Bush attempts to get us closer to police state

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: dphantom

You're confusing your inane opinion with fact. There are no facts that indicate that the war in Iraq is a personal vendetta. There are lots like you who want it to be that way, but that is still an opinion, not a fact.

There is also no proof that he didn't. Is the proof that it wasn't in the WMD that we found once the occupation was completed? Don't think so. Was the link between Saddam and 9/11 or al Qaida ever proven? Nope. They had to uphold UN sanctions by.....going against the UN security council. Good job.



I guess you can also make the indictment against just about every member of this administration for mistaking their "inane opinions" with facts.

I think that there is just as much, if not more, evidence that it was a war for personal reasons than it was a war for the reasons that it was sold to Congress, the American people, the UNSC and the rest of the world.

And TLC....why don't you answer the question that was asked of you....do YOU think that this is a legitimate use of the military and it is a good idea?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina
Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

then he uses the military to settle a personal vendetta against Saddam,

Pure speculation and hyperbole.

Exhibit B:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

And this is all thanks to the whiney lefties gushing forth their crocodile tears over NOLA. "Where's Bush? Why doesn't he have the military in NOLA?" Now Bush is making pre-emptive plans in case of a pandemic so he doesn't have to hear it from the crocs.

So now you got your wish and won't have to whine if a pandemic occurs. Happy for what you and yours have wrought?

LOL

Laugh all you want. You know it's true.

OK so in that case: laugh all you want, it's a fact that Bush went to war in Iraq to settle a personal vendetta. :roll:

Care to explain why else Bush would be making this plan?

It's a reaction to all the criticism from the left from Katrina and you well know it. Of course, the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' crew would complain either way:

"Why isn't Bush using the military in NOLA?"

"OMG! Bush is going to use the military and turn us into a police state."

Keep marginalizing the left with that kind of contrarian garbage. It's why so many people think the left are nothing more than bitter, hypocritical little kooks these days.

True, about on the same level as the bitter little hypocritical kooks on the Right.

Maybe. But the left talk about how they are so superior to those knuckle-dragging, NASCAR-luvin', yokels in a jesus jumpsuit on the right.

Doesn't appear to be so.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina
Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

then he uses the military to settle a personal vendetta against Saddam,

Pure speculation and hyperbole.

Exhibit B:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

And this is all thanks to the whiney lefties gushing forth their crocodile tears over NOLA. "Where's Bush? Why doesn't he have the military in NOLA?" Now Bush is making pre-emptive plans in case of a pandemic so he doesn't have to hear it from the crocs.

So now you got your wish and won't have to whine if a pandemic occurs. Happy for what you and yours have wrought?

LOL

Laugh all you want. You know it's true.

OK so in that case: laugh all you want, it's a fact that Bush went to war in Iraq to settle a personal vendetta. :roll:

Care to explain why else Bush would be making this plan?

It's a reaction to all the criticism from the left from Katrina and you well know it. Of course, the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' crew would complain either way:

"Why isn't Bush using the military in NOLA?"

"OMG! Bush is going to use the military and turn us into a police state."

Keep marginalizing the left with that kind of contrarian garbage. It's why so many people think the left are nothing more than bitter, hypocritical little kooks these days.

True, about on the same level as the bitter little hypocritical kooks on the Right.

Maybe. But the left talk about how they are so superior to those knuckle-dragging, NASCAR-luvin', yokels in a jesus jumpsuit on the right.

Doesn't appear to be so.

I've heard that just like I've heard those on the Right label those who don't agree with their politics Socialist or Marxists. The truth is neither the Left nor the Right speak for the majority.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
Really makes you wonder the thought process of some people doesnt it?

Just curious? Who here argued that army was needed to search/seize evidence? Maybe a few argued that the army needed to arrest the NO natives, but I haven't seen that. Many did argue that the army should have helped with protection and aid. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.

I'm also curious. Where in this article does it discuss search/seizure? From what I see:

Should avian flu mutate and gain the ability to spread easily from human to human, world leaders and scientists would need rapid access to accurate information to be able to stem its spread, he said.

...

Absent an effective vaccine, public health officials likely would try to stem the disease's spread by isolating people who had been exposed to it. Such a move could require the military, he said.

Sound like a nation-wide quarantine program to me, relying on the military for enforcement and setting up communication channels.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
And TLC....why don't you answer the question that was asked of you....do YOU think that this is a legitimate use of the military and it is a good idea?

I think it's an option that should be considered and discussed, which is where it's at right now.

And if the response of local and state government to a bird flu pandemic would be anything like the LA local and state response to Katina, using our military might be the better option.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: K1052
Most of this forum was willing to run Posse Comitatus over with a tank when the scope of the problems on the gulf coast from Katrina beacame apparent.

What an odd shift of opinion.

You might actrually do some research into the powers the President had and didn't use, concerning active duty military, until after the fact concerning Hurricane Katrina before you again start burbling idiocy.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
Really makes you wonder the thought process of some people doesnt it?

Just curious? Who here argued that army was needed to search/seize evidence? Maybe a few argued that the army needed to arrest the NO natives, but I haven't seen that. Many did argue that the army should have helped with protection and aid. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.

I'm also curious. Where in this article does it discuss search/seizure? From what I see:

Should avian flu mutate and gain the ability to spread easily from human to human, world leaders and scientists would need rapid access to accurate information to be able to stem its spread, he said.

...

Absent an effective vaccine, public health officials likely would try to stem the disease's spread by isolating people who had been exposed to it. Such a move could require the military, he said.

Sound like a nation-wide quarantine program to me, relying on the military for enforcement and setting up communication channels.

Did you happen to notice these quotes from Bush also in the article:

The president said he saw things differently than he did as governor of Texas. "I didn't want the president telling me how to be the commander in chief of the Texas Guard," he said.

"But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the president to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe or one such challenge could be an avian flu outbreak."

He is advocating that the president be given the authority to override the power vested in the govenors and take control of the NG. He is using this as a convienent means/reason/excuse for doing such. He is, essentially, making the president an absolute power over the entire military in this country and can use that power to disperse the NG within states without having to cross as many lines as he would if the current power structure over the NG stayed in tact.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Who think the military is qualified for this? The military is good at killing hard targets, that's it. Not nation building, not securing a city, not baby sitting construction, etc.

If the POS congress lets Bush get away with stripping even more power from the legislative branch, with his approval rating and dooming many of them in 2006, they truely have no backbone.

This is what the OP should have posted. This question and comment could actually lead to intelligent discussion. I think this is largely what the president is trying to shift the military into. Really, we don't need big numbers to kill hard targets. Military is acting more and more in situations where fighting is only maybe half of what they do. This is one of the great things about being in the modern military is the practical skills you learn. These people have to know how to clear out an area after its been destroyed, rebuilt the area, safely navigate dangerous situations. I agree that military should not be used for law enforcement, but they could have their uses for disaster recovery.

As far as quarentines, I don't know how else we could enforce a quarentine except throught the military. My understanding is that top professionals think that the quickest we could expect to develop a vaccination for a flu outbreak would be six months. It is impossible to predict the form before it strikes because it mutates so rapidly. Granted, this is just what I've heard on the news, so feel free to correct me.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
He is advocating that the president be given the authority to override the power vested in the govenors and take control of the NG. He is using this as a convienent means/reason/excuse for doing such. He is, essentially, making the president an absolute power over the entire military in this country and can use that power to disperse the NG within states without having to cross as many lines as he would if the current power structure over the NG stayed in tact.

But that is a separate issue from Posse Comitatus.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Oh.....and on a side note....this "pandemic" fear that Bush is pushing is for a disease that has killed a grand total of 60 people world-wide since it's discovery. Doesn't sound as if it requires the military to quarantine a group that size if detected.

Sixty deaths might not be too many, but remember that very few people have been infected. I'd bet that the number of infecions numbers in the hundreds. Right now the desease is just going from chicken to person. If it goes from person to person, then it may begin to spread MUCH more rapidly. If 10% of Americans get this bird flu, and 10% of those die of the disease then we would see a staggering death toll of 2.7 million.

When a quarentine takes place not only do those infected have to be quarentined, but also every person that the infected person came in contact with. It is possible that we may have to quarentine an entire city the size of Chicago.

The flu is a serious threat as is is VERY likely that such an outbreak will occur at some point. We had a close call a couple years ago with SARS. If it important that we are ready to properly implement a quarentine. I dont' think it is great to have the military run things, but who else but else is capable of enforcing the quarentine of at least a few hundred thousand people?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

The president said he saw things differently than he did as governor of Texas. "I didn't want the president telling me how to be the commander in chief of the Texas Guard," he said.

"But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the president to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe or one such challenge could be an avian flu outbreak."

He is advocating that the president be given the authority to override the power vested in the govenors and take control of the NG. He is using this as a convienent means/reason/excuse for doing such. He is, essentially, making the president an absolute power over the entire military in this country and can use that power to disperse the NG within states without having to cross as many lines as he would if the current power structure over the NG stayed in tact.

I'm all for having a healthy amount of paranoia, especially when it comes to the government, but don't you think you are reaching just a bit to come to this conclusion, based on what little we know?

 

[2Xtreme21]

I just find it completely ironic that the same people who wanted to "give freedom" to the Iraqis, want it to be stripped away from us at home.

I can't understand how you people still support him.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: eilute

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Oh.....and on a side note....this "pandemic" fear that Bush is pushing is for a disease that has killed a grand total of 60 people world-wide since it's discovery. Doesn't sound as if it requires the military to quarantine a group that size if detected.

Sixty deaths might not be too many, but remember that very few people have been infected. I'd bet that the number of infecions numbers in the hundreds. Right now the desease is just going from chicken to person. If it goes from person to person, then it may begin to spread MUCH more rapidly. If 10% of Americans get this bird flu, and 10% of those die of the disease then we would see a staggering death toll of 2.7 million.

When a quarentine takes place not only do those infected have to be quarentined, but also every person that the infected person came in contact with. It is possible that we may have to quarentine an entire city the size of Chicago.

The flu is a serious threat as is is VERY likely that such an outbreak will occur at some point. We had a close call a couple years ago with SARS. If it important that we are ready to properly implement a quarentine. I dont' think it is great to have the military run things, but who else but else is capable of enforcing the quarentine of at least a few hundred thousand people?

Yeah, I wasn't going to address the OP's stance of the Bird Flu, as it appears he's just using it as an excuse for his near-conspiracy theory. The Flu is a very real threat, not simply a ploy to turn the US into a "police state." Many, many scientists and researchers are concerned over the possibility of this thing becoming a serious epidemic. For either "side" to consider this as nothing more than political fear-mongering is downright silly.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I just find it completely ironic that the same people who wanted to "give freedom" to the Iraqis, want it to be stripped away from us at home.

I can't understand how you people still support him.

Again, if the justification for the "Bush proposal" is avian flu, then it's dumb and dangerous.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: lozina



OK so in that case: laugh all you want, it's a fact that Bush went to war in Iraq to settle a personal vendetta. :roll:

You're confusing your inane opinion with fact. There are no facts that indicate that the war in Iraq is a personal vendetta. There are lots like you who want it to be that way, but that is still an opinion, not a fact.

Thank you for pointing out the problem!!! Just as there are no facts to support the war in IRaq was for a personal vendetta there are no facts to support TasteLikeChicken's idea of this being a direct result of specifically "lefties" and Katrina. It's just pure speculation which TLC chastized the OP about then in the very same breath goes and makes his own stupid speculation.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: lozina



OK so in that case: laugh all you want, it's a fact that Bush went to war in Iraq to settle a personal vendetta. :roll:

You're confusing your inane opinion with fact. There are no facts that indicate that the war in Iraq is a personal vendetta. There are lots like you who want it to be that way, but that is still an opinion, not a fact.

Thank you for pointing out the problem!!! Just as there are no facts to support the war in IRaq was for a personal vendetta there are no facts to support TasteLikeChicken's idea of this being a direct result of specifically "lefties" and Katrina. It's just pure speculation which TLC chastized the OP about then in the very same breath goes and makes his own stupid speculation.

Au contrair. There are plenty of facts to suggest that what I claimed is precisely the reason why Bush is being proactive on this issue. In fact, even the article the OP linked states that it's because of Katrina that Bush is considering this. Now if it wouldn't have been for all the criticism (And where did that criticism originate from, primarily?) over Katrina, do you think he'd still be doing this?

It's a simple logical progression. Does someone really have to spell it out for you?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: lozina



OK so in that case: laugh all you want, it's a fact that Bush went to war in Iraq to settle a personal vendetta. :roll:

You're confusing your inane opinion with fact. There are no facts that indicate that the war in Iraq is a personal vendetta. There are lots like you who want it to be that way, but that is still an opinion, not a fact.

Thank you for pointing out the problem!!! Just as there are no facts to support the war in IRaq was for a personal vendetta there are no facts to support TasteLikeChicken's idea of this being a direct result of specifically "lefties" and Katrina. It's just pure speculation which TLC chastized the OP about then in the very same breath goes and makes his own stupid speculation.

Au contrair. There are plenty of facts to suggest that what I claimed is precisely the reason why Bush is being proactive on this issue. In fact, even the article the OP linked states that it's because of Katrina that Bush is considering this. Now if it wouldn't have been for all the criticism (And where did that criticism originate from, primarily?) over Katrina, do you think he'd still be doing this?

It's a simple logical progression. Does someone really have to spell it out for you?

Oh so now all of a sudden it's just Katrina and we're ignoring the whacky lefties this time around? Notice how I said "specifically" lefties? That was the issue I had with your post.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: K1052
Most of this forum was willing to run Posse Comitatus over with a tank when the scope of the problems on the gulf coast from Katrina beacame apparent.

What an odd shift of opinion.

You might actrually do some research into the powers the President had and didn't use, concerning active duty military, until after the fact concerning Hurricane Katrina before you again start burbling idiocy.

Active Federal forces can be used in many capacities inside the US in times of crisis. They are however expressly forbidden from enforcing the law. Only the National Guard can do that under State control in such a situation.

Members of this forum were demanding that Bush insert Federal troops into the city immediately to restore order.

 

[Moonbeam]

Please Mr. Police Man Blue, don't tie me down, please oh please Mr. Policeman, you, jus cause I got that ol bird flu.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: lozina



OK so in that case: laugh all you want, it's a fact that Bush went to war in Iraq to settle a personal vendetta. :roll:

You're confusing your inane opinion with fact. There are no facts that indicate that the war in Iraq is a personal vendetta. There are lots like you who want it to be that way, but that is still an opinion, not a fact.

Thank you for pointing out the problem!!! Just as there are no facts to support the war in IRaq was for a personal vendetta there are no facts to support TasteLikeChicken's idea of this being a direct result of specifically "lefties" and Katrina. It's just pure speculation which TLC chastized the OP about then in the very same breath goes and makes his own stupid speculation.

Au contrair. There are plenty of facts to suggest that what I claimed is precisely the reason why Bush is being proactive on this issue. In fact, even the article the OP linked states that it's because of Katrina that Bush is considering this. Now if it wouldn't have been for all the criticism (And where did that criticism originate from, primarily?) over Katrina, do you think he'd still be doing this?

It's a simple logical progression. Does someone really have to spell it out for you?

Oh so now all of a sudden it's just Katrina and we're ignoring the whacky lefties this time around? Notice how I said "specifically" lefties? That was the issue I had with your post.

Where did I ignore the whacky lefties in my previous post and claim it was just Katrina?

Now if it wouldn't have been for all the criticism (And where did that criticism originate from, primarily?) over Katrina, do you think he'd still be doing this?

The left made the vast majority of the noise about Bush and his reaction to Katrina, that can't be denied. Now Bush is being proactive to deflect criticism should a pendemic potentially occur. Now the lefties are criticizing him again.

Like I said previously - "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." and the penchant for the left to damn Bush no matter what he does is highly apparent and makes them look like little more than whiney partisans who complain simply for the sake of complaining.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: lozina



OK so in that case: laugh all you want, it's a fact that Bush went to war in Iraq to settle a personal vendetta. :roll:

You're confusing your inane opinion with fact. There are no facts that indicate that the war in Iraq is a personal vendetta. There are lots like you who want it to be that way, but that is still an opinion, not a fact.

Thank you for pointing out the problem!!! Just as there are no facts to support the war in IRaq was for a personal vendetta there are no facts to support TasteLikeChicken's idea of this being a direct result of specifically "lefties" and Katrina. It's just pure speculation which TLC chastized the OP about then in the very same breath goes and makes his own stupid speculation.

Au contrair. There are plenty of facts to suggest that what I claimed is precisely the reason why Bush is being proactive on this issue. In fact, even the article the OP linked states that it's because of Katrina that Bush is considering this. Now if it wouldn't have been for all the criticism (And where did that criticism originate from, primarily?) over Katrina, do you think he'd still be doing this?

It's a simple logical progression. Does someone really have to spell it out for you?

Oh so now all of a sudden it's just Katrina and we're ignoring the whacky lefties this time around? Notice how I said "specifically" lefties? That was the issue I had with your post.

Where did I ignore the whacky lefties in my previous post and claim it was just Katrina?

Now if it wouldn't have been for all the criticism (And where did that criticism originate from, primarily?) over Katrina, do you think he'd still be doing this?

The left made the vast majority of the noise about Bush and his reaction to Katrina, that can't be denied. Now Bush is being proactive to deflect criticism should a pendemic potentially occur. Now the lefties are criticizing him again.

Like I said previously - "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." and the penchant for the left to damn Bush no matter what he does is highly apparent and makes them look like little more than whiney partisans who complain simply for the sake of complaining.

It's the same as the right following him like a fxcking sheep everywhere.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: dphantom

You're confusing your inane opinion with fact. There are no facts that indicate that the war in Iraq is a personal vendetta. There are lots like you who want it to be that way, but that is still an opinion, not a fact.

There is also no proof that he didn't. Is the proof that it wasn't in the WMD that we found once the occupation was completed? Don't think so. Was the link between Saddam and 9/11 or al Qaida ever proven? Nope. They had to uphold UN sanctions by.....going against the UN security council. Good job.



I guess you can also make the indictment against just about every member of this administration for mistaking their "inane opinions" with facts.

I think that there is just as much, if not more, evidence that it was a war for personal reasons than it was a war for the reasons that it was sold to Congress, the American people, the UNSC and the rest of the world.

And TLC....why don't you answer the question that was asked of you....do YOU think that this is a legitimate use of the military and it is a good idea?

You made the assertion so prove it. All you just did is throw out a typical excuse making it up to those who disagree with you to prove you wrong. No, it is up to you to prove your point, not me to prove it wrong.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: lozina



OK so in that case: laugh all you want, it's a fact that Bush went to war in Iraq to settle a personal vendetta. :roll:

You're confusing your inane opinion with fact. There are no facts that indicate that the war in Iraq is a personal vendetta. There are lots like you who want it to be that way, but that is still an opinion, not a fact.

Thank you for pointing out the problem!!! Just as there are no facts to support the war in IRaq was for a personal vendetta there are no facts to support TasteLikeChicken's idea of this being a direct result of specifically "lefties" and Katrina. It's just pure speculation which TLC chastized the OP about then in the very same breath goes and makes his own stupid speculation.

Au contrair. There are plenty of facts to suggest that what I claimed is precisely the reason why Bush is being proactive on this issue. In fact, even the article the OP linked states that it's because of Katrina that Bush is considering this. Now if it wouldn't have been for all the criticism (And where did that criticism originate from, primarily?) over Katrina, do you think he'd still be doing this?

It's a simple logical progression. Does someone really have to spell it out for you?

Oh so now all of a sudden it's just Katrina and we're ignoring the whacky lefties this time around? Notice how I said "specifically" lefties? That was the issue I had with your post.

Where did I ignore the whacky lefties in my previous post and claim it was just Katrina?

Now if it wouldn't have been for all the criticism (And where did that criticism originate from, primarily?) over Katrina, do you think he'd still be doing this?

The left made the vast majority of the noise about Bush and his reaction to Katrina, that can't be denied. Now Bush is being proactive to deflect criticism should a pendemic potentially occur. Now the lefties are criticizing him again.

Like I said previously - "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." and the penchant for the left to damn Bush no matter what he does is highly apparent and makes them look like little more than whiney partisans who complain simply for the sake of complaining.

It's the same as the right following him like a fxcking sheep everywhere.

Really? Proof or some sort of substantiation, because I'll be more than happy to prove you wrong on that count. The nomination of Miers is but one such example where the right are not "following him like a fxcking sheep everywhere."

 

[2Xtreme21]

It was proving a point that the left don't "complain simply for the sake of complaining." You needn't look further than the Roberts appointment.

And honestly, do you need any proof? Just turn on Rush and Hannity.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: lozina



OK so in that case: laugh all you want, it's a fact that Bush went to war in Iraq to settle a personal vendetta. :roll:

You're confusing your inane opinion with fact. There are no facts that indicate that the war in Iraq is a personal vendetta. There are lots like you who want it to be that way, but that is still an opinion, not a fact.

Thank you for pointing out the problem!!! Just as there are no facts to support the war in IRaq was for a personal vendetta there are no facts to support TasteLikeChicken's idea of this being a direct result of specifically "lefties" and Katrina. It's just pure speculation which TLC chastized the OP about then in the very same breath goes and makes his own stupid speculation.

Au contrair. There are plenty of facts to suggest that what I claimed is precisely the reason why Bush is being proactive on this issue. In fact, even the article the OP linked states that it's because of Katrina that Bush is considering this. Now if it wouldn't have been for all the criticism (And where did that criticism originate from, primarily?) over Katrina, do you think he'd still be doing this?

It's a simple logical progression. Does someone really have to spell it out for you?

Oh so now all of a sudden it's just Katrina and we're ignoring the whacky lefties this time around? Notice how I said "specifically" lefties? That was the issue I had with your post.

Where did I ignore the whacky lefties in my previous post and claim it was just Katrina?

Now if it wouldn't have been for all the criticism (And where did that criticism originate from, primarily?) over Katrina, do you think he'd still be doing this?

The left made the vast majority of the noise about Bush and his reaction to Katrina, that can't be denied. Now Bush is being proactive to deflect criticism should a pendemic potentially occur. Now the lefties are criticizing him again.

Like I said previously - "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." and the penchant for the left to damn Bush no matter what he does is highly apparent and makes them look like little more than whiney partisans who complain simply for the sake of complaining.

Got any proof whatsoever besides anecdotal, hypothetical, speculative and biased opinion?