Bush's response is not adequate

Page 38 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, finally, you halfway answered the question. Now, finish it up.

How is using volunteer firefighters as PR toadies a GOOD thing?
I never said it was a good thing. Now are you going to answer to your obvious hypocrisy? Did you or did you not call for Bush to be there on day one? You supported wasting the highly-trained resources on day one - did you not?

It's in your court conjur, you've already missed multiple times. Going to actually step up and admit your hackery/hypocrisy/or shifting standards? We'll wait.

By the way, none of this has anything to do with the timeline link I posted. Just further diversions from you on that issue.
You called my posting of that article a "disgusting" thing. How is posting the truth disgusting? You haven't answered the question fully yet. You apparently support the decision to use firefighters as PR toadies despite your RNC-fed BS.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, finally, you halfway answered the question. Now, finish it up.

How is using volunteer firefighters as PR toadies a GOOD thing?
I never said it was a good thing. Now are you going to answer to your obvious hypocrisy? Did you or did you not call for Bush to be there on day one? You supported wasting the highly-trained resources on day one - did you not?

It's in your court conjur, you've already missed multiple times. Going to actually step up and admit your hackery/hypocrisy/or shifting standards? We'll wait.

By the way, none of this has anything to do with the timeline link I posted. Just further diversions from you on that issue.
You called my posting of that article a "disgusting" thing. How is posting the truth disgusting? You haven't answered the question fully yet. You apparently support the decision to use firefighters as PR toadies despite your RNC-fed BS.

I've told you. You and the other partisan hacks who are using this disaster and tragedy to further your petty partisan agenda is disgusting.
I don't need to answer your little question because it has nothing to do with what I posted - the timeline link. You obviously think Bush should have wasted highly-trained resources when you kept yapping about how he should have been there on day one though - right? Come on conjur - this is your diversion from the timeline - fess up. Were you a partisan troll then - or now?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Posting an article on the misuse of firefighters is pushing an agenda? I thought it was merely explaining how FUBAR'd this relief effort was? I don't care if Michael Brown is a Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Communist, etc. He has FVCKED UP! BIG TIME! And his boss has FVCKED UP, too. And *his* boss (where the buck stops, according to Scotty-boy today) has FVCKED UP. Party affiliation means nothing. It's a matter of who screwed up and caused the deaths of thousands.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Posting an article on the misuse of firefighters is pushing an agenda? I thought it was merely explaining how FUBAR'd this relief effort was? I don't care if Michael Brown is a Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Communist, etc. He has FVCKED UP! BIG TIME! And his boss has FVCKED UP, too. And *his* boss (where the buck stops, according to Scotty-boy today) has FVCKED UP. Party affiliation means nothing. It's a matter of who screwed up and caused the deaths of thousands.

Yet another diversion by conjur. Back to the previous one though since you haven't answered.
You obviously think Bush should have wasted highly-trained resources when you kept yapping about how he should have been there on day one though - right? Come on conjur - this is your diversion from the timeline - fess up. Were you a partisan troll then - or now?
 

imported_Pedro69

Senior member
Jan 18, 2005
259
0
0
FEMA Chief Waited Until After Storm Hit

Considering FEMA was (starting 08/29/2005) responsible for the entire Gulf Coast.

Bush declares disasters in Louisiana, Mississippi

Mon Aug 29, 1:33 PM ET

EL MIRAGE, Arizona (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush on Monday approved major disaster declarations for the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, clearing the way for the use of federal money to help respond to Hurricane Katrina, the White House said.

"Our Gulf Coast is getting hit and hit hard," Bush said in El Mirage, Arizona. "I want the folks there on the Gulf Coast to know that the federal government is prepared to help you when the storm passes."

The president urged people in the storm's path not to leave their shelters until they are told by local authorities that it is safe enough to do so.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush approved the major disaster declarations aboard Air Force One en route to Arizona.

"This will allow federal funds to start being used to deploy resources to help in those two states," McClellan said. He said the money would be used for "response and recovery" efforts.
Ok guy's beyond this point it is not funny anymore :shocked:
 

johnnobts

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2005
1,105
0
71
Bush's response is better than blanco's response, which is truly nothing.

i live just outside of meridian, MS, which has been officially declared as a FEMA relief city for refugees. I sat down this afternoon and spoke with 12 different familes (all from New Orleans) as we were making out lists of clothing, school supplies, medication, for our church family to help purchase (by the way, to you anti-church folks, who say we're as bad as the islamo-fascists, please take note of who the private groups are who are actually in the thick of it, rolling up our sleeves and loving our neighbors, driving into places like biloxi and moving downed trees, fixing hot meals, and opening our homes and trailers up to these individuals).

at any rate, i never brought up politics at all with any of them (i don't mix politics with my preaching mininstry) they were the ones who started venting to me about how furious they were with blanco, how she did nothing, absolutely nothing. two of the sinlge moms started bursting into tears over it. one of them is a nurse who works at East Jefferson in NO, she had to stay to keep the hosptial running and was just getting out and on her way to Houston. Her husband stayed behind as a doctor to work. She had some choice words for the LA governor...
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
I can imagine their frustration, johnnobts. But, remember this: they've not had access to all of the media sources that the rest of the country has.

BTW, no need to be so defensive re: the churches involved in helping. I'm sure they're all doing a great job taking care of the storm victims.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/D8CFHLI01.html
At a news conference, Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's choice for head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency had "absolutely no credentials."

She related that she urged Bush at the White House on Tuesday to fire Brown.

"He said 'Why would I do that?'" Pelosi said.

"'I said because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week.' And he said 'What didn't go right?'"

"Oblivious, in denial, dangerous," she added.
Damn, Nancy! Both barrels! Let it fly!
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, ShadesOfGrey, what's that reality? Explain to me how using firefighters as PR toadies is a GOOD thing.

Go ahead. I can't wait to hear this one.

Still waiting.

???

Maybe he's waiting on you to answer my questions in this thread first ;)

Still waiting.

Still waiting.
 

Boxxcar

Senior member
Mar 19, 2002
364
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm not sure you can blame Bush for being true to his nature. There's always an "imminent" disaster of some sort on the horizon, but how many voters expected Bush to be the person that was "planning" for it?

Bush was elected (and re-elected) b/c Democrats rallied behind "problem solvers", while Republicans (and a significant minority of Independents) wanted a face man.

Having said that, it's not like you can blame Bush for bad planning in Louisiana. The people lived in a friggin' bowl surrounded by water! Now you can certainly blame Bush for having diverted thousands of National Guard (Iraq) and hundreds of billions (Iraq) but that's about it.

Oh please! Why can't we blame Bush. He's the one who took the millions of $$ to rebuild the levee's and diverted the funds to Iraq.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: Boxxcar
Oh please! Why can't we blame Bush. He's the one who took the millions of $$ to rebuild the levee's and diverted the funds to Iraq.

Please read up before you post such drivel. Not only would the levee project not have been completed, it's my understanding that the 17th Street levee, which was breached, was one of the completed repairs. In addition, the COE plans called for levees to support the city against a Cat-3 hurricane, not this near-Cat-5.
 

Boxxcar

Senior member
Mar 19, 2002
364
0
0
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: Boxxcar
Oh please! Why can't we blame Bush. He's the one who took the millions of $$ to rebuild the levee's and diverted the funds to Iraq.

Please read up before you post such drivel. Not only would the levee project not have been completed, it's my understanding that the 17th Street levee, which was breached, was one of the completed repairs. In addition, the COE plans called for levees to support the city against a Cat-3 hurricane, not this near-Cat-5.

The levees as they stood were supposed to withstand a Cat 3 already. The funds that Bush redirected were to rebuild the levees to withstand a more severe storm such as that of a Cat 5. I suggest you read up on the facts.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: Boxxcar

The levees as they stood were supposed to withstand a Cat 3 already. The funds that Bush redirected were to rebuild the levees to withstand a more severe storm such as that of a Cat 5. I suggest you read up on the facts.

C'mon - show me where anybody says this would've happened in the short amount of time between the reducing of COE funds and 8/28/05. That dog don't hunt.
 

Boxxcar

Senior member
Mar 19, 2002
364
0
0
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: Boxxcar

The levees as they stood were supposed to withstand a Cat 3 already. The funds that Bush redirected were to rebuild the levees to withstand a more severe storm such as that of a Cat 5. I suggest you read up on the facts.

C'mon - show me where anybody says this would've happened in the short amount of time between the reducing of COE funds and 8/28/05. That dog don't hunt.

Appropriated funds in the millions of $ (exact amount unsure) were designated for the levees back in 2002. This is common news, where have you been?
 

Boxxcar

Senior member
Mar 19, 2002
364
0
0
And while we're on the subject of Bush redirecting funds, why is it that when we really need $$ for something really important, does our fearless pratt of a leader authorize $230,000,000 to build a bridge from Anchorage, Alaska over to an island that has a population of about 50.

We have an idiot in the drivers seat and he won't move over out of the passing lane because he's completely oblivious of anyone behind him or for that fact anyone or anything in front of him either!!!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Boxxcar
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: Boxxcar
Oh please! Why can't we blame Bush. He's the one who took the millions of $$ to rebuild the levee's and diverted the funds to Iraq.

Please read up before you post such drivel. Not only would the levee project not have been completed, it's my understanding that the 17th Street levee, which was breached, was one of the completed repairs. In addition, the COE plans called for levees to support the city against a Cat-3 hurricane, not this near-Cat-5.

The levees as they stood were supposed to withstand a Cat 3 already. The funds that Bush redirected were to rebuild the levees to withstand a more severe storm such as that of a Cat 5. I suggest you read up on the facts.
Care to prove your claim? Nothing I've read or have seen even suggests the levees were being upgraded to withstand a Cat 5 storm.

 

silvervipertb

Senior member
Jul 11, 2005
475
0
0
Originally posted by: judasmachine
how much oil did he waste getting back to washington, or going on his "vacation" in the first place?
oh my god this statement is so stupid its amazing.
 

silvervipertb

Senior member
Jul 11, 2005
475
0
0
Originally posted by: PELarson
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eilute
Well he does have to address it in some way. I'm not too sure what he should do differently.

As far as disasters go, this may prove to be larger than 9/11. We do not yet know how much damage there is.

WTF? Folks, this is MUCH worse than 9/11.

And that is the problem with the current administration.

We have had almost 4 years to prepare for a major disaster. We knew a major storm could hit landfall at any point along the coast. But apparently instead of having a worse case plan to start from they FEMA and the BUsh administration are winging it.

5 days to get personnel and equipment rolling and maybe into a area closer to the expected disaster area.

If they can't figure out how to build contingence plans hire someone from the War Plans department of the Pentagon to show your personnel how to do it.

oh come on, we knew a major storm is gonna hit landfall? ...we know theres gonna be a major quake in cali again , but somethings are beyond control. look im sorry to have to point this out to you , but the mere fact that louisiana is below sea level doomed it from the start . after all this kind of thing is considered an act of god, and if people believe in god so much , they wouldnt be so arrogant as to think they can affect his plans one bit. ( i dont believe in a god mind you)
people are saying this is worse than 911, and it appears to be, strictly speaking from the number of deaths that it looks like were gonna have, but think to yourself, what kind of contingency plan is there for dropping a city 12 feet underwater (on average i would guess)? do you really expect to come out of it clean and smiling? i dont think thats a realistic way of looking at it. people are gonna die plain and simple and while yes, it is the governments job to limit that death, pain and suffering, there are limits to what humans can do. the good people of louisiana were warned to evacuate, but they stayed, even now they refuse to leave like they should. this merits no mercy, if they want to stay let them, however , i dont wanna hear you bitch about getting cholera,and all kinds of other nasty things.
i read on the news about the FEMA chief waiting til after the hurricane was over to send relief out , and blah blah blah. I mean really , what did you want the guy to do , send people out into a possible hurricane path? no one knew which way the thing was gonna go, so it would have been criminal to send someone into it.
frankly , I hate the way america has turned into a huge blaming arena, everyone is out for blood, but no one really cares about the things that matter most.
pretty sad really, i dont know if this country can really last like that
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
is there any proof that those funds were going to build a strong enough levee that could withstand a category 5 hurricane?

remember this was a category 4 hurricane. it was the floods that did the damage. imagine if a category 5 hurricane swept through New Orleans. i believe Mississippi got hit by the category 5 if im not mistaken

those levees were only able to withstand a category 3. how can you say for sure that they were going to upgrade them to withstand a category 5
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Boxxcar
The levees as they stood were supposed to withstand a Cat 3 already. The funds that Bush redirected were to rebuild the levees to withstand a more severe storm such as that of a Cat 5. I suggest you read up on the facts.
No, that's not accurate. While BushCo cutting the levy funding (while approving pork like the $200 million Alaska bridge, no less) is symptomatic of their callous disregard for the public welfare, it would probably not have made much difference in this disaster. It might have saved lives in future storms, but Katrina was just too big.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: raildogg
[ ... ]
remember this was a category 4 hurricane. it was the floods that did the damage. imagine if a category 5 hurricane swept through New Orleans. i believe Mississippi got hit by the category 5 if im not mistaken

those levees were only able to withstand a category 3. how can you say for sure that they were going to upgrade them to withstand a category 5
Katrina did not make landfall anywhere as a category 5. Its winds had (barely) dipped to category 4 levels first. It was a very strong cat 4, however. The big factor reducing the impact on New Orleans is that Katrina veered to the east, hitting NO with its western edge. It is the eastern side of a hurricane that generates the heaviest flooding.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Here's something interesting re: the Propagandist's 8/27 declaration on Federal Emergency Assistance for Louisiana:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html
The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the parishes of Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Caldwell, Claiborne, Catahoula, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Jackson, LaSalle, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Pointe Coupee, Ouachita, Rapides, Red River, Richland, Sabine, St. Helena, St. Landry, Tensas, Union, Vernon, Webster, West Carroll, West Feliciana, and Winn.
Notice any parishes missing?

Like, say, oh, I don't know: Orleans, St. Bernard, Jefferson, etc.?
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Here's something interesting re: the Propagandist's 8/27 declaration on Federal Emergency Assistance for Louisiana:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html
The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the parishes of Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Caldwell, Claiborne, Catahoula, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Jackson, LaSalle, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Pointe Coupee, Ouachita, Rapides, Red River, Richland, Sabine, St. Helena, St. Landry, Tensas, Union, Vernon, Webster, West Carroll, West Feliciana, and Winn.
Notice any parishes missing?

Like, say, oh, I don't know: Orleans, St. Bernard, Jefferson, etc.?

Let me guess... all the "blue" counties.

Edit: Don't see any apparent correlation to voting history, but these are the parrishes (said counties earlier, whoops) that would've been hit hardest by the storm.

WTF?
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: conjur
Here's something interesting re: the Propagandist's 8/27 declaration on Federal Emergency Assistance for Louisiana:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html
The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the parishes of Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Caldwell, Claiborne, Catahoula, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Jackson, LaSalle, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Pointe Coupee, Ouachita, Rapides, Red River, Richland, Sabine, St. Helena, St. Landry, Tensas, Union, Vernon, Webster, West Carroll, West Feliciana, and Winn.
Notice any parishes missing?

Like, say, oh, I don't know: Orleans, St. Bernard, Jefferson, etc.?

Let me guess... all the "blue" counties.

Edit: Don't see any apparent correlation to voting history, but these are the parrishes (said counties earlier, whoops) that would've been hit hardest by the storm.

WTF?

You think perhaps that these are the parrishes that were not directly hit by the storm and flood and ones that suffered less damage? Further, would you suspect that the real reason these parrishes are given benefits is because they are taking refugees and aiding the parrishes that were severely hit? Would you suspect that these parrishes are covered by other authorities than New Orleans? Did you check the status of indirectly hit counties in Mississippi and Alaqbama? Answer: No, because a through search for the truth wouldn't further your Bush bashing agenda.