn't nearly so predictable as the clockwork of hurricanes nor the "non-secret" of their power to obliterate.

The only mystery here is why common sense was ignored and bad judgement goes unnoticed by so many - an excuse to make such "poor decision making" EXCUSABLE.

There wouldn't have to have been an extensive rescue effort if the people in charge had taken responsibility in the first place.

Finally.... here is a cute factoid. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is in an all but useless class by himself: Kennedy stated on HuffingtonPost.com that MS governor Haley Barbour is personally responsible for the hurricane itself, due to his opposition the Kyoto environmental treaty.

That is the voice of leadership if I have ever heard it.

btw... I hate the Kennedys. All of them, living and dead. You know how I know this about myself?? Someone else here said it, and that made it true.

I didn't even have to say it. They said it, and like everything else they type - because they said it, it must be true. They didn't even have to read it on some website.

I refer to historical record, of the Ambassador being a prohibition era law breaker - and that is all the proof required to "extrapolate all belief systems."

In case you didn't hear it here first, somewhere on the forum(s) I once referred to Carter as "ineffective." You can see this means I also hate Habitat For Humanity - and hope all their screws come loose, in every house they build, ... for all eternity.

Like the screws of someone here, which already HAVE come loose.

I'll close this thread (hopefully) with some quotes ... quotes from good sources by people who having made them, make them worth considering. I even link to a credible newspaper.


Saturday evening, Hurricane Katrina had intensified to Category 4, with the possibility that it could strike land as a killer Category 5 storm.

About 8 p.m., Mayor Nagin fielded an unusual personal call at home from Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center, who wanted to be sure Nagin knew what was coming.

Still, Nagin waited to issue a mandatory evacuation, apparently because of legal complications, said Frazier. She said the city attorney was unavailable for an interview to explain.

But Kris Wartelle, spokeswoman for the attorney general of Louisiana, said state law clearly gives the mayor the authority to "direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened area."

"They're not confused about it. He had the authority to do it," Wartelle said.

The mandatory evacuation order came at 10 a.m Sunday.

Former Kemah Mayor Bill King, who has spent years trying to boost funding and organization for hurricanes planning in the Houston-Galveston area, said Nagin's decision to wait to order people out compounded the tragedy.

"To call an evacuation on Sunday morning when the storm was going to hit on Monday morning at 6 a.m. is just ... negligence," King said. "If he'd called it better than that he would have saved lives."


[www.chron.com]


"Sorry buddy" ... indeed.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 07, 2006 12:50PM
I've never made excuses for Nagin or Blanco. They failed miserably and should lose their jobs. The reason to have a federation of states, such as the United States of America, is when one level of defense is overwhelmed at the local level (whether due to the incompetence of the locals or an awesome catastrophe), is to have backup. We don't say to people that are stranded on their rooftops "your mayor and governor failed you - you're on your own." Bush failed them, just as did Nagin & Blanco. The whole lot should lose their jobs.

As for RFK, Jr., I merely corrected you when you attributed to his father something the son said. Because you were off on an illogical rant that began with a false premise I suggested that you probably hated all Kennedys because you were tarring one for the actions of another. Thanks for alleviating my concern.

And now, for your continued consternation:

"People getting wise to Bush lies on Katrina, Iraq, other disasters"
[www.smirkingchimp.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Robo
Date: March 08, 2006 01:26PM
While the video makes it clear Bush was warned, I don't know that he is actually capable of comprehending things like most of us with IQs about 50 can. Ever hear his response to the question about Native American sovereignty? He ain't all there and that's why he's dependent on the transmitter to spoon feed him his lines. When he doesn't have that he just mumble some nonsense like he did in that video about how they're prepared and hope people aren't killed.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 08, 2006 02:05PM
Best responses of Bush supporters (as provided by the Onion):

"All this proves is he attended the meeting. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that he was actually listening."

"That video was taken way out of context. If you step back and view it as just another mistake made by the administration, it's not that bad at all."

"Well, he cared enough to sit through an entire boring meeting about it."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Bush Didn't Lie About Levee Breaching
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 08, 2006 02:14PM
Perhaps the urgency with which the Pentagram is developing remote control sharks is derived from the limitations of Bush's transmitter. With proper electronic stimulation he might actually be able to ride a bike without running into security people.
Options:  Reply • Quote
New Dem tactic: It was Reagan's fault!!
Posted by: liberal weenie
Date: March 14, 2006 08:15AM
[www.usatoday.com]
Engineers: 1985 test predicted levee break.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Scientists working on an independent study
of a floodwall that collapsed during Hurricane Katrina said
Monday that a government test 21 years ago predicted the wall
could fail.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' built a levee and floodwall
system to test a design similar to the 17th Street Canal in
1985, which "indicated that failure was imminent," according
to a statement from Raymond B. Seed and Robert G. Bea, in
charge of the National Science Foundation's Independent Levee
Investigation Team.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: New Dem tactic: It was Reagan's fault!!
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 14, 2006 04:09PM
liberal weenie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Engineers: 1985 test predicted levee break.

The weaknesses were known, yet Bush slashed $70 million from levee repairs. Real bright.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Engineers: 1985 test predicted levee break.
Posted by: cassie
Date: March 16, 2006 10:44AM
So why didn't Louisiana's state and local government's press to have it fixed?

Why didn't Louisiana's elected Democrats in Congress concentrate on this problem since those dastardly Republicans wanted the levee to go?

Why didn't the Democratically controlled Congress fix this back in the 80's?

Why didn't President Clinton do anything? After all, he's the standard bearer of all caring and do-gooding.

Why all this would have never happened had Democrats not left it for George to purposely screw up.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Engineers: 1985 test predicted levee break.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 16, 2006 09:44PM
cassie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why didn't Louisiana's state and local
> government's press to have it fixed?

Levee repairs to the nation's most vital waterway are a federal responsibility. Having a major port at the mouth of the Mississippi is a national security essential, and the majority of tax dollars flow to Washington, DC to be allocated (theoretically) to the most vital national needs. Of course it doesn't work that way, and lobbyists for special interests bribe our representatives to vote for bridges to nowhere in Alaska, for instance, instead of repairing levees that might actually serve some useful purpose. Neither the state nor city governments have that kind of revenue to do the repairs, in any case. Would you prefer they raise your property taxes to pay for those sort of actions which benefit the whole nation, by maintaining a vital port through which major portions of our heartland's agricultural exports pass, and which provides the living quarters for vital petrochemical workers?

> Why didn't Louisiana's elected Democrats in
> Congress concentrate on this problem since those
> dastardly Republicans wanted the levee to go?

Where have you been, Cassie? The Dems haven't controlled Congress for at least six years.

> Why didn't the Democratically controlled Congress
> fix this back in the 80's?

Levee repairs are a constant process as the mighty Mississippi and yearly storms erode and weaken them. The fact remains that weaknesses were identified in recent years, and Bush CUT $70 million from the budget that was earmarked to repair those damaged and weakened areas. Additionally he sent large numbers of Louisianna's National Guard and their highwater vehicles to fight his illegal, unnecessary, immoral war on Iraq. The guard is to guard our nation, not to tear down others and try to remake them in the corporate fascists vision of a "free market economy."

> Why didn't President Clinton do anything? After
> all, he's the standard bearer of all caring and
> do-gooding.

You live under the common delusion that we have a two-party system. The corporate plutocracy uses a "good cop/bad cop" technique of beating down the poor incessantly under the Republicans, then when the people get fed up they throw their puppets to the wolves (or allow them to retire in disgrace, but comfort, e.g. Nixon) then offer us a Bush-lite figure, like Clinton, as a kinder, gentler warmonger.

Clinton killed more Iraqis than either Bush, maintaining brutal sanctions that denied them clean water or the medicines to treat the diseases they acquired because of that lack. It was biological warfare, and when Leslie Stahl asked Clinton's obese sec'y of state, Mad' Albright, if the deaths of half a million Iraqi kids from sanctions had been worth it, the she-devil said "We (implying the Clinton administration) think it WAS worth it because it showed sanctions were working." Clinton' crazed killer Wesley Clark was quoted (during our illegal war on Serbia) "I need maximum violence." We used depleted uranium on the Serbs, too, in defense of radical Islamic allies in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Higher rates of Serbian birth defects and cancer are the result. Where on earth did you get the notion that Clinton was "all caring and do-gooding?"

> Why all this would have never happened had
> Democrats not left it for George to purposely
> screw up.

Given the choice between two warmongers (and that is really the only choice the elites give us - I have to vote Dem, and only Clinton and Kerry have the money to run for prez in 'O8. I have to choose the one that offers some semblance of concern for the poor while continuing the conquest of earth. Neither of those two Dem hacks will stop the war. The plutocracy has decided to engage in mass murder for oil no matter which you or I choose. The empire will be maintained by both Dems & Reps, regardless of how much innocent blood is required to be spilled.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 256
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018