Forums > Social Discussion > Bush caught redhanded again
Login/Join to ParticipatePooh-Bah
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
Posted:
here's the email i just got. judge for yourselves, eh? puts a new light on [Old link]
This evening, the Associated Press released secret transcripts and video footage showing President Bush being personally briefed the day before Hurricane Katrina hit land. The predictions he heard were shockingly precise and accurate—including the failure of the levees. He knew exactly what was coming.
The article is a smoking gun on Bush's unpardonable failure to keep us safe. In just a few hours, the White House will be filling the airwaves with spin, so it's important to reach out right now to pass on the straight story to family and friends. If each of us acts, we can directly reach millions of people before morning.
The full AP article is attached below. Can you help get the word out to at least 5 friends? You can forward on this note or follow the link below:
https://www.moveon.org/r?r=1508_video
At the August 28th briefing, the president was told exactly what to expect:
* The chief scientist of the National Hurricane Center warned that a major levee breach was "obviously a very, very grave concern." Bush lied to the entire nation about this point just 5 days later.
* Michael Brown told the president that if New Orleans flooded the Superdome emergency shelter would likely be under water and short on supplies, creating a "catastrophe within a catastrophe."
* Experts and officials implored the President to prepare for, as the AP described it, "devastation of historic proportions."
President Bush didn't ask a single question during the briefing. In the next two days he campaigned, attended birthday parties and played guitar while the worst natural disaster in American history killed over 1,300 people and displaced hundreds of thousands.
There can now be no mistake: President Bush had a chance to lead, and he failed to keep us safe.
In the next few days, we'll be tracking this story carefully and coordinating our response with partners in New Orleans and around the nation.
The survivors of Katrina deserve to know why the president left them to suffer the storm. And the people of the United States deserve leadership we can trust to keep our families safe. We'll work hard together until we have both.
Tonight, let's start by spreading the word:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Video Shows Bush Was Warned Before Katrina
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP)—In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.
Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."
The footage—along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press—show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.
Linked by secure video, Bush's confidence on Aug. 28 starkly contrasts with the dire warnings his disaster chief and a cacophony of federal, state and local officials provided during the four days before the storm.
A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and then-Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.
"I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall.
Some of the footage and transcripts from briefings Aug. 25-31 conflicts with the defenses that federal, state and local officials have made in trying to deflect blame and minimize the political fallout from the failed Katrina response:
—Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war" blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.
"I don't buy the `fog of war' defense," Brown told the AP in an interview Wednesday. "It was a fog of bureaucracy."
—Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility—and Bush was worried too.
White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day the storm hit.
"I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and then again on Air Force One," Brown said. "He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches."
—Louisiana officials angrily blamed the federal government for not being prepared but the transcripts shows they were still praising FEMA as the storm roared toward the Gulf Coast and even two days afterward. "I think a lot of the planning FEMA has done with us the past year has really paid off," Col. Jeff Smith, Louisiana's emergency preparedness deputy director, said during the Aug. 28 briefing.
It wasn't long before Smith and other state officials sounded overwhelmed.
"We appreciate everything that you all are doing for us, and all I would ask is that you realize that what's going on and the sense of urgency needs to be ratcheted up," Smith said Aug. 30.
Mississippi begged for more attention in that same briefing.
"We know that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana that need to be rescued, but we would just ask you, we desperately need to get our share of assets because we'll have people dying—not because of water coming up, but because we can't get them medical treatment in our affected counties," said a Mississippi state official whose name was not mentioned on the tape.
Video footage of the Aug. 28 briefing, the final one before Katrina struck, showed an intense Brown voicing concerns from the government's disaster operation center and imploring colleagues to do whatever was necessary to help victims.
"We're going to need everything that we can possibly muster, not only in this state and in the region, but the nation, to respond to this event," Brown warned. He called the storm "a bad one, a big one" and implored federal agencies to cut through red tape to help people, bending rules if necessary.
"Go ahead and do it," Brown said. "I'll figure out some way to justify it. ... Just let them yell at me."
Bush appeared from a narrow, windowless room at his vacation ranch in Texas, with his elbows on a table. Hagin was sitting alongside him. Neither asked questions in the Aug. 28 briefing.
"I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm," the president said.
A relaxed Chertoff, sporting a polo shirt, weighed in from Washington at Homeland Security's operations center. He would later fly to Atlanta, outside of Katrina's reach, for a bird flu event.
One snippet captures a missed opportunity on Aug. 28 for the government to have dispatched active-duty military troops to the region to augment the National Guard.
Chertoff: "Are there any DOD assets that might be available? Have we reached out to them?"
Brown: "We have DOD assets over here at EOC (emergency operations center). They are fully engaged. And we are having those discussions with them now."
Chertoff: "Good job."
In fact, active duty troops weren't dispatched until days after the storm. And many states' National Guards had yet to be deployed to the region despite offers of assistance, and it took days before the Pentagon deployed active-duty personnel to help overwhelmed Guardsmen.
The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.
"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.
Other officials expressed concerns about the large number of New Orleans residents who had not evacuated.
"They're not taking patients out of hospitals, taking prisoners out of prisons and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that," Brown said.
Despite the concerns, it ultimately took days for search and rescue teams to reach some hospitals and nursing homes.
Brown also told colleagues one of his top concerns was whether evacuees who went to the New Orleans Superdome—which became a symbol of the failed Katrina response—would be safe and have adequate medical care.
"The Superdome is about 12 feet below sea level.... I don't know whether the roof is designed to stand, withstand a Category Five hurricane," he said.
Brown also wanted to know whether there were enough federal medical teams in place to treat evacuees and the dead in the Superdome.
"Not to be (missing) kind of gross here," Brown interjected, "but I'm concerned" about the medical and mortuary resources "and their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe."
here's the email i just got. judge for yourselves, eh? puts a new light on [Old link]
This evening, the Associated Press released secret transcripts and video footage showing President Bush being personally briefed the day before Hurricane Katrina hit land. The predictions he heard were shockingly precise and accurate—including the failure of the levees. He knew exactly what was coming.
The article is a smoking gun on Bush's unpardonable failure to keep us safe. In just a few hours, the White House will be filling the airwaves with spin, so it's important to reach out right now to pass on the straight story to family and friends. If each of us acts, we can directly reach millions of people before morning.
The full AP article is attached below. Can you help get the word out to at least 5 friends? You can forward on this note or follow the link below:
https://www.moveon.org/r?r=1508_video
At the August 28th briefing, the president was told exactly what to expect:
* The chief scientist of the National Hurricane Center warned that a major levee breach was "obviously a very, very grave concern." Bush lied to the entire nation about this point just 5 days later.
* Michael Brown told the president that if New Orleans flooded the Superdome emergency shelter would likely be under water and short on supplies, creating a "catastrophe within a catastrophe."
* Experts and officials implored the President to prepare for, as the AP described it, "devastation of historic proportions."
President Bush didn't ask a single question during the briefing. In the next two days he campaigned, attended birthday parties and played guitar while the worst natural disaster in American history killed over 1,300 people and displaced hundreds of thousands.
There can now be no mistake: President Bush had a chance to lead, and he failed to keep us safe.
In the next few days, we'll be tracking this story carefully and coordinating our response with partners in New Orleans and around the nation.
The survivors of Katrina deserve to know why the president left them to suffer the storm. And the people of the United States deserve leadership we can trust to keep our families safe. We'll work hard together until we have both.
Tonight, let's start by spreading the word:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Video Shows Bush Was Warned Before Katrina
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP)—In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.
Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."
The footage—along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press—show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.
Linked by secure video, Bush's confidence on Aug. 28 starkly contrasts with the dire warnings his disaster chief and a cacophony of federal, state and local officials provided during the four days before the storm.
A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and then-Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.
"I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall.
Some of the footage and transcripts from briefings Aug. 25-31 conflicts with the defenses that federal, state and local officials have made in trying to deflect blame and minimize the political fallout from the failed Katrina response:
—Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war" blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.
"I don't buy the `fog of war' defense," Brown told the AP in an interview Wednesday. "It was a fog of bureaucracy."
—Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility—and Bush was worried too.
White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day the storm hit.
"I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and then again on Air Force One," Brown said. "He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches."
—Louisiana officials angrily blamed the federal government for not being prepared but the transcripts shows they were still praising FEMA as the storm roared toward the Gulf Coast and even two days afterward. "I think a lot of the planning FEMA has done with us the past year has really paid off," Col. Jeff Smith, Louisiana's emergency preparedness deputy director, said during the Aug. 28 briefing.
It wasn't long before Smith and other state officials sounded overwhelmed.
"We appreciate everything that you all are doing for us, and all I would ask is that you realize that what's going on and the sense of urgency needs to be ratcheted up," Smith said Aug. 30.
Mississippi begged for more attention in that same briefing.
"We know that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana that need to be rescued, but we would just ask you, we desperately need to get our share of assets because we'll have people dying—not because of water coming up, but because we can't get them medical treatment in our affected counties," said a Mississippi state official whose name was not mentioned on the tape.
Video footage of the Aug. 28 briefing, the final one before Katrina struck, showed an intense Brown voicing concerns from the government's disaster operation center and imploring colleagues to do whatever was necessary to help victims.
"We're going to need everything that we can possibly muster, not only in this state and in the region, but the nation, to respond to this event," Brown warned. He called the storm "a bad one, a big one" and implored federal agencies to cut through red tape to help people, bending rules if necessary.
"Go ahead and do it," Brown said. "I'll figure out some way to justify it. ... Just let them yell at me."
Bush appeared from a narrow, windowless room at his vacation ranch in Texas, with his elbows on a table. Hagin was sitting alongside him. Neither asked questions in the Aug. 28 briefing.
"I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm," the president said.
A relaxed Chertoff, sporting a polo shirt, weighed in from Washington at Homeland Security's operations center. He would later fly to Atlanta, outside of Katrina's reach, for a bird flu event.
One snippet captures a missed opportunity on Aug. 28 for the government to have dispatched active-duty military troops to the region to augment the National Guard.
Chertoff: "Are there any DOD assets that might be available? Have we reached out to them?"
Brown: "We have DOD assets over here at EOC (emergency operations center). They are fully engaged. And we are having those discussions with them now."
Chertoff: "Good job."
In fact, active duty troops weren't dispatched until days after the storm. And many states' National Guards had yet to be deployed to the region despite offers of assistance, and it took days before the Pentagon deployed active-duty personnel to help overwhelmed Guardsmen.
The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.
"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.
Other officials expressed concerns about the large number of New Orleans residents who had not evacuated.
"They're not taking patients out of hospitals, taking prisoners out of prisons and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that," Brown said.
Despite the concerns, it ultimately took days for search and rescue teams to reach some hospitals and nursing homes.
Brown also told colleagues one of his top concerns was whether evacuees who went to the New Orleans Superdome—which became a symbol of the failed Katrina response—would be safe and have adequate medical care.
"The Superdome is about 12 feet below sea level.... I don't know whether the roof is designed to stand, withstand a Category Five hurricane," he said.
Brown also wanted to know whether there were enough federal medical teams in place to treat evacuees and the dead in the Superdome.
"Not to be (missing) kind of gross here," Brown interjected, "but I'm concerned" about the medical and mortuary resources "and their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe."
-Such a price the gods exact for song: to become what we sing
-Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.
-When the center of the storm does not move, you are in its path.
SILVER Member
addict
475 posts
Location: Van Diemans Land, Australia
addict
475 posts
Location: Van Diemans Land, Australia
Posted:
Dude.
Bush is not the one in control. There is no way someone that [censored] stupid could have risen to the position of President on his own.
He is a puppet. You cant blame bush, he probably doesnt even know how to tie his shoes.
Who's controlling him? We dont know yet. Well, we know about several possible organisations. We just dont know which one
Dude.
Bush is not the one in control. There is no way someone that [censored] stupid could have risen to the position of President on his own.
He is a puppet. You cant blame bush, he probably doesnt even know how to tie his shoes.
Who's controlling him? We dont know yet. Well, we know about several possible organisations. We just dont know which one
Fair luna bright, fair luna moon
it shines at night but fades too soon
fair luna moon, fair luna bright
forever we dance
we dance under starlight
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
I shouldn't even step into this one...
I shouldn't even step into this one...
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
So? He still signs off on stuff meaning he can still be held responsible...and should be. And those above him...and his crappy speech writers too.
There's no excuse because even the dumbest people I know still know right from wrong.
Written by: DoktorSkell
Dude.
Bush is not the one in control. There is no way someone thatstupid could have risen to the position of President on his own.
He is a puppet. You cant blame bush, he probably doesnt even know how to tie his shoes.
Who's controlling him? We dont know yet. Well, we know about several possible organisations. We just dont know which one
So? He still signs off on stuff meaning he can still be held responsible...and should be. And those above him...and his crappy speech writers too.
There's no excuse because even the dumbest people I know still know right from wrong.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
It doesn't matter.
Bush can take all the falls he wants. His approval rate is falling lower. It's just in time for another Republican to blame him, then distance himself from Bush and get elected in the next election.
I don't see anything changing.
It doesn't matter.
Bush can take all the falls he wants. His approval rate is falling lower. It's just in time for another Republican to blame him, then distance himself from Bush and get elected in the next election.
I don't see anything changing.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
this might benefit from the morals forum
this might benefit from the morals forum
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Diamond In The Rough
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posted:
The only question in my mind is "Why hasn't this President been killed with sticks?"
The only question in my mind is "Why hasn't this President been killed with sticks?"
Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.
Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Because the American public would much rather have someone completely incomptent as a president then someone who might take away their guns or let gays marry.
Written by: Prometheus
The only question in my mind is "Why hasn't this President been killed with sticks?"
Because the American public would much rather have someone completely incomptent as a president then someone who might take away their guns or let gays marry.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
I don't care if gays marry, but you damn well better not take away my guns
As for the whole Katrina thing this blame game is rediculous. Everyone is to blame so don't try and pin it all on Bush that's just idiotic. There were articles written a couple years ago after francis and Ivan pounded florida about what would happen if they'd hit NO.
https://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/nov04/nov04c.html
The whole scenario wasn't a surprise, they built their damn city in a soup bowl surrounded by soup
Yet the local government did little if anything to actually help out. Their plan was to tell everyone "you guys should go." That's about it.. And then they complain when people don't fly in from the sky and save everybody? come on.
Local and State levels have far more responsibilities to do a whole hell of a lot more than they did long before the feds ever got involved. This is the government, there is an order in how to do things, city asks the county, county asks the state, state asks the feds. City doesn't get to ask the feds, and when the state gov is saying 'give us a couple more days we might be able to handle it' can you blame the feds for waiting?
FEMA is ment to assist local emergency management that *should* have already been established, not set up the entire system from scratch when they get there.
I don't care if gays marry, but you damn well better not take away my guns
As for the whole Katrina thing this blame game is rediculous. Everyone is to blame so don't try and pin it all on Bush that's just idiotic. There were articles written a couple years ago after francis and Ivan pounded florida about what would happen if they'd hit NO.
https://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/nov04/nov04c.html
The whole scenario wasn't a surprise, they built their damn city in a soup bowl surrounded by soup
Yet the local government did little if anything to actually help out. Their plan was to tell everyone "you guys should go." That's about it.. And then they complain when people don't fly in from the sky and save everybody? come on.Local and State levels have far more responsibilities to do a whole hell of a lot more than they did long before the feds ever got involved. This is the government, there is an order in how to do things, city asks the county, county asks the state, state asks the feds. City doesn't get to ask the feds, and when the state gov is saying 'give us a couple more days we might be able to handle it' can you blame the feds for waiting?
FEMA is ment to assist local emergency management that *should* have already been established, not set up the entire system from scratch when they get there.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I'm with Lurch on the guns, but probably not for the same reason.
My reason: The 2nd amendment is outmoded and pointless. Guns aren't going to keep the government out of your house when they have weapons that you can't have and couldn't afford even if they were legal.
But if we lose the 2nd, then why not the 4th? Or the 1st? Or the 10th?
I'm with Lurch on the guns, but probably not for the same reason.
My reason: The 2nd amendment is outmoded and pointless. Guns aren't going to keep the government out of your house when they have weapons that you can't have and couldn't afford even if they were legal.
But if we lose the 2nd, then why not the 4th? Or the 1st? Or the 10th?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Well said.
Written by: Lurch
I don't care if gays marry, but you damn well better not take away my guns
Well said.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
Helpful link for non-Americans
Helpful link for non-Americans
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Amen bruthah. AMEN.
Written by: Doc Lightning
I'm with Lurch on the guns, but probably not for the same reason.
My reason: The 2nd amendment is outmoded and pointless. Guns aren't going to keep the government out of your house when they have weapons that you can't have and couldn't afford even if they were legal.
But if we lose the 2nd, then why not the 4th? Or the 1st? Or the 10th?
Amen bruthah. AMEN.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
Pooh-Bah
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
Posted:
i think your attitude is understandable but naive. i'd highly suggest reading the link i added at the first post.
we're not whining about a lack of help, we're pointing out an agenda behind the way people were literally quarantined and an entire region was prevented from being assisted, and the subsequent gentrification of the area, and the way the situation was actually under control from the first minute... I know of thousands of people that are BANKING on this disaster. how many of them do you think are poor?
not to mention the way the "dire situation" (created from the start) was presented in the media and used to increase the powers of "emergency" agencies like FEMA. do you think it's coincidence that under a regime who has consistently increased the funding and freedom busting powers to agencies who "look after us," there is a situation exasperated to disaster so that the agencies can have more power?
Written by: Lurch
The whole scenario wasn't a surprise, they built their damn city in a soup bowl surrounded by soup
i think your attitude is understandable but naive. i'd highly suggest reading the link i added at the first post.
we're not whining about a lack of help, we're pointing out an agenda behind the way people were literally quarantined and an entire region was prevented from being assisted, and the subsequent gentrification of the area, and the way the situation was actually under control from the first minute... I know of thousands of people that are BANKING on this disaster. how many of them do you think are poor?
not to mention the way the "dire situation" (created from the start) was presented in the media and used to increase the powers of "emergency" agencies like FEMA. do you think it's coincidence that under a regime who has consistently increased the funding and freedom busting powers to agencies who "look after us," there is a situation exasperated to disaster so that the agencies can have more power?
-Such a price the gods exact for song: to become what we sing
-Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.
-When the center of the storm does not move, you are in its path.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
It was pretty underhanded the way Bush let things stew for a day, making the media put out reports of death tolls of up to 10,000, mass looting, street violence, and canabalism. He let the local and state agencys bungle things up for about half a day, then floods the area with National Guard and federal relief, making the federal government appear to be the savior to all the people there. Basically, he's trying to undermine the democrats that were running things locally, and make the people turn to a federal government in their time of need instead. Now they are all demanding more federal control, aid, power, money.
You were right about the spin the adminstration was going to put on the story. Now he's made the AP issue a "clarrification" claiming that Bush was actually warned that there was a chance that water might flow over the levees, and that the bursting wasn't anticipated. It's just Rove and his spin doctors at it again. I wouldn't be suprised if they released the first innacurate story just so that they could have the AP issue a retraction. Their just trying to distract people from the Vice President shooting people, anyways.
I pretty much can't imagine any way he could get elected president again in the next election. If he had any decency, he wouldn't even run.
It was pretty underhanded the way Bush let things stew for a day, making the media put out reports of death tolls of up to 10,000, mass looting, street violence, and canabalism. He let the local and state agencys bungle things up for about half a day, then floods the area with National Guard and federal relief, making the federal government appear to be the savior to all the people there. Basically, he's trying to undermine the democrats that were running things locally, and make the people turn to a federal government in their time of need instead. Now they are all demanding more federal control, aid, power, money.
You were right about the spin the adminstration was going to put on the story. Now he's made the AP issue a "clarrification" claiming that Bush was actually warned that there was a chance that water might flow over the levees, and that the bursting wasn't anticipated. It's just Rove and his spin doctors at it again. I wouldn't be suprised if they released the first innacurate story just so that they could have the AP issue a retraction. Their just trying to distract people from the Vice President shooting people, anyways.
I pretty much can't imagine any way he could get elected president again in the next election. If he had any decency, he wouldn't even run.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
You lost the 5th already, what's the problem? And the constitution is like many religions: made under certain circumstances and outdated!
(*edit: and number 6, 15... )
Sorry Arashi, as much as I would love to see this guy impeached, I am sure it's not going to happen. Morals have evolved to a state where it's okay to screw an entire population as long as Disney, Microsoft and Coca Cola remain intact...
Maybe the next election will bring relief - hope dies last...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1141452830)
Written by: Doc Lightning
But if we lose the 2nd, then why not the 4th? Or the 1st? Or the 10th?
You lost the 5th already, what's the problem? And the constitution is like many religions: made under certain circumstances and outdated!
(*edit: and number 6, 15... )
Sorry Arashi, as much as I would love to see this guy impeached, I am sure it's not going to happen. Morals have evolved to a state where it's okay to screw an entire population as long as Disney, Microsoft and Coca Cola remain intact...
Maybe the next election will bring relief - hope dies last...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1141452830)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Huh? Blanco met with Bush on Air Force One and was told they were ready to move. Blanco requested 24 hours so she could make a decision. It's not Bush's fault they waited, he was asked to wait.
I'm not defending him, nor FEMA, I've actually worked for FEMA during Ivan and Francis, and they can indeed be extremely retarded at times. However, I do like to keep people up to a certain standard of personal responsibility. That means both the residents, and the local community/government should have stepped up and done far more to help the situation than was done. I don't think it's naive at all to demand such things. I know *my* local agencies have contingency plans to relocate the entire city of Portland if needed. Including house by house, family by family information to see who may or may not have problems evacuating themselves. Maps for flood planes of various leves etc etc.
When you cut down to it, you had a city unprepared for a disaster that they obviously should have been better prepared for. It shouldn't be the job of the federal government to hold the hand of every major city to make sure they're prepared for various natural disasters that should be common sense to prepare for. There were failures up and down the chain, don't pin it all on the top.
Written by: Patriarch917
It was pretty underhanded the way Bush let things stew for a day, making the media put out reports of death tolls of up to 10,000, mass looting, street violence, and canabalism. He let the local and state agencys bungle things up for about half a day, then floods the area with National Guard and federal relief, making the federal government appear to be the savior to all the people there.
Huh? Blanco met with Bush on Air Force One and was told they were ready to move. Blanco requested 24 hours so she could make a decision. It's not Bush's fault they waited, he was asked to wait.
I'm not defending him, nor FEMA, I've actually worked for FEMA during Ivan and Francis, and they can indeed be extremely retarded at times. However, I do like to keep people up to a certain standard of personal responsibility. That means both the residents, and the local community/government should have stepped up and done far more to help the situation than was done. I don't think it's naive at all to demand such things. I know *my* local agencies have contingency plans to relocate the entire city of Portland if needed. Including house by house, family by family information to see who may or may not have problems evacuating themselves. Maps for flood planes of various leves etc etc.
When you cut down to it, you had a city unprepared for a disaster that they obviously should have been better prepared for. It shouldn't be the job of the federal government to hold the hand of every major city to make sure they're prepared for various natural disasters that should be common sense to prepare for. There were failures up and down the chain, don't pin it all on the top.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
ok i just wanted to point out this lovely statement....have you forgotten how our government works?
Written by: Patriarch917
I pretty much can't imagine any way he could get elected president again in the next election. If he had any decency, he wouldn't even run.
ok i just wanted to point out this lovely statement....have you forgotten how our government works?
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
What are you trying to suggest? Do you think he will run for re-election again and win?
What are you trying to suggest? Do you think he will run for re-election again and win?
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
um, he can't run for re-election. he's in his second term. presidents can only serve a max of 10 years. a presidential term is 4 years, ergo my point.
*shakes head* you should have paid attention in government class if you're going to argue politics.
um, he can't run for re-election. he's in his second term. presidents can only serve a max of 10 years. a presidential term is 4 years, ergo my point.
*shakes head* you should have paid attention in government class if you're going to argue politics.
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Of course, one wonders if he'll try to find a way to stay in anyway..
Of course, one wonders if he'll try to find a way to stay in anyway..
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
That's pretty odd - why not make the max eight years or a presidential term five years?
As it stands now, why couldn't he run again and then just serve the remaining two that he'd have left in the ten year maximum?
Written by: pounce
presidents can only serve a max of 10 years. a presidential term is 4 years, ergo my point.
That's pretty odd - why not make the max eight years or a presidential term five years?
As it stands now, why couldn't he run again and then just serve the remaining two that he'd have left in the ten year maximum?
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Pounce has not clearly explained the meaning of the 22nd amendment. The 22nd amendment limits a president to serving two terms. Bush cannot run for reelection.
The 10 year limit is a bit more complicated, and does not apply to Bush, but to Chenney. If a Vice president (or any other person) becomes president (for instance, if Bush dies) and they serve for more than two years, they can only run for election for one more term.
However, if Bush were to die exactly halfway through his four year term, Chenney would serve as president for the remaining two years, and he could still run for election twice after that. Thus, the absolute maximum is 10 years.
I'm quite impressed that you would know this, pounce. Most people know about the two term limit, but don't know about the additional two years available to the Vice president (and his successors).
I hate to have to explain my post, but I guess I was too successful in my deadpan tone. I would have thought that the claim "Their just trying to distract people from the Vice President shooting people, anyways" would have tipped you off that I meant the post as a jest. I even bothered to use "their" instead of "they're."
Read my post again. It's utter nonsense. The things I claim in it are not only silly, but many of them are factually wrong. For example: the idea that Bush somehow forced "the media" to report death tolls of 10,000, or cannibalism. The cannibalism claim was from some guy's blog, and the ridiculous death toll predictions came from journalists that wanted ratings, not from the Bush administration. The AP did not issue the "clarification" because Bush made them, they issued it because people were reporting the story wrong.
I guess the problem is that my post was in a thread based on an email from moveon.org, so the wacky liberal conspiracy theory didn't seem so out of place. Kudos to Lurch and Pounce for noticing some of the errors. Next time I'll make sure to put an appropriate smiley at the end to show that I am just kidding.
However, pounce, you must admit that my claim "I pretty much can't imagine any way he could get elected president again in the next election. If he had any decency, he wouldn't even run." was technically correct.
Notice, I used the winking sign again. I tried to use it in my previous post to let you know that I was kidding. Is there a better smiley to use for that situation?
BTW, pounce. How did you learn about the additional two years available to the Vice president? I don't think I've ever met anyone else who had bothered to read the constitution so closely.
Pounce has not clearly explained the meaning of the 22nd amendment. The 22nd amendment limits a president to serving two terms. Bush cannot run for reelection.
The 10 year limit is a bit more complicated, and does not apply to Bush, but to Chenney. If a Vice president (or any other person) becomes president (for instance, if Bush dies) and they serve for more than two years, they can only run for election for one more term.
However, if Bush were to die exactly halfway through his four year term, Chenney would serve as president for the remaining two years, and he could still run for election twice after that. Thus, the absolute maximum is 10 years.
I'm quite impressed that you would know this, pounce. Most people know about the two term limit, but don't know about the additional two years available to the Vice president (and his successors).
I hate to have to explain my post, but I guess I was too successful in my deadpan tone. I would have thought that the claim "Their just trying to distract people from the Vice President shooting people, anyways" would have tipped you off that I meant the post as a jest. I even bothered to use "their" instead of "they're."
Read my post again. It's utter nonsense. The things I claim in it are not only silly, but many of them are factually wrong. For example: the idea that Bush somehow forced "the media" to report death tolls of 10,000, or cannibalism. The cannibalism claim was from some guy's blog, and the ridiculous death toll predictions came from journalists that wanted ratings, not from the Bush administration. The AP did not issue the "clarification" because Bush made them, they issued it because people were reporting the story wrong.
I guess the problem is that my post was in a thread based on an email from moveon.org, so the wacky liberal conspiracy theory didn't seem so out of place. Kudos to Lurch and Pounce for noticing some of the errors. Next time I'll make sure to put an appropriate smiley at the end to show that I am just kidding.
However, pounce, you must admit that my claim "I pretty much can't imagine any way he could get elected president again in the next election. If he had any decency, he wouldn't even run." was technically correct.
Notice, I used the winking sign again. I tried to use it in my previous post to let you know that I was kidding. Is there a better smiley to use for that situation?
BTW, pounce. How did you learn about the additional two years available to the Vice president? I don't think I've ever met anyone else who had bothered to read the constitution so closely.
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
i learned it in school. honestly, i hate politics, government, history....was never my strong suit in school, it bored and annoyed me.
but for some reason that's one thing that i always remembered. ya i didn't go into explaining it fully cause, well, i didn't feel like it but yes, if you read up on presidential term limits more, someone who isn't elected into the position of president (remember, doesn't just apply to the VP, but all the following successors in case of death or other removal from post, so next in line would be speaker of the house, etc.), if they serve more than 2 years then they are only allowed to run for (re)election once, limiting their time in office to a max of 7-8 years. however, if they serve 2 years or less, then they can run for the full two terms, upping their max time in office to 10 years.
in a silly debate between me and lurch, he brought up the notion that bush could possibly run for vp and should something happen then he'd be back into presidency. but upon further research, the 12th ammendment prohibits someone who would be inelligible to run for presidency to serve as vp. so in other words, thank the stars we're done with bush come 2008.
and honestly, i didn't read much in the thread, cause as mentioned before, i try to stay away from most politics unless it's something i have a particularly keen interest in, and even then it depends on my mood. so i don't know how your tone came across whether joking or not. but i just happened to catch your statement and had to point out the fallacy 
i learned it in school. honestly, i hate politics, government, history....was never my strong suit in school, it bored and annoyed me.
but for some reason that's one thing that i always remembered. ya i didn't go into explaining it fully cause, well, i didn't feel like it but yes, if you read up on presidential term limits more, someone who isn't elected into the position of president (remember, doesn't just apply to the VP, but all the following successors in case of death or other removal from post, so next in line would be speaker of the house, etc.), if they serve more than 2 years then they are only allowed to run for (re)election once, limiting their time in office to a max of 7-8 years. however, if they serve 2 years or less, then they can run for the full two terms, upping their max time in office to 10 years.in a silly debate between me and lurch, he brought up the notion that bush could possibly run for vp and should something happen then he'd be back into presidency. but upon further research, the 12th ammendment prohibits someone who would be inelligible to run for presidency to serve as vp. so in other words, thank the stars we're done with bush come 2008.
and honestly, i didn't read much in the thread, cause as mentioned before, i try to stay away from most politics unless it's something i have a particularly keen interest in, and even then it depends on my mood. so i don't know how your tone came across whether joking or not. but i just happened to catch your statement and had to point out the fallacy
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Yeah, Patriarch...I was wondering what was going on.
Seemed a bit out of character for you.
I didn't know the 10 year rule. Well, I did somewhere back in the cobwebby recesses of the lump of goo called Mike's Grain...er...Brain, which is why it was familiar.
Yeah, Patriarch...I was wondering what was going on.
Seemed a bit out of character for you.
I didn't know the 10 year rule. Well, I did somewhere back in the cobwebby recesses of the lump of goo called Mike's Grain...er...Brain, which is why it was familiar.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Ignore that it's bush for a second.
I still say that one *could* gain the presidency again if say they were Speaker of the House and both the President and VP were 'removed.' The amendment states that they cannot be elected more than twice (or once if they'de previously served 2 years from succession.) Which means that they could technically be VP or Speaker of the House, as for them to gain the presidency at that point it wouldn't be by election, but by succession.
EDITED_BY: Lurch (1141558025)
Ignore that it's bush for a second.
I still say that one *could* gain the presidency again if say they were Speaker of the House and both the President and VP were 'removed.' The amendment states that they cannot be elected more than twice (or once if they'de previously served 2 years from succession.) Which means that they could technically be VP or Speaker of the House, as for them to gain the presidency at that point it wouldn't be by election, but by succession.
EDITED_BY: Lurch (1141558025)
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
yes yes dear, we've covered this he does bring up a good point, actually though. i wonder what would happen if that were ever to occur (bush or any other president). that'd be some mighty sneakiness to get back into office. i wonder if because of the 22nd ammendment they would skip the speaker of the house over. or if because of the 12th ammendment if it would bar a former president from taking any position that's in the line of successors.
yes yes dear, we've covered this
he does bring up a good point, actually though. i wonder what would happen if that were ever to occur (bush or any other president). that'd be some mighty sneakiness to get back into office. i wonder if because of the 22nd ammendment they would skip the speaker of the house over. or if because of the 12th ammendment if it would bar a former president from taking any position that's in the line of successors. I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Actually, the question of whether Bush could sit out for one term and then run for election again is still an open one. The text does not absolutely explicitly prevent you from serving two terms, sitting out for a term, and then running again. I know it really, really sounds like it does, but you would be surprised at how well lawyers can screw around with words.
The text says merely: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." A regular person reading the text would say "oh, so since Bush has been elected twice, he can't run again." A smartass lawyer will maintain that the sentence implies "twice in a row" and was not meant to prevent you from being able to sit out a term and then run again. I wouldn't be surprised if they could dig up a quote from a senator somewhere to back up this claim. A lawyer would then parade this quote out, and call it "legislative intent."
A lawyer would also appeal to policy arguments, saying that we absolutely need Clinton to come back for another 8 years, how it will be good for the country, and how the writers of the constitution could never have anticipated how much we would need it. Since there is that tiny bit of ambiguity over whether they meant to imply "twice in a row," the court should rule on the basis of policy.
I know it sounds stupid, but it happens all the freakin time. Where do you think we got a constitutional right to abortion? Do you see the word "abortion" anywhere in the constitution? Of course not. Some lawyer convinced the court for policy reasons to "imply" such a right based on policy, not the text of the constitution.
It would be up to the Supreme Court to interpret this passage, and the interpretation would depend on how picky the Supreme Court wants to be. Sadly, it would also depend on politics. What if Clinton and the two Bushes (or the two Bushes and Reagan) had cut a secret deal to nominate judges that would all rule this way? Two Presidents could then start having "tag team" administrations.
It is in the interests of the powerful to consolidate, expand, and protect their power. Unlike my previous post, I am not kidding about anything this time. I've read too many actual Supreme Court decisions to think that this sort of thing is not a possibility.
Lurch, you are correct in your analysis. Let me make things a little bit scarier. Pretend that we get a really popular president. At the end of his 2nd term, there is a lot of public demand for him to stay in office. All that need be done to get around this rule is for some "puppet candidate" to run for president, with the former president as his VP. The "puppet" then resigns. Rinse and repeat, and you have a mechanism that can easily defeat the constitutional limitation indefinitely.
Think that this scenario is unlikely? A procedural technicality is what allowed Alan Greenspan to serve as Fed Chairman for 18 years and 5 months, even though there is a 14 year term limit. In fact, he could have served indefinitely as long as the president wanted to let him stay in office.
If a president were popular enough, there would be no constitutional difficulty in staying in office for as long as he and the American Public wanted.
Actually, the question of whether Bush could sit out for one term and then run for election again is still an open one. The text does not absolutely explicitly prevent you from serving two terms, sitting out for a term, and then running again. I know it really, really sounds like it does, but you would be surprised at how well lawyers can screw around with words.
The text says merely: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." A regular person reading the text would say "oh, so since Bush has been elected twice, he can't run again." A smartass lawyer will maintain that the sentence implies "twice in a row" and was not meant to prevent you from being able to sit out a term and then run again. I wouldn't be surprised if they could dig up a quote from a senator somewhere to back up this claim. A lawyer would then parade this quote out, and call it "legislative intent."
A lawyer would also appeal to policy arguments, saying that we absolutely need Clinton to come back for another 8 years, how it will be good for the country, and how the writers of the constitution could never have anticipated how much we would need it. Since there is that tiny bit of ambiguity over whether they meant to imply "twice in a row," the court should rule on the basis of policy.
I know it sounds stupid, but it happens all the freakin time. Where do you think we got a constitutional right to abortion? Do you see the word "abortion" anywhere in the constitution? Of course not. Some lawyer convinced the court for policy reasons to "imply" such a right based on policy, not the text of the constitution.
It would be up to the Supreme Court to interpret this passage, and the interpretation would depend on how picky the Supreme Court wants to be. Sadly, it would also depend on politics. What if Clinton and the two Bushes (or the two Bushes and Reagan) had cut a secret deal to nominate judges that would all rule this way? Two Presidents could then start having "tag team" administrations.
It is in the interests of the powerful to consolidate, expand, and protect their power. Unlike my previous post, I am not kidding about anything this time. I've read too many actual Supreme Court decisions to think that this sort of thing is not a possibility.
Lurch, you are correct in your analysis. Let me make things a little bit scarier. Pretend that we get a really popular president. At the end of his 2nd term, there is a lot of public demand for him to stay in office. All that need be done to get around this rule is for some "puppet candidate" to run for president, with the former president as his VP. The "puppet" then resigns. Rinse and repeat, and you have a mechanism that can easily defeat the constitutional limitation indefinitely.
Think that this scenario is unlikely? A procedural technicality is what allowed Alan Greenspan to serve as Fed Chairman for 18 years and 5 months, even though there is a 14 year term limit. In fact, he could have served indefinitely as long as the president wanted to let him stay in office.
If a president were popular enough, there would be no constitutional difficulty in staying in office for as long as he and the American Public wanted.
Pooh-Bah
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
Posted:
i think this is probably the scariest thing i've ever read. ever.
i think this is probably the scariest thing i've ever read. ever.
-Such a price the gods exact for song: to become what we sing
-Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.
-When the center of the storm does not move, you are in its path.
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com