Interesting point made...

[Shyatic]

As a 'letter to the editor' in a Reno newspaper..

"Suppose there had been no hurricane Katrina, but instead al-Qaida had breached levees and flooded New Orleans. Doesn?t the aftermath demonstrate that our self-proclaimed ?war president? has failed to prepare for terrorist attack?

Bush says nobody foresaw flooding. Not so. Numerous newspapers warned of it over the past five years (nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune alone); of course, Bush says he doesn?t read newspapers. Assistant Army Secretary Mike Parker, a Republican from Mississippi, was fired in 2002 when he refused to accept Bush?s cuts in the Corps of Engineers? flood-control budget. Sen. Landrieu asked for $27 million for Lake Ponchartrain flood control this year; Congress allowed $5.7 after Bush offered only $3.9. Why? So he can spend $250 billion (and counting) in Iraq while pretending that we can still afford tax cuts.

While the TSA confiscates fingernail clippers, cargo containers go uninspected and we prepare to send nuclear waste through our cities on vulnerable trucks and railcars. While Bush obsesses with the irrelevant war that he started thousands of miles away, ?homeland security? is the emperor?s new clothes".

I thought it was an interesting point, comparing the hurricane to a terrorist attack, and our preparedness should technically, have been the same for both. And it worries me it's this bad

Feel free to discuss.

 

[yllus]

Paragraph one: Few things AQ could pull off, if anything, would wreak the kind of destruction the hurricane did. It was a problem of access.

Paragraph two: Utterly disproved.

Paragraph three: I once killed a man with fingernail clippers. I don't blame the TSA.

 

[Red Dawn]

The difference between Katrina and a Terrorist attack is that we had a warning about Katrina. Wow just imagine the time it would take to get aid in for a Terrorist attack of any significant magnitude!

 

[BBond]

Security costs a lot of money and there isn't much profit in it. But, as we've all seen, there is plenty of money to be made in the pre-emptive invasion market, and disaster recovery -- as long as you wait long enough to give all of your cronies time to line up for it.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Scribe
As a 'letter to the editor' in a Reno newspaper..

"Suppose there had been no hurricane Katrina, but instead al-Qaida had breached levees and flooded New Orleans. Doesn?t the aftermath demonstrate that our self-proclaimed ?war president? has failed to prepare for terrorist attack?

Bush says nobody foresaw flooding. Not so. Numerous newspapers warned of it over the past five years (nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune alone); of course, Bush says he doesn?t read newspapers. Assistant Army Secretary Mike Parker, a Republican from Mississippi, was fired in 2002 when he refused to accept Bush?s cuts in the Corps of Engineers? flood-control budget. Sen. Landrieu asked for $27 million for Lake Ponchartrain flood control this year; Congress allowed $5.7 after Bush offered only $3.9. Why? So he can spend $250 billion (and counting) in Iraq while pretending that we can still afford tax cuts.

While the TSA confiscates fingernail clippers, cargo containers go uninspected and we prepare to send nuclear waste through our cities on vulnerable trucks and railcars. While Bush obsesses with the irrelevant war that he started thousands of miles away, ?homeland security? is the emperor?s new clothes".

I thought it was an interesting point, comparing the hurricane to a terrorist attack, and our preparedness should technically, have been the same for both. And it worries me it's this bad

Feel free to discuss.

But it IS different---if this were a terra-ist attack, we would've bombed Iran right afterward (can't go attack mother nature for this--though the righties are desperately trying to figure a way to)

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: Scribe
As a 'letter to the editor' in a Reno newspaper..

"Suppose there had been no hurricane Katrina, but instead al-Qaida had breached levees and flooded New Orleans. Doesn?t the aftermath demonstrate that our self-proclaimed ?war president? has failed to prepare for terrorist attack?

Bush says nobody foresaw flooding. Not so. Numerous newspapers warned of it over the past five years (nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune alone); of course, Bush says he doesn?t read newspapers. Assistant Army Secretary Mike Parker, a Republican from Mississippi, was fired in 2002 when he refused to accept Bush?s cuts in the Corps of Engineers? flood-control budget. Sen. Landrieu asked for $27 million for Lake Ponchartrain flood control this year; Congress allowed $5.7 after Bush offered only $3.9. Why? So he can spend $250 billion (and counting) in Iraq while pretending that we can still afford tax cuts.

While the TSA confiscates fingernail clippers, cargo containers go uninspected and we prepare to send nuclear waste through our cities on vulnerable trucks and railcars. While Bush obsesses with the irrelevant war that he started thousands of miles away, ?homeland security? is the emperor?s new clothes".

I thought it was an interesting point, comparing the hurricane to a terrorist attack, and our preparedness should technically, have been the same for both. And it worries me it's this bad

Feel free to discuss.

But it IS different---if this were a terra-ist attack, we would've bombed Iran right afterward (can't go attack mother nature for this--though the righties are desperately trying to figure a way to)

Don't you know? Bush is trying to figure out a way to bomb Allah right now...

Forget Iran, go after the source.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Don't you know? Bush is trying to figure out a way to bomb Allah right now...

Forget Iran, go after the source.

Why do you think they want the space-based missile defense system?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Scribe
As a 'letter to the editor' in a Reno newspaper..

"Suppose there had been no hurricane Katrina, but instead al-Qaida had breached levees and flooded New Orleans. Doesn?t the aftermath demonstrate that our self-proclaimed ?war president? has failed to prepare for terrorist attack?

Bush says nobody foresaw flooding. Not so. Numerous newspapers warned of it over the past five years (nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune alone); of course, Bush says he doesn?t read newspapers. Assistant Army Secretary Mike Parker, a Republican from Mississippi, was fired in 2002 when he refused to accept Bush?s cuts in the Corps of Engineers? flood-control budget. Sen. Landrieu asked for $27 million for Lake Ponchartrain flood control this year; Congress allowed $5.7 after Bush offered only $3.9. Why? So he can spend $250 billion (and counting) in Iraq while pretending that we can still afford tax cuts.

While the TSA confiscates fingernail clippers, cargo containers go uninspected and we prepare to send nuclear waste through our cities on vulnerable trucks and railcars. While Bush obsesses with the irrelevant war that he started thousands of miles away, ?homeland security? is the emperor?s new clothes".

I thought it was an interesting point, comparing the hurricane to a terrorist attack, and our preparedness should technically, have been the same for both. And it worries me it's this bad

Feel free to discuss.

I think the idiots in this country fail to realize that NO is but a small area of destruction that has been laid by this storm. I agree that the next time AQ lays waste to 90,000 square miles we will be completely unprepared to deal with the situation.

The media has sucessfully made people forget about the other 89000 square miles of destruction and focused in on a levee failure that was predicted days before the storm hit. Hell Discovery channel had a show on this very subject years ago. Everybody knew a CAT 5 hurricane would breach the levees.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Scribe
As a 'letter to the editor' in a Reno newspaper..

"Suppose there had been no hurricane Katrina, but instead al-Qaida had breached levees and flooded New Orleans. Doesn?t the aftermath demonstrate that our self-proclaimed ?war president? has failed to prepare for terrorist attack?

Bush says nobody foresaw flooding. Not so. Numerous newspapers warned of it over the past five years (nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune alone); of course, Bush says he doesn?t read newspapers. Assistant Army Secretary Mike Parker, a Republican from Mississippi, was fired in 2002 when he refused to accept Bush?s cuts in the Corps of Engineers? flood-control budget. Sen. Landrieu asked for $27 million for Lake Ponchartrain flood control this year; Congress allowed $5.7 after Bush offered only $3.9. Why? So he can spend $250 billion (and counting) in Iraq while pretending that we can still afford tax cuts.

While the TSA confiscates fingernail clippers, cargo containers go uninspected and we prepare to send nuclear waste through our cities on vulnerable trucks and railcars. While Bush obsesses with the irrelevant war that he started thousands of miles away, ?homeland security? is the emperor?s new clothes".

I thought it was an interesting point, comparing the hurricane to a terrorist attack, and our preparedness should technically, have been the same for both. And it worries me it's this bad

Feel free to discuss.

I think the idiots in this country fail to realize that NO is but a small area of destruction that has been laid by this storm. I agree that the next time AQ lays waste to 90,000 square miles we will be completely unprepared to deal with the situation.

The media has sucessfully made people forget about the other 89000 square miles of destruction and focused in on a levee failure that was predicted days before the storm hit. Hell Discovery channel had a show on this very subject years ago. Everybody knew a CAT 5 hurricane would breach the levees.

I don't consider 80% of NO to be a small area, do you? That's right 80% of the city is flooded, is that small? Gen?

Actually, the Hurricane itself didn't cause that much damage it was a barge that crashed into to leeves and broke them.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Scribe
As a 'letter to the editor' in a Reno newspaper..

"Suppose there had been no hurricane Katrina, but instead al-Qaida had breached levees and flooded New Orleans. Doesn?t the aftermath demonstrate that our self-proclaimed ?war president? has failed to prepare for terrorist attack?

Bush says nobody foresaw flooding. Not so. Numerous newspapers warned of it over the past five years (nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune alone); of course, Bush says he doesn?t read newspapers. Assistant Army Secretary Mike Parker, a Republican from Mississippi, was fired in 2002 when he refused to accept Bush?s cuts in the Corps of Engineers? flood-control budget. Sen. Landrieu asked for $27 million for Lake Ponchartrain flood control this year; Congress allowed $5.7 after Bush offered only $3.9. Why? So he can spend $250 billion (and counting) in Iraq while pretending that we can still afford tax cuts.

While the TSA confiscates fingernail clippers, cargo containers go uninspected and we prepare to send nuclear waste through our cities on vulnerable trucks and railcars. While Bush obsesses with the irrelevant war that he started thousands of miles away, ?homeland security? is the emperor?s new clothes".

I thought it was an interesting point, comparing the hurricane to a terrorist attack, and our preparedness should technically, have been the same for both. And it worries me it's this bad

Feel free to discuss.

I think the idiots in this country fail to realize that NO is but a small area of destruction that has been laid by this storm. I agree that the next time AQ lays waste to 90,000 square miles we will be completely unprepared to deal with the situation.

The media has sucessfully made people forget about the other 89000 square miles of destruction and focused in on a levee failure that was predicted days before the storm hit. Hell Discovery channel had a show on this very subject years ago. Everybody knew a CAT 5 hurricane would breach the levees.

I don't consider 80% of NO to be a small area, do you? That's right 80% of the city is flooded, is that small? Gen?

Actually, the Hurricane itself didn't cause that much damage it was a barge that crashed into to leeves and broke them.

How many square miles is 80% of the city?

Compare that to 90,000 square miles and tell me how big it is?

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: yllus
Paragraph one: Few things AQ could pull off, if anything, would wreak the kind of destruction the hurricane did. It was a problem of access.

Paragraph two: Utterly disproved.

Paragraph three: I once killed a man with fingernail clippers. I don't blame the TSA.

Point 1: I agree that it would be difficult for AQ do as much destruction as the hurricane did across the gulf cost, BUT you are telling me that it would be that difficult to plant a couple of bombs on/in the levee? I have no idea how fast the water would flow into NO, but I would say considering 80% of the city was flooded, the death toll would have been larger than this hurricane simply because most of the people would still be there.

Point 2: What was utterly disproved? The funding or that they have had a lot of reports/articles about what would happen?

Point 3: I do not blame the TSA either, but that is not what the article is pointing out. Although I will say the TSA in general is not doing that great of a job confiscating anything. I was recently on a flight from Charlotte, NC to NYC and while waiting near the gate I looked over and saw a little girl pull out of her Barrie backpack a full sized metal pair of scissors and start cutting out stuff from a magazine. Metal detectors, x-ray machines, hand searches, etc.. and they could not find a full sized pair of scissors?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Scribe
As a 'letter to the editor' in a Reno newspaper..

"Suppose there had been no hurricane Katrina, but instead al-Qaida had breached levees and flooded New Orleans. Doesn?t the aftermath demonstrate that our self-proclaimed ?war president? has failed to prepare for terrorist attack?

Bush says nobody foresaw flooding. Not so. Numerous newspapers warned of it over the past five years (nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune alone); of course, Bush says he doesn?t read newspapers. Assistant Army Secretary Mike Parker, a Republican from Mississippi, was fired in 2002 when he refused to accept Bush?s cuts in the Corps of Engineers? flood-control budget. Sen. Landrieu asked for $27 million for Lake Ponchartrain flood control this year; Congress allowed $5.7 after Bush offered only $3.9. Why? So he can spend $250 billion (and counting) in Iraq while pretending that we can still afford tax cuts.

While the TSA confiscates fingernail clippers, cargo containers go uninspected and we prepare to send nuclear waste through our cities on vulnerable trucks and railcars. While Bush obsesses with the irrelevant war that he started thousands of miles away, ?homeland security? is the emperor?s new clothes".

I thought it was an interesting point, comparing the hurricane to a terrorist attack, and our preparedness should technically, have been the same for both. And it worries me it's this bad

Feel free to discuss.

I think the idiots in this country fail to realize that NO is but a small area of destruction that has been laid by this storm. I agree that the next time AQ lays waste to 90,000 square miles we will be completely unprepared to deal with the situation.

The media has sucessfully made people forget about the other 89000 square miles of destruction and focused in on a levee failure that was predicted days before the storm hit. Hell Discovery channel had a show on this very subject years ago. Everybody knew a CAT 5 hurricane would breach the levees.

I don't consider 80% of NO to be a small area, do you? That's right 80% of the city is flooded, is that small? Gen?

Actually, the Hurricane itself didn't cause that much damage it was a barge that crashed into to leeves and broke them.

How many square miles is 80% of the city?

Compare that to 90,000 square miles and tell me how big it is?

The city itself is about 122,200 and 80% of that is 97,760.

Not that what you've said has any relavance at all, the vast majority of the city is flooded contray to what you've said.

 

[Tab]

Oh, this article expresses a very good point.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Scribe
As a 'letter to the editor' in a Reno newspaper..

"Suppose there had been no hurricane Katrina, but instead al-Qaida had breached levees and flooded New Orleans. Doesn?t the aftermath demonstrate that our self-proclaimed ?war president? has failed to prepare for terrorist attack?

Bush says nobody foresaw flooding. Not so. Numerous newspapers warned of it over the past five years (nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune alone); of course, Bush says he doesn?t read newspapers. Assistant Army Secretary Mike Parker, a Republican from Mississippi, was fired in 2002 when he refused to accept Bush?s cuts in the Corps of Engineers? flood-control budget. Sen. Landrieu asked for $27 million for Lake Ponchartrain flood control this year; Congress allowed $5.7 after Bush offered only $3.9. Why? So he can spend $250 billion (and counting) in Iraq while pretending that we can still afford tax cuts.

While the TSA confiscates fingernail clippers, cargo containers go uninspected and we prepare to send nuclear waste through our cities on vulnerable trucks and railcars. While Bush obsesses with the irrelevant war that he started thousands of miles away, ?homeland security? is the emperor?s new clothes".

I thought it was an interesting point, comparing the hurricane to a terrorist attack, and our preparedness should technically, have been the same for both. And it worries me it's this bad

Feel free to discuss.

I think the idiots in this country fail to realize that NO is but a small area of destruction that has been laid by this storm. I agree that the next time AQ lays waste to 90,000 square miles we will be completely unprepared to deal with the situation.

The media has sucessfully made people forget about the other 89000 square miles of destruction and focused in on a levee failure that was predicted days before the storm hit. Hell Discovery channel had a show on this very subject years ago. Everybody knew a CAT 5 hurricane would breach the levees.

I don't consider 80% of NO to be a small area, do you? That's right 80% of the city is flooded, is that small? Gen?

Actually, the Hurricane itself didn't cause that much damage it was a barge that crashed into to leeves and broke them.

How many square miles is 80% of the city?

Compare that to 90,000 square miles and tell me how big it is?

The city itself is about 122,200 and 80% of that is 97,760.

Not that what you've said has any relavance at all, the vast majority of the city is flooded contray to what you've said.

The county of Orleans is 182 square miles. Where did you come up with 122,000 square miles?

http://www.lapage.com/parishes/orlea.htm

Greater New Orleans is about 350 square miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans

And yes what I have been saying has relevance on this subject. People are focusing on NO as if the rest of the area affected by this natural disater doesnt exist and doesnt calculate into the reponse by FEMA.

For reference of the destruction. Minnesota covers ~86000 square miles.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

I think the point of this thread is about preparedness, not response.

Just looking at what happened to NO:
How secure are/were the levees against human attack?
Was funding cut that may have helped avoid the levees breaking?
Is homeland security doing all it can to make us...secure (or as secure as possible)?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I think the point of this thread is about preparedness, not response.

Just looking at what happened to NO:
How secure are/were the levees against human attack?
Was funding cut that may have helped avoid the levees breaking?
Is homeland security doing all it can to make us...secure (or as secure as possible)?

They go hand in hand. If a device is detonated in NO or another major city. Is comparing this disaster to a possible attack valid considering the size of the area affected?

Lets take for example a levee breached in NO. The city floods people flee. The federal govt has a much smaller point of interest in dealing with the situation than the current situation. We can debate whether or not we are prepared for a terrorist attack. But using the current situation as proof we arent is foolish imo. Unless AQ can sucessfully cause destruction to an area the same size as the state of MN. I think the comparisions and justifications for giving the system a failing grade are very weak at best.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I think the point of this thread is about preparedness, not response.

Just looking at what happened to NO:
How secure are/were the levees against human attack?
Was funding cut that may have helped avoid the levees breaking?
Is homeland security doing all it can to make us...secure (or as secure as possible)?

They go hand in hand. If a device is detonated in NO or another major city. Is comparing this disaster to a possible attack valid considering the size of the area affected?

Lets take for example a levee breached in NO. The city floods people flee. The federal govt has a much smaller point of interest in dealing with the situation than the current situation. We can debate whether or not we are prepared for a terrorist attack. But using the current situation as proof we arent is foolish imo. Unless AQ can sucessfully cause destruction to an area the same size as the state of MN. I think the comparisions and justifications for giving the system a failing grade are very weak at best.

Hardly. Go poison Lake Meade and see how that affects the country. We are so vulnerable that the patriot act is nothing but a bad joke. We never should have invaded another country unless we were 100% sure we were justified.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I think the point of this thread is about preparedness, not response.

Just looking at what happened to NO:
How secure are/were the levees against human attack?
Was funding cut that may have helped avoid the levees breaking?
Is homeland security doing all it can to make us...secure (or as secure as possible)?

They go hand in hand. If a device is detonated in NO or another major city. Is comparing this disaster to a possible attack valid considering the size of the area affected?

Lets take for example a levee breached in NO. The city floods people flee. The federal govt has a much smaller point of interest in dealing with the situation than the current situation. We can debate whether or not we are prepared for a terrorist attack. But using the current situation as proof we arent is foolish imo. Unless AQ can sucessfully cause destruction to an area the same size as the state of MN. I think the comparisions and justifications for giving the system a failing grade are very weak at best.

Hardly. Go poison Lake Meade and see how that affects the country. We are so vulnerable that the patriot act is nothing but a bad joke. We never should have invaded another country unless we were 100% sure we were justified.

Your rant has almost nothing to do with the subject.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I think the point of this thread is about preparedness, not response.

Just looking at what happened to NO:
How secure are/were the levees against human attack?
Was funding cut that may have helped avoid the levees breaking?
Is homeland security doing all it can to make us...secure (or as secure as possible)?

They go hand in hand. If a device is detonated in NO or another major city. Is comparing this disaster to a possible attack valid considering the size of the area affected?

Lets take for example a levee breached in NO. The city floods people flee. The federal govt has a much smaller point of interest in dealing with the situation than the current situation. We can debate whether or not we are prepared for a terrorist attack. But using the current situation as proof we arent is foolish imo. Unless AQ can sucessfully cause destruction to an area the same size as the state of MN. I think the comparisions and justifications for giving the system a failing grade are very weak at best.

Hardly. Go poison Lake Meade and see how that affects the country. We are so vulnerable that the patriot act is nothing but a bad joke. We never should have invaded another country unless we were 100% sure we were justified.

Your rant has almost nothing to do with the subject.

LOL, the truth hurts, doesn't it. The funny part is how you diehards still support BUSH. He's bankrupting the country and hasn't made us one bit safer.

WAKEUP!!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I think the point of this thread is about preparedness, not response.

Just looking at what happened to NO:
How secure are/were the levees against human attack?
Was funding cut that may have helped avoid the levees breaking?
Is homeland security doing all it can to make us...secure (or as secure as possible)?

They go hand in hand. If a device is detonated in NO or another major city. Is comparing this disaster to a possible attack valid considering the size of the area affected?

Lets take for example a levee breached in NO. The city floods people flee. The federal govt has a much smaller point of interest in dealing with the situation than the current situation. We can debate whether or not we are prepared for a terrorist attack. But using the current situation as proof we arent is foolish imo. Unless AQ can sucessfully cause destruction to an area the same size as the state of MN. I think the comparisions and justifications for giving the system a failing grade are very weak at best.

Hardly. Go poison Lake Meade and see how that affects the country. We are so vulnerable that the patriot act is nothing but a bad joke. We never should have invaded another country unless we were 100% sure we were justified.

Your rant has almost nothing to do with the subject.

LOL, the truth hurts, doesn't it. The funny part is how you diehards still support BUSH. He's bankrupting the country and hasn't made us one bit safer.

WAKEUP!!

What truth? COnjecture on the effects of poisoning lake meade? Then going on about the patriot act in a thread about disaster response? And then the obligatory jab at the war in Iraq?

The only truth that hurts is the reality you live in.

As for supporting bush, what exactly does my pointing out the foolish nature of using Katrina as a political hammer to prove our terrorist attack response is lacking indicate I am letting Bush off the hook 100%?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Scribe
As a 'letter to the editor' in a Reno newspaper..

"Suppose there had been no hurricane Katrina, but instead al-Qaida had breached levees and flooded New Orleans. Doesn?t the aftermath demonstrate that our self-proclaimed ?war president? has failed to prepare for terrorist attack?

Bush says nobody foresaw flooding. Not so. Numerous newspapers warned of it over the past five years (nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune alone); of course, Bush says he doesn?t read newspapers. Assistant Army Secretary Mike Parker, a Republican from Mississippi, was fired in 2002 when he refused to accept Bush?s cuts in the Corps of Engineers? flood-control budget. Sen. Landrieu asked for $27 million for Lake Ponchartrain flood control this year; Congress allowed $5.7 after Bush offered only $3.9. Why? So he can spend $250 billion (and counting) in Iraq while pretending that we can still afford tax cuts.

While the TSA confiscates fingernail clippers, cargo containers go uninspected and we prepare to send nuclear waste through our cities on vulnerable trucks and railcars. While Bush obsesses with the irrelevant war that he started thousands of miles away, ?homeland security? is the emperor?s new clothes".

I thought it was an interesting point, comparing the hurricane to a terrorist attack, and our preparedness should technically, have been the same for both. And it worries me it's this bad

Feel free to discuss.

Thats assuming that they could even get to N.O., get the explosives needed to do the job, and actually get it done. The fact of the matter is that there hasn't been an attack on American soil for 4 years since 9/11.

 

[broon]

Yep. It's all Bush's fault. Nevermind the Gov. and mayor didn't want to spend the money on it that they already had. Never mind the gov. turned down Bush's offer for money to fix it. Nevermind the gov. is in charge of the National Guard and should have declared it a disaster when it first happened. It's still Bush's fault.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: broon
Yep. It's all Bush's fault. Nevermind the Gov. and mayor didn't want to spend the money on it that they already had. Never mind the gov. turned down Bush's offer for money to fix it. Nevermind the gov. is in charge of the National Guard and should have declared it a disaster when it first happened. It's still Bush's fault.

So many lies and mistruths, so little time.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: conjur

So many lies and mistruths, so little time.[/quote]

Yes I know. If the "right wing" media reports on it it's a lie and mistruth. If the "true" media reports on it then it must be true. Only the "true" media tells it like it is and puts Bush in the center of the blame game.

 

[NoSmirk]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I think the point of this thread is about preparedness, not response.

Just looking at what happened to NO:
How secure are/were the levees against human attack?
Was funding cut that may have helped avoid the levees breaking?
Is homeland security doing all it can to make us...secure (or as secure as possible)?

They go hand in hand. If a device is detonated in NO or another major city. Is comparing this disaster to a possible attack valid considering the size of the area affected?

Lets take for example a levee breached in NO. The city floods people flee. The federal govt has a much smaller point of interest in dealing with the situation than the current situation. We can debate whether or not we are prepared for a terrorist attack. But using the current situation as proof we arent is foolish imo. Unless AQ can sucessfully cause destruction to an area the same size as the state of MN. I think the comparisions and justifications for giving the system a failing grade are very weak at best.

Hardly. Go poison Lake Meade and see how that affects the country. We are so vulnerable that the patriot act is nothing but a bad joke. We never should have invaded another country unless we were 100% sure we were justified.

What country did we invade prior to 9/11? Since that has been the only terrorist attack in this country since 2001. I'm just curious as to how you say we are less safe when there have been no terrorist attacks here since 9/11.. One can argue there WILL be, but since there HASN'T been.. I don't see how your argument holds any water.