Bush Aide to lead Katrina Inquiry [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

Tigger_Magic

09-20-2005, 02:10 PM

Acknowledging that something went terribly wrong is not the same as knowing precisely where it went wrong.

Too many communities prone to natural disaster depend on this information.

You can fix something if you don't know where it went wrong...and what part of it went right.

It isn't about knowing for the purpose of reconstruction. What was or wasn't done on the gulf coast in terms of bad response is done. It is about knowing for the next disaster. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure or in terms of disaster..more efficient pre and post disaster planning and execution. It seems fairly clear what went wrong. There've been enough threads on this board to provide ample evidence that most people have a firm grasp on not only what, but where things went wrong. There are problems at the federal, state and local levels -- problems that a junior high school civics class could point out.

There'll probably be a commission or blue ribbon panel or some other entity tasked with finding out what went wrong and when. They'll hold lots of hearings, compile reams of testimony and issue an incredibly thick report of recommendations -- and most likely, we already know 80 - 90% of what will be in that report. But we will spend millions on this effort to tell us what is painfully obvious because that's the way things work.

Along the way both parties will attempt to score points and talking heads will spin the day's news for us and the rest of the country will start to let Katrina slip into history. There will be leaks and probably a few political sacrifices to the media gods/goddesses to try to satiate a clamoring public.

Congress will debate bills and both sides will try to leverage Katrina to their own advantage or if that fails, to their opponents disadvantage. Appropriations will be made, but most likely will fall short of what is needed for a full recovery. More debate, more spin, more leveraging will follow.

Throughout all this, the people of the Gulf Coast will struggle along, just like people in FL did in 2004 and still do today. What is sad is that while the victims are often the first ones thought about after a disaster, they are also the first ones forgotten once the disaster slips off the public's consciousness.

swilphil

09-20-2005, 02:31 PM

Umm.... the last president was GWB. :teeth:

GWB is the current president, serving his second term. WJC was the last president.

I'm guessing Bush's aide will find that the lack of the response was the fault of the state and local government. Hopefully, an impartial investigation will also take place to either confirm or dispute those findings.

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 03:13 PM

I'm guessing Bush's aide will find that the lack of the response was the fault of the state and local government. Hopefully, an impartial investigation will also take place to either confirm or dispute those findings.

Bush has acknowledged that the federal government was a little slow and he has stated that he wants to know what went wrong so that he can fix it. Why in the world would he not want to fix anything in the federal gov't and let this happen again on his watch? He's gonna do everything in his power to fix the system. Just because it is done internally does not mean it won't criticize and recommended changes to the system in place.

Are you saying that the response was not the fault of the state and local gov't? Because more and more, it's becoming clear that alot of fault goes to them (but, before you bash me, blame also goes to the feds).

More ignorant than evil

Though unimportant, ThAnswr, along with many other liberals, do believe he is the essence of all evil, just to let you know.

MrGrumpy222

09-20-2005, 03:14 PM

Hey...when he stops giving us material, we'll stop bashing. Are you saying you're in favor of an internal investigation as opposed to one that is independant? Do you honestly think that an aide is going to criticize her boss?

Rather than rolling your eyes, why aren't you asking your guy to live up to the standards you demanded of the last president ?

He is the President, not the "Republican President" or the "Democratic President" just President. He's not my guy, your guy, his guy or her guy, He's OUR guy. Now don't be so silly to think there won't be Congressional Hearings on this, there most definitely will be. We will have the opportunity to listen to Senator Kennedy "The Icon of Dignity" interrogate witnesses. I also think the Impeachment of Clinton was a huge waste of tax payer money and not correct. (See I can be reasonable) If he doesn't have his own people look into how it could be done better, than he is just a poor manager. You guys really surprise me with your partisanship. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Move more to the center; come on in, the water is warm. I am sure I'll be pushed off a cliff by someone here or mocked because I don't agree with the NY Slimes. Remember, there are 3 sides to every story. Oh BTW, "GO IRISH!"
Cheers

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 04:01 PM

Look, the president has acknowledged that the federal response was inadequate, so why wouldn't he want to know what really we went wrong. And I would bet any amount of money that there will end up being an independent investigation into this, in addition to this internal one. But, according to ThAnswr, Bush is evil, so I don't know what to expect. You can't trust the devil.

Show me where I said Bush was evil. Take your time and make the search thorough. Show me and the rest of the good people here that you really do know what you're talking about and you do have more than a passing relationship with truthfulness and credibility.

C'mon, don't be shy. Let's see what you can come up with. Here's you chance to shine.

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 04:06 PM

But, according to ThAnswr, Bush is evil, so I don't know what to expect.

More ignorant than evil ;)

Chad, Chad, Chad, just because SteveO writes it doesn't make so. I never said Bush was evil.

However, like you, I do believe Bush is ignorant.

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 04:16 PM

Though unimportant, ThAnswr, along with many other liberals, do believe he is the essence of all evil, just to let you know.

Oh geeeez, be still my beating heart............SteveO screws up again.

When you find that quote where I said Bush was evil, make sure you bring it to the attention of me and the few thousand others in the peanut gallery.

Keep looking.

KarenC

09-20-2005, 04:23 PM

OK, I'll give him whatever "props" for wanting to know what happened, but does it truly require an investigation with the subsequent spending to fund it, whether by the WH or Congress? Couldn't that money be better spent in rebuilding the areas damaged by Katrina?

You have to do both. Hopefully the "what went wrong" assessment would include identifying ways to mitigate the risks so the next big hurricane doesn't cost us another $200 billion or more.

Any business that suffers any kind of system outage or other "disaster" ALWAYS conducts a post mortem to figure out what went wrong and how to do better next time. When the disaster is big enough, they bring in independent people to make the assessment. The shareholders demand it. Taxpayers should expect nothing less.

Tigger_Magic

09-20-2005, 04:32 PM

You have to do both. Hopefully the "what went wrong" assessment would include identifying ways to mitigate the risks so the next big hurricane doesn't cost us another $200 billion or more.

Any business that suffers any kind of system outage or other "disaster" ALWAYS conducts a post mortem to figure out what went wrong and how to do better next time. When the disaster is big enough, they bring in independent people to make the assessment. The shareholders demand it. Taxpayers should expect nothing less. I realize it will be done. There's little doubt about that. I just feel that this will be a demonstration of how to maintain a stranglehold on the obvious. And "we" (Americans) will spend possibly millions on this exercise and have yet another report full of recommendations that can be shoved on a shelf and ignored.

We've had decades of experiences with hurricanes and disaster recovery efforts. If we don't know what to do and how to do it properly and promptly by now, I fear that another report from another blue-ribbon committee will do little to "educate" us. Sadly, what it will accomplish, is the expenditure of lots of money that could be redirected to rebuilding and satisfaction of a public clamoring for "answers." Both of these are like buying and eating a Twinkie -- somewhat a waste of money and while it may "satisfy" one's hunger, it has little or no real nutritional value and the satisfaction is quickly forgotten.

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 04:53 PM

I was hoping that the thread wasn't closed off as many of them where you have stated this, but, to my luck, here it is, in plain black and white:

Originally Posted by M:SteveO
But, actually I completely understand - Bush is evil and incompetent and an idiot, it's all his fault.

Up until the "it's all his fault" part, it works for me.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=914253&page=2

sgtdisney

09-20-2005, 05:02 PM

Interesting.

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 05:09 PM

I was hoping that the thread wasn't closed off as many of them where you have stated this, but, to my luck, here it is, in plain black and white:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=914253&page=2

Oh geeez, I stand corrected. :rotfl2:

You get a prize: http://www.internetweekly.org/iwr/parody_dubya_scarecrow.html

Hope you enjoy the little ditty.

Btw, if the truth be told, you stated it in black and white, not me. But if you want to hang your hat on it, knock yourself out.

richiebaseball

09-20-2005, 05:43 PM

Oh geeez, I stand corrected. :rotfl2:

You get a prize: http://www.internetweekly.org/iwr/parody_dubya_scarecrow.html

Hope you enjoy the little ditty.

Btw, if the truth be told, you stated it in black and white, not me. But if you want to hang your hat on it, knock yourself out.

:rotfl2: Hey, are you one of those that have complained about others not having enough integrity to admit a mistake?

Just what I thought, no hat or cattle.

Apparently some can just make this stuff up.

Richard

sodaseller

09-20-2005, 06:18 PM

Bush has acknowledged that the federal government was a little slow and he has stated that he wants to know what went wrong so that he can fix it. Why in the world would he not want to fix anything in the federal gov't and let this happen again on his watch? He's gonna do everything in his power to fix the system. Just because it is done internally does not mean it won't criticize and recommended changes to the system in place.

What if what failed was his philosophy of governance, such that there was no true "failure"?

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 06:29 PM

What if what failed was his philosophy of governance, such that there was no true "failure"?

If I'm right, Bush himself has said that to the extent that feds were responsible for what happened or did not happen, he takes responsibility. I'm not sure how a philosophy of governance would relate to disaster relief. Now a philosophy of governance when it comes to something like Iraq is something that one can disagree with or disapprove of. Bush has acknowledged a failure, why would he not want to find out what went wrong and what went right (because many things did go right despite popular opinion). Why would he want this to happen again? No one has answered this. Internal investigations are done all of the time so that a company can fix a problem so that it won't happen again. And I still bet that there will be an independent investigation by Congress or someone, so I don't know what everyone's so upset about?

Oh wait...I do know, it's another chance to Bush Bash.

sodaseller

09-20-2005, 06:43 PM

He deserves to be bashed - his presidency has been a success in terms of implementing a conservative vision of governance, and that implementation has demonstrated that that vision results in unacceptable results.

This is just the latest example - Noam Scheiber picks up on some of it at Link (http://tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050926&s=scheiber092605) Why do conservative administrations specialize in outer-circle cronyism? The answer has to do with the fact that conservatism doesn't hold bureaucracy in very high regard. (I refer mostly to federal bureaucracy. Conservatives are more sympathetic to local government.) Conservatives believe that bureaucracy is inherently bumbling, inefficient, and, well, dumb. "[T]he brutal fact is, government tends toward bureaucracy, which means elaborate paper flow but ineffective action," as David Brooks wrote on Sunday. Even Bush himself couldn't resist a jab at bureaucracy in a press conference shortly after Katrina. "[B]ureaucracy is not going to stand in the way of getting the job done for the people," the president announced. (In fact, as Daniel Franklin showed in a devastating Washington Monthly piece in 1995, one reason bureaucracies work badly when they're full of incompetents is that such people are scared to make mistakes and therefore cling to the letter of bureaucratic rules. Competent people usually know when breaking the rules is justified.)

On top of that, as my colleague Franklin Foer has pointed out, conservatives don't place much faith in experts--the people who, since the Progressive era, have largely manned bureaucracies. Modern conservatism tends to see social science as an attempt to couch liberal views in the language of objectivity.

Now, if you happen to think bureaucracies are structurally incapable of improving people's lives, and if you have contempt for the kinds of people who reside in them, then you have two choices: You can either slash the bureaucracy and refund taxpayers' money, or you can reconcile yourself to the existence of bureaucracy and run it as a patronage operation. (If, by definition, a bureaucracy can't get any less competent, you might as well make appointments that benefit you personally or politically.)

But, in reality, it's just not politically feasible to cut bureaucracy very much. Despite conservatives' best efforts, government grew under Reagan, under a GOP congress, and it has grown by leaps and bounds under Bush. Instead, conservatives have generally opted for choice B--reconciliation. About the worst thing you can say about Bush is that he's more reconciled than most.

Scheiber is more charitable than I would be. Fundamentally, if you believe government is the problem, you tend to run it that way. If you belive it can help, you run it that way. Why are we surprised that philosophy of governance that vilifies government and looks at it as the "problem", why would be surprised when government failed?

Certainly corruption and incompetence can be endemic no matter who is running the government. But if those running it start with the presupposition that government can only harm and not help lives, incompetence would be the expected result, not the unintended or corrupted consequence

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 06:54 PM

sodaseller

09-20-2005, 06:57 PM

As far as the size of the government, Bush is no conservative so I'm not sure where you got that from. The government has increased in size more during this admin. than the last, by far. Morally and socially, he is conservative, but the argument that he's a conservative, he cut gov't, so the gov't wasn't there to respond is ludicrous.
Look at % of GDP. And look at spending on nondefense discretionaries. But none of that addresses the philosophical issue, so it's somewhat a nonsequiter

Lisa loves Pooh

09-20-2005, 07:12 PM

It seems fairly clear what went wrong.

Sure it seems clear.

But when Rita hits Texas, or better yet..next season when we get hit with hurricanes....it will show that they clearly didn't know or anybody else knows....if it isn't investigated to see precisely where the shortfalls are.

I am not comforted that Bush is being ahead of the game by saying he's worried about Rita. Big deal.

Next summer...and the following summers...or when there's an earthquake.

No investigation..it all gets swept under the rug as soon as complacency sets in and they all thing "they got it" for next time.

The problems are NOT limited to the current administration...and the wrongs are not limited to just what we happen to see in footage on the news.

chadfromdallas

09-20-2005, 07:14 PM

Next summer...and the following summers...or when there's an earthquake.

And remember, with global warming, the hurricane seasons are predicted to get worse and worse.

Planogirl

09-20-2005, 07:27 PM

And remember, with global warming, the hurricane seasons are predicted to get worse and worse.
Shhhh.... You'll be labeled an evil tree hugger if you're not careful. Oops, there's that word "evil" again. :rolleyes:

An investigation is not only a good idea but vital IMO. I hope that they won't just shelve the results and recommendations. That would be truly sad.

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 09:32 PM

An investigation is not only a good idea but vital IMO. I hope that they won't just shelve the results and recommendations. That would be truly sad.

Nobody said it was a bad thing. And, nobody seems to be able to answer this, why wouldn't Bush want to make changes and reform the system to the extent needed. He has acknowledged inadequacies in the system, so why wouldn't he want to fix them. I don't think he wants something like this to happen again on his watch.

Oh, and, global warming is Bush's fault, not the earth's. Just as global warming in the 1930's led to a relative increase in hurricane frequency.

chadfromdallas

09-20-2005, 09:36 PM

Just as global warming in the 1930's led to a relative increase in hurricane frequency.

Frequency and intensity...two different beasts ;)

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 09:46 PM

:rotfl2: Hey, are you one of those that have complained about others not having enough integrity to admit a mistake?

Just what I thought, no hat or cattle.

Apparently some can just make this stuff up.

Richard

Beam me up, Scotty.

Oh good God, you can't make this stuff up. LOL.

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 09:56 PM

Frequency and intensity...two different beasts ;)

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/mgch.html

Not entirely accurate, some of the most powerful hurricanes on record occurred in the early to mid 20th century. And let's remember that the earth has been around for quite a while, and we've been keeping track of hurricanes for, let's see, about .000002% of that time. I'm sure they had pretty powerful hurricanes pretty frequently in the human-induced global warming periods 2.5 million years ago, or even 70 years ago.

And this from the NY Times of all places (sorry, the link won't work):

Storms Vary With Cycles, Experts Say
By KENNETH CHANG

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

Get the facts guys.

Geoff_M

09-20-2005, 09:56 PM

But if those running it start with the presupposition that government can only harm and not help lives...If this statement is true, then there would be no difference between a Conservative and an Anarchist. I think that's a hard comparison to make, especially when were talking about an administration that put forward the recent prescription drug benefit. Also flying in the face of this exercise is the widely held notion, championed by James Lee Witt, that a major part of the problem was "more government" was added to the federal disaster response process when FEMA was re-organized into the DHS fold.

bsnyder

09-20-2005, 09:59 PM

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/mgch.html

Not entirely accurate, some of the most powerful hurricanes on record occurred in the early to mid 20th century. And let's remember that the earth has been around for quite a while, and we've been keeping track of hurricanes for, let's see, about .000002% of that time. I'm sure they had pretty powerful hurricanes pretty frequently in the human-induced global warming periods 2.5 million years ago, or even 70 years ago.

And this from the NY Times of all places (sorry, the link won't work):

Storms Vary With Cycles, Experts Say
By KENNETH CHANG

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

Get the facts guys.

For some graphics that explain Dr. Gray's theory (and its' profound implications for the state of Florida in particular) see this page:

http://myweb.cableone.net/nolasue/Florida/

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 10:01 PM

Beam me up, Scotty.

Oh good God, you can't make this stuff up. LOL.

Don't know what that's supposed to mean. Perhaps you've jumped the cliff, as you like to say. You got caught in a lie that you swore you didn't say, and then you accuse others of not telling the truth. And then you make fun of them. I don't get it.

bsnyder

09-20-2005, 10:06 PM

But if those running it start with the presupposition that government can only harm and not help lives...

It's also hard to square this statement with the facts on the ground in LA, a state that's traditionally been run as a model of liberal/Democrat/big government/entitlement mentality.

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 10:10 PM

If this statement is true, then there would be no difference between a Conservative and an Anarchist. I think that's a hard comparison to make, especially when were talking about an administration that put forward the recent prescription drug benefit. Also flying in the face of this exercise is the widely held notion, championed by James Lee Witt, that a major part of the problem was "more government" was added to the federal disaster response process when FEMA was re-organized into the DHS fold.

It was "more government" in the form of bad government. Yes, FEMA was folded into Homeland Security, but that in and of itself, was not a bad thing. What was bad was the fact the Homeland Security's mission was with terrorism and FEMA was natural disaster. Their reasons for being were incompatible. It would be lilke putting Social Security in the hands of the Defense Department. The "fit" isn't good.

And, no I don't think the Bush administration could investigate and police itself. Any group that puts Karl Rove in charge of coordinating the rebuilding of New Orleans, really doesn't get it. The rest of the country, however, does get and that's why Bush numbers are in free fall.

Once more, Bush is a day too late and a dollar too short, not because he's evil (Hahahahaha......... broke myself up), but because he's arrogant and it just doesn't occur to him to do something different.

There is no "there" there.

sodaseller

09-20-2005, 10:10 PM

It's also hard to square this statement with the facts on the ground in LA, a state that's traditionally been run as a model of liberal/Democrat/big government/entitlement mentality.
And it's even harder to advance the exchange with functionally meaningless drivel rhetoric

richiebaseball

09-20-2005, 10:12 PM

And it's even harder to advance the exchange with functionally meaningless drivel rhetoric

Awww, but you do it so well.

sodaseller

09-20-2005, 10:16 PM

If this statement is true, then there would be no difference between a Conservative and an Anarchist. I think that's a hard comparison to make, especially when were talking about an administration that put forward the recent prescription drug benefit. Also flying in the face of this exercise is the widely held notion, championed by James Lee Witt, that a major part of the problem was "more government" was added to the federal disaster response process when FEMA was re-organized into the DHS fold.
Fair enough. The statement was a bit of rhetorical overreach, meant to be illustrative on the philosophical point rather than strictly observational.

But the two counterexamples are not persuasive to my mind. First, the PD benefit is political concession, not an expression of the philosophy of governance. It's an example of Schieber's thesis , i.e., give in and fund it but do it badly, though I confess that the PD cost problem is one that there is no obvious solution to.

As far as DHS, think that again proves the thesis - security is the limited function of government that the philosophy concedes is legitimate. What the Admin's DHS implementation model did was effectively deemphasize the natural disaster response component of the mission, so it was less government in that sense

Charade

09-20-2005, 10:21 PM

And it's even harder to advance the exchange with functionally meaningless drivel rhetoric

Now that's funny!!! :rotfl2:

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 10:26 PM

Don't know what that's supposed to mean. Perhaps you've jumped the cliff, as you like to say. You got caught in a lie that you swore you didn't say, and then you accuse others of not telling the truth. And then you make fun of them. I don't get it.

Get a grip.

On second thought, carry on. ;)

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 10:26 PM

And, no I don't think the Bush administration could investigate and police itself. Any group that puts Karl Rove in charge of coordinating the rebuilding of New Orleans, really doesn't get it. The rest of the country, however, does get and that's why Bush numbers are in free fall.

Again, will somebody please answer my question. Why wouldn't Bush want to know what went wrong? Why would he want this to happen again?

Once more, Bush is a day too late and a dollar too short, not because he's evil (Hahahahaha......... broke myself up), but because he's arrogant and it just doesn't occur to him to do something different.

Now that I think about it, you are funny, really. I love your little jokes that make me think a little. What I would like are some more animations showing Bush turning into the devil. Now that is cool.

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 10:27 PM

And it's even harder to advance the exchange with functionally meaningless drivel rhetoric

What do the Bush apologists have left?

Puffy2

09-20-2005, 10:29 PM

Bush Aide to lead Katrina Inquiry

and Fox to guard hen house.

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 10:31 PM

What do the Bush apologists have left?

That's right, if we support the president, we're Bush apologists. Have you seen all the times that conservatives, including myself, on these boards have criticized the president?

Lisa loves Pooh

09-20-2005, 10:37 PM

and Fox to guard hen house.

Well--the republican party needs to know what happened...future votes depend on it of course ;).

And to investigate and only report fluff findings...has annual repercussions: It is guaranteed that hurricanes will occur each year.

They cannot just sit idly waiting for the witch hunters to come out. In those cases...more important to point fingers and assign blame then to fix the problem or improve the situation for next time.

They screw it up--or indeed act like the fox in this matter....
voters will find someone else to take care of the matter.

It is a politicians dream! Something tangible--something so horribly bad that happened on our own turf...he's darned if he does and he's darned if he doesn't. He may not be up for re-election...but his actions or inaction....could very well cause voters to jump ship.

It is just the right thing for Bush to look in the matter.

richiebaseball

09-20-2005, 10:37 PM

and Fox to guard hen house.

Shouldn't that be Faux to guard the hen house?

Hey, functionally meaningless drivel rhetoric can be fun!

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 10:39 PM

.
Now that I think about it, you are funny, really. I love your little jokes that make me think a little. What I would like are some more animations showing Bush turning into the devil. Now that is cool.

It must be my lucky day. I"ve gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. First, I'm a liar, now I'm cool.

Be still my beating heart.

Btw, interesting interpretation of a smilie. Reminds me of a scene in the Sopranos where Tony tells Melfi (?) about a dream he had that he was making a sandwich. She drones on and on endlessly about the meaning. He looks at her and asks: "You got all of that from a slice of cappicola"?

richiebaseball

09-20-2005, 10:44 PM

What do the Bush apologists have left?

A little over 3 years?

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 10:44 PM

That's right, if we support the president, we're Bush apologists. Have you seen all the times that conservatives, including myself, on these boards have criticized the president?

Two thoughts come to mind:

1) Get over yourself. Not everything you read here is about you.

2) For a guy who's supposedly been here less than a month and has a grand total of 65 posts, you seem to be awfully familiar with who's done what.

Lisa loves Pooh

09-20-2005, 10:46 PM

A little over 3 years?

I'm sorry..but that made me...

:rotfl2:

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 10:46 PM

A little over 3 years?

Snappy comeback. Not bad.

richiebaseball

09-20-2005, 10:47 PM

Snappy comeback. Not bad.

Every dog has his day.

bsnyder

09-20-2005, 10:50 PM

And it's even harder to advance the exchange with functionally meaningless drivel rhetoric

When all reasoning fails, just resort to an insult.

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 10:51 PM

Two thoughts come to mind:

1) Get over yourself. Not everything you read here is about you.

2) For a guy who's supposedly been here less than a month and has a grand total of 65 posts, you seem to be awfully familiar with who's done what.

For one thing, I apologize, I thought you would be intending the "Bush apologist" rhetoric for me and my fellow conservatives. If I took that the wrong way please accept my apology.

Secondly, I've been around here for a quite a while, just haven't started posting til this Katrina situation, just to let you know, so I am familiar with alot of the people on the boards.

And the Sopranos reference was funny, made me laugh again.

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 10:52 PM

Every dog has his day.

Even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while. LOL. *Just kidding.*

Truthfully, it was funny.

bsnyder

09-20-2005, 10:54 PM

What was bad was the fact the Homeland Security's mission was with terrorism and FEMA was natural disaster. Their reasons for being were incompatible. It would be lilke putting Social Security in the hands of the Defense Department. The "fit" isn't good.

Do you really see this as such a bad fit? Surely a terrorism strike and a natural disaster would have many common elements for first responders as well as FEMA/DHS? Do we know, at this point, that the "incompatibility" of these two agencies had anything to do with the problems of Katrina?

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 10:58 PM

For one thing, I apologize, I thought you would be intending the "Bush apologist" rhetoric for me and my fellow conservatives. If I took that the wrong way please accept my apology.

There are conservatives and there are kool-aid drinkers. Unfortunately, too many kool-aid drinkers think they're conservatives.

Secondly, I've been around here for a quite a while, just haven't started posting til this Katrina situation, just to let you know, so I am familiar with alot of the people on the boards.

Pardon me if I'm skeptical. You're a political junkie who lives for the debate just like the rest of us. No political junkie would've sat on the sidelines for "quite a while". Just my opinion.

And the Sopranos reference was funny, made me laugh again.

Take away the murder, blood, guts, gore, sex, foul language, violence, etc. and the Sopranos is a comedy.

ThAnswr

09-20-2005, 11:15 PM

Do you really see this as such a bad fit?

Because of why Homeland Security was created, terrorism, I think the idea of a natural disaster took a back seat to that.

Surely a terrorism strike and a natural disaster would have many common elements for first responders as well as FEMA/DHS?

You would think so. Many of us have been saying just that. If this had been a terrorist attack, Homeland Security would've been a complete and total failure. Twenty two billion dollars and 4 years, and all we have to show for it is a procedural book the size of the Bible and a nifty color code.

And you've touched on the basic reason why Bush cannot appoint someone from within his administration to investigate what went wrong. The investigation is going to go in the direction of the preparations and procedures of Homeland Security, and I don't think anyone in the Bush administration is going to prepared to concede they've made mistakes when it comes to Homeland Security.

Do we know, at this point, that the "incompatibility" of these two agencies had anything to do with the problems of Katrina?

It didn't help. Frankly, the problems of Katrina had their roots in having someone heading FEMA who should never have had the job. Brown was not qualified. Add to that being folded into a large group who's focus is terrorism, and the unqualified becomes incompetent and ineffective.

If anything, this whole sorry episode could be summed up with: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Geoff_M

09-20-2005, 11:19 PM

But the two counterexamples are not persuasive to my mind.It was nice that you mentioned that this behavior can be exhibited regardless of who's in the Whitehouse, but I'm not persauded that this is any more endemic today than with other administrations.

Railing against bureaucracy is by no means limited to the Conservative side of the fence. Many Liberal politicians have also issued broadsides against the topic in the aftermath of Katrina. Scheiber uses Bush's quote as evidence that the President thinks that ineffective government deserves to be done poorly. So what's it evidence of when members of other parties say such things?

As for Scheiber's comments about Reagan having a "GOP Congress", the GOP only controlled the Senate for part of Reagan's time in office. Tip O'Neil and Jim Wright called the shots in the House during Reagan's tenure.

M:SteveO

09-20-2005, 11:23 PM

There are conservatives and there are kool-aid drinkers. Unfortunately, too many kool-aid drinkers think they're conservatives.

You are right about that one. But you would have to admit there are kool-aid drinkers on the left too, some who don't look at things rationally and find every oppurtunity they can to bash a certain political party. I know many of them, like you. I am not afraid to bash both parties, when it is relevant.

Pardon if I'm sceptical. You're a political junkie who lives for the debate just like the rest of us. No political junkie would've sat on the sidelines for "quite a while". Just my opinion.

I am political junkie, but I, truthfully, have sat on the sidelines for awhile, I usually just look at the Disney stuff (how about that, I was beginning to forget what united us all to begin with). We can all unite on hatred for one president at least, Michael Eisner. Just a few more months and he's outta there. You guys have to put up with Bush for three more years. And then another Republican after that, because Hillary isn't going to win.

Anyways, we're getting way off topic. If someone could just answer my question: why wouldn't the president want to know what went wrong so that he can fix what he has acknowledged was an inadequate federal response? Why would he not want to fix it, he doesn't want this to happen again on his watch.

bsnyder

09-20-2005, 11:34 PM

Because of why Homeland Security was created, terrorism, I think the idea of a natural disaster took a back seat to that.

You would think so. Many of us have been saying just that. If this had been a terrorist attack, Homeland Security would've been a complete and total failure. Twenty two billion dollars and 4 years, and all we have to show for it is a procedural book the size of the Bible and a nifty color code.

And you've touched on the basic reason why Bush cannot appoint someone from within his administration to investigate what went wrong. The investigation is going to go in the direction of the preparations and procedures of Homeland Security, and I don't think anyone in the Bush administration is going to prepared to concede they've made mistakes when it comes to Homeland Security.

It didn't help. Frankly, the problems of Katrina had their roots in having someone heading FEMA who should never have had the job. Brown was not qualified. Add to that being folded into a large group who's focus is terrorism, and the unqualified becomes incompetent and ineffective.

If anything, this whole sorry episode could be summed up with: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It seems to me that all of what you have said is merely speculation at this point, as to exactly what went wrong and more importantly, why. I have no problem with President Bush doing a cabinet level review because I'm confident there will also be an independent review at a later date. In the meantime, it would be derilict for the Administration to wait for Congress to act. We've got another huricane brewing, and many other potential disasters that could occur at any moment.

And do you really see the Katrina response, at all levels of government, as a "complete and total failure"?

yeartolate

09-20-2005, 11:55 PM

I was kinda thinkin' that Micheal Brown was out of a job, I was surprised he wasn't chosen. :confused3 :confused3

M:SteveO

09-21-2005, 12:07 AM

It seems to me that all of what you have said is merely speculation at this point, as to exactly what went wrong and more importantly, why. I have no problem with President Bush doing a cabinet level review because I'm confident there will also be an independent review at a later date. In the meantime, it would be derilict for the Administration to wait for Congress to act. We've got another huricane brewing, and many other potential disasters that could occur at any moment.

And do you really see the Katrina response, at all levels of government, as a "complete and total failure"?

I agree completely. There is no doubt there will be an independent review. President Bush has acknowledged some problems with the system, why would he not want to fix them? The sad part is that some people, mostly on the political left, do believe this operation was a "complete and total failure." It's sad that people don't look at all the things that went right. Last time I checked, the death toll was siginificantly lower than expected in the Pam simulation (61,000) and by the mayor (10,000). This is a credit to all levels of government, who did a great job getting people out. Everything wasn't perfect, but it never is, won't be with Rita either.

ThAnswr, I expected more from you than to call the response a "complete and total failure." That's a shot at all the people at all levels of gov't who worked their a***s off to save all of those people. And who was drinking the KoolAid? I think it's you, my friend. What's your favorite flavor?

Brainhammer

09-21-2005, 12:36 AM

And remember, with global warming, the hurricane seasons are predicted to get worse and worse.

Long time listener, first time caller. This did it for me. Can be please stop with this theory, based on no quantifiable scientific evidence whatsoever? (same goes for global warming)

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091404D.html

could see this one coming.

The other day a lady in my department saw me and said, "Well, George, with all these hurricanes it's pretty clear that global warming is happening, right?" I think Jane was just being playful, because she's heard me talk about global warming and knows of my "politically incorrect" viewpoint on this issue, Yet she raises a question that a lot of people have been asking: does the busy hurricane year in the Atlantic have anything to do with global warming?

The short answer: no.

The long answer:

Long-term statistics on hurricanes are quite good, so we can have some confidence in the trends we see in hurricane counts. There are two reasons for this: (1) hurricanes are big, powerful storms and very hard to miss; (2) they are well-defined. The Saffir-Simpson scale uses wind speed (one-minute average) to define a hurricane's strength, starting at 74 mph (Category 1) and ending at speeds above 155 mph (Category 5). Other rating systems use central pressure as a criterion.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/taylorhurricanes.gif

Figure 1, obtained from data provided by the National Hurricane Center, shows hurricane strikes (landfalls) by decade in the U.S. since 1900. The 1940s were rather busy, the 70s the quietest, and the 1990s pretty close to the long-term average. A simple linear fit suggests a decrease over time. This is a result echoed by Easterling, et al (2000), who said, "the number of intense and landfalling Atlantic hurricanes has declined." In the Gulf of Mexico there is "no sign of an increase in hurricane frequency or intensity," according to Bove, et al (1998). For the North Atlantic as a whole, according to the United Nations Environment Programme of the World Meteorological Organization, "Reliable data … since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased."

Granted, there has been an upswing in the Atlantic since 1995, and this year's bumper crop of storms has struck Florida in numbers and intensities seldom occurring before. A sign of things to come, especially in a warmer world? Not according to Bill Gray's Tropical Forecast group at Colorado State University. Gray, who has developed successful methods for predicting hurricane activity, said, "Various groups and individuals have suggested that the recent large upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity (since 1995) may be in some way related to the effects of increased man-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). There is no reasonable scientific way that such an interpretation of this recent upward shift in Atlantic hurricane activity can be made."

And there is no reason to expect increases in hurricanes due to greenhouse warming. Climate models, for all their problems, are unanimous in at least one respect: they predict that most of the future warming will be in high latitudes, in the polar regions. This will reduce the north-south temperature gradient and make poleward transfer of heat less vigorous -- a task in which tropical storms play a major role. All other things being equal, a warmer world should have fewer, not more, hurricanes.

The same effect should reduce the overall intensity of mid-latitude storms as well. Does it? Let's examine the evidence.

Schwartz and Schmidlin (2002) analyzed frequencies of blizzards in the US since 1959. Defining a blizzard as a storm with falling or blowing snow, visibilities less than 400 meters and winds over 16 m/sec, they concluded that there have been increasing numbers of blizzards reported, while the area affected by all blizzards has not changed significantly. This would indicate that blizzards are becoming smaller. It is also possible that "NWS is recording smaller, weaker blizzards in recent years that went unrecorded earlier in the period, as occurred also in the official record of tornadoes in the United States," which would suggest that blizzard frequency increases may be overstated.

Changnon and Changnon (2000) studied hail frequencies in the US over the last century. They found that "the national average based on all hail values formed a bell-shaped 100year distribution with hail occurrences peaking in mid-century." Thunderstorm distributions were similar to the hail results. Further, the authors found that hail insurance loss values have declined since the 1950s, in agreement with the hail results.

Zhang, et al (2000) examined storm activity along the US East Coast over the twentieth century. After stating, "it has been speculated that future global warming will change the frequency and severity of tropical and extratropical storms," the authors used historical data in an attempt to help predict future trends. Using a variety of indices, including storm surge water levels, the authors found "no significant trend in storm activity during this century along the East Coast." The real problem along the coastline, they say, is not changing climate but changing land use, as more and more development occurs along the shorelines, creating greater susceptibility to storm damage.

Gulev, et al (2000) employed NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data since 1958 to study the occurrence of winter storms over the northern hemisphere. They found a statistically significant (at the 95% level) decline of 1.2 cyclones per year for the period, during which temperatures reportedly rose in much of the hemisphere.

"Global warming causes increased storminess" makes for interesting headlines. It also violates fundamental scientific truth and the lessons of history.

Brainhammer

09-21-2005, 12:51 AM

It seems to me that all of what you have said is merely speculation at this point, as to exactly what went wrong and more importantly, why. I have no problem with President Bush doing a cabinet level review because I'm confident there will also be an independent review at a later date. In the meantime, it would be derilict for the Administration to wait for Congress to act.

And Congress will likey never act because the Dems will not go along with it. They've already said as much

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2005-09-08T193055Z_01_N08695501_RTRIDST_0_KATRINA-CONGRESS-INVESTIGATION.XML

WASHINGTON, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Democratic leaders pushing for an independent commission to investigate the government's response to Hurricane Katrina spurned on Thursday a plan by majority Republicans for a joint congressional inquiry.

House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, called the House-Senate investigation announced by Republican leaders on Wednesday a "sham" and said it would not produce an objective assessment of what went wrong in the hours and days following the storm.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada also said he would not participate in the Republican-led inquiry.

The government's initial response to the catastrophic storm that left hundreds of thousands homeless and thousands feared dead along the U.S. Gulf Coast has come under intense bipartisan criticism.

While President George W. Bush declared Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama disaster areas days before Hurricane Katrina hit on Aug. 29 "to avert the threat of a catastrophe," residents of the region complained there was no federal help until days after the storm.

Pelosi said on CNN on Thursday that in meetings with Bush this week to discuss the response to Katrina the president asked her "'What didn't go right last week?'"

Of course, the GOP would be behaving the same of the donks were the majority. Will be hard to get any bipartisan commission. Heck, even the 9/11 commission wasn't all that bipartisan.

chadfromdallas

09-21-2005, 01:48 AM

Long time listener, first time caller. This did it for me. Can be please stop with this theory, based on no quantifiable scientific evidence whatsoever? (same goes for global warming)

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091404D.html

What makes your website better than the many of news sources found on google? :rotfl2:

Crazy banned people :earboy2:

M:SteveO

09-21-2005, 02:36 AM

What makes your website better than the many of news sources found on google? :rotfl2:

Crazy banned people :earboy2:

What, did he present facts that disprove how global warming effects hurricanes? That makes him crazy. It was just a website outlining the many scientific reasons on global warming and hurricanes and the fact that they have no siginificant connection. Was there human-induced global warming in the early 20th C. that led to powerful and frequent hurricanes?

And let's suppose that human-induced global warming (to which there is no scientific proof, mabye if we had temperatures of the earth millions of years ago we could compare) caused stronger hurricanes (which the article and many reputable hurricane meteorologists have disproven), but let's just assume this. What would you like to do about it? Certainly global warming just didn't happen in the five years since Bush was in office. I mean I know he is the devil according to some, and with that he bring the wrath of hell to earth resulting in hellish high temperatures, but what would you like the world to do about controlling the earth's temperature?

chadfromdallas

09-21-2005, 02:42 AM

Was there human-induced global warming in the early 20th C. that led to powerful and frequent hurricanes?

Who said anything about human-induced global warming :confused3

Viking

09-21-2005, 06:29 AM

Who said anything about human-induced global warming :confused3

IF the number of hurricanes increased because of human-induced global warming, it could be used as an example for 'backfiring' as they affect the largest polluter of the world ;) (25% of greenhouse gases are produced by the USA)

There is not enough data to safely prove that human-induced factors heat up the atmosphere, but there are enough clues pointing out that it is highly probable that we have an influence on it. Due to this many nations decided to conserve energy, to reduce emissions - and all that without lowering their quality of life.
Many nations in the world like to act responsible, like to think ahead, care for future generations. But already the Reagan-administration ceased to do this as Reagan was a strong believer that Armageddon was near - 'Why care about the world if the end is near anyway?' :confused3
Obviously the Bush-adminstration follows the same course due to similar beliefs (i.e oil-drilling in Alaska). One more proof that religion and politics shouldn't mix.

Puffy2

09-21-2005, 06:34 AM

voters will find someone else to take care of the matter.

Except that the Foxes are also "guarding the vote tabulation machines" (Diebold and their ties to the Republican party).

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 07:40 AM

You are right about that one. But you would have to admit there are kool-aid drinkers on the left too, some who don't look at things rationally and find every oppurtunity they can to bash a certain political party. I know many of them, like you. I am not afraid to bash both parties, when it is relevant.

There are kool-aid drinkers everywhere and not just in politics.

I am political junkie, but I, truthfully, have sat on the sidelines for awhile, I usually just look at the Disney stuff (how about that, I was beginning to forget what united us all to begin with). We can all unite on hatred for one president at least, Michael Eisner. Just a few more months and he's outta there. You guys have to put up with Bush for three more years. And then another Republican after that, because Hillary isn't going to win.

And that's where you're dead wrong. No one "has to put up" with Bush. As a citizen, I can *****, moan, complain, write letters/emails, and make all the phone calls I want.

Anyways, we're getting way off topic. If someone could just answer my question: why wouldn't the president want to know what went wrong so that he can fix what he has acknowledged was an inadequate federal response? Why would he not want to fix it, he doesn't want this to happen again on his watch.

I can't think of any good why Bush wouldn't want to know, but that's not the issue.

Here's the issue: The fact that he has appointed someone from within the Homeland Security department to investigate her own department is ludicrous. Appointing someone who has a vested interest in the outcome is called conflict of interest. There's only one reason why someone would do that and that is to control the flow of information, the scope of the investigation, and the ultimate outcome.

There's a second issue here and that issue is that Frances Fragos Townsend has no experience whatsoever in disaster management. She's a domestic security advisor: aka her job focus is terrorism, not natural disasters. Which, IMO, is the reason why FEMA failed in the first place. A disaster management group was working under a department with a different focus. As I stated before, it's like putting Health and Human Services in the Defense Department.

Why would he not want to fix it, he doesn't want this to happen again on his watch.

I can't think of any good reason why. Then again, I can't think of any good reason why someone stays on vacation and goes to a birthday party on the day the Gulf coast was reduced to matchsticks. I can't think of any good reason why someone would stay on vacation, give a speech on Medicare and play "pretend" guitar after the levees broke and water was filling up New Orleans like a soup bowl. And that is what happened.

Here's the issue: Bush does not understand what's required of him. He loves being president, but has concept whatsoever about the responsiblities of the job. There is no "there" there. Mercifully, even the Republicans are starting to acknowledge that.

So in answer to your question, sure he'd love to know but it won't make a damned bit of difference because Bush doesn't understand why he should know.

Tigger_Magic

09-21-2005, 08:04 AM

Here's the issue: The fact that he has appointed someone from within the Homeland Security department to investigate her own department is ludicrous. Appointing someone who has a vested interest in the outcome is called conflict of interest. There's only one reason why someone would do that and that is to control the flow of information, the scope of the investigation, and the ultimate outcome.

There's a second issue here and that issue is that Frances Fragos Townsend has no experience whatsoever in disaster management. She's a domestic security advisor: aka her job focus is terrorism, not natural disasters. Which, IMO, is the reason why FEMA failed in the first place. A disaster management group was working under a department with a different focus. As I stated before, it's like putting Health and Human Services in the Defense Department. ::yes::

As has been mentioned before, do a simple comparison on FEMA's performance in the 90's to their performance today. Huge difference (for the worse). In the 90's FEMA was actually being praised for how they responded to hurricane disasters. Today they can barely find the paper for the photocopier.

FEMA needs to be it's own entity again. President Bush needs to appoint someone with credible experience in disaster management/recovery.

Charade

09-21-2005, 08:17 AM

Except that the Foxes are also "guarding the vote tabulation machines" (Diebold and their ties to the Republican party).

What's your position on national voting ID cards and the current proposal for voting reform?

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 08:22 AM

::yes::

As has been mentioned before, do a simple comparison on FEMA's performance in the 90's to their performance today. Huge difference (for the worse). In the 90's FEMA was actually being praised for how they responded to hurricane disasters. Today they can barely find the paper for the photocopier.

FEMA needs to be it's own entity again. President Bush needs to appoint someone with credible experience in disaster management/recovery.

We went through Charley last year. FEMA was horrible. As a matter of fact (you'll love this one, Bet), one of the local characters here said: We were doing fine until FEMA showed up". Then again, we're a small community, mostly private homes and things were somewhat manageable locally.

I honestly don't know anyone who received a dime from FEMA.

Charade

09-21-2005, 08:23 AM

Who said anything about human-induced global warming :confused3

Isn't that the crux of the claim that global warming even exists?

Lisa loves Pooh

09-21-2005, 08:28 AM

I honestly don't know anyone who received a dime from FEMA.

I know several who got reimbursed for a generator.
:mad:

bcvillastwo

09-21-2005, 08:35 AM

Earlier when someone was responding to a point about President Bush being evil, they made the following statement, More ignorant than evil

One definition of ignorant is,"Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened."

Hmmmmmmmmm, could someone please explain what President Bush is ignorant about. I ask because I don't usually think of someone being ignorant if they have an undergraduate degree from an Ivy League college and a MBA from Harvard. I also don't think of someone being ignorant who on more than one occaision ran a successful business, was twice elected Governor of Texas and twice elected President of the United States of America.

I suppose it's possible that President Bush is ignorant about some things, as all of us are because no one knows everything therefore to the extent that any of us don't know something then by definition we are ignorant about that thing we don't know anything about.

So, please explain to me precisely what President Bush is ignorant about. I think we would all be enlightened and would welcome some examples.

Geoff_M

09-21-2005, 08:36 AM

In the 90's FEMA was actually being praised for how they responded to hurricane disasters. Today they can barely find the paper for the photocopier.

FEMA needs to be it's own entity again. President Bush needs to appoint someone with credible experience in disaster management/recovery.They also received good marks for their intial responses last year during the series of hurricanes that hammered Florida and the Gulf Coast... with the same organization, and the same leadership. There are too many counter examples to simply declare the organization and the leadership was the root problem.

People also assume that a hurricane... is a hurricane... is a hurricane. The FEMA of James Lee Witt in the 90's never was tested against a disaster with the scope of Katrina. The previous "big one" was Andrew in 1992. No storm matched Andrew until Katrina. For comparison, current estimates show that (dollar adjusted) Katrina packed the damage of three Andrews. To speculate that FEMA 10 years ago would have been able to respond "fast enough" is about as meaningful as claiming that the 1975 Reds would have prevailed against the 2000 Yankees.

yeartolate

09-21-2005, 08:38 AM

The bottom line (for me) is that the primary investegation should be independent. Folks fighting for their own jobs (and the jobs of their friends) are not as objective as they can be.

I want to know the successes and the failures and to have them put in proper prospective.

BostonTigger

09-21-2005, 08:41 AM

Charade

09-21-2005, 08:42 AM

Earlier when someone was responding to a point about President Bush being evil, they made the following statement,

One definition of ignorant is,"Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened."

Hmmmmmmmmm, could someone please explain what President Bush is ignorant about. I ask because I don't usually think of someone being ignorant if they have an undergraduate degree from an Ivy League college and a MBA from Harvard. I also don't think of someone being ignorant who on more than one occaision ran a successful business, was twice elected Governor of Texas and twice elected President of the United States of America.

I suppose it's possible that President Bush is ignorant about some things, as all of us are because no one knows everything therefore to the extent that any of us don't know something then by definition we are ignorant about that thing we don't know anything about.

So, please explain to me precisely what President Bush is ignorant about. I think we would all be enlightened and would welcome some examples.

Oh come on now, *you* can't be that ignorant!! :teeth: There's only one reason for Bush's success (and failures)... Connections!!! :rolleyes:

bcvillastwo

09-21-2005, 08:45 AM

With respect to the initial criticism of President Bush initiating an internal investigation into the federal response to Katrina, this is what a good President should do. This is what any good leader would do in circumstances like this, he has a duty to find out what went wrong. After almost 30 years as an auditor in the federal government I don't find this unusual at all.

Yes, he could "cook the books" on this and do things to make the results come out in his administration's favor. But, with the inevitable congressional hearings looming, an independent commission looming, and probably inquirys by the State of Louisianna and perhaps by the City of New Orleans what would he hope to gain by white washing any problems that point to failures on the part of the federal government. Frankly, to do so would be pretty darned stupid. The aftermath of Katrina, the mistakes made at all levels of government are going to be studied over and over and over so any attempt to sweep one level of government's failures under the rug will be pointed out and jumped on with both feet.

No, the Bush bashers are just on their normal rant and they still persist in not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

yeartolate

09-21-2005, 08:46 AM

And who would you propose lead, or appoint the independant investigation? Sen.'s Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Barbara Boxer?
Why not a 9/11 commision structure?

BostonTigger

09-21-2005, 08:53 AM

Why not a 9/11 commision structure?

I'd go for that. The Feds dropped the ball and we need to find out why so something like this doesn't happen again.

BostonTigger

09-21-2005, 08:54 AM

No, the Bush bashers are just on their normal rant and they still persist in not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

You know, what gets me is that a lot of liberals were complaining that he didn't accept responsibility for failed intel on Iraq. He now accepts responsibility for the slow response from the Federal Gov. and he's still catching grief over this. Can he do nothing right?

bcvillastwo

09-21-2005, 08:56 AM

Oh come on now, *you* can't be that ignorant!! There's only one reason for Bush's success (and failures)... Connections!!!

Where is your support for his "connections"? You assume much in your statement, perhaps it is even true, but where is your support. You've made an assertion but offer not a shred of proof. So, I can simply ignore your unsupported assertion because without evidence you are unable to support your assertion.

By the way, I wonder if you were in position to help your child attain something if you would say no, I'm not helping you go out and do it on your own. I don't know many parents that don't do everything they can to give their children a leg up so to the extent that a parent does this and their child benefits then their children have "connections".

I don't doubt that President Bush had connections. He undoubted did, but he still had to perform at Yale to get passing grades (which by the way were just about the same as John F. Kerry's grades weren't they?), he had to make passing grades at Harvard to get his MBA. Then he had to make at least passable business decisions to run successfull businesses otherwise his businesses would have failed. If is connections got him elected Governor of Texas he still had to perform well enough for the citizens of Texas to reelect him to a second term. Finally, he was reelected to a second term for President. Connections can only get a person (your child or GHWB's child) just so far, they still must perform after they get into the college, the grad school, their businesses, and their political offices.

So, don't talk to me about connections because it's a bogus argument put forth by someone with a small hateful mind that just doen't like GWB.

For the record, I don't like what he's not doing with respect to spending or immigration. I think both are dangerous to the well being of every citizen in this country.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:03 AM

They also received good marks for their intial responses last year during the series of hurricanes that hammered Florida and the Gulf Coast... with the same organization, and the same leadership. There are too many counter examples to simply declare the organization and the leadership was the root problem.

Yeah, Geoff, you living in Michigan and reading a few articles, are much more informed and on the top of the situation than we who went through Charley, Ivan, Frances, etc and had to deal with FEMA.

You quote all the articles you want and it still doesn't change the fact that you're getting your information second or third hand.

People also assume that a hurricane... is a hurricane... is a hurricane.

Living in SW Florida, all I can say is "gee, ya think:.

The FEMA of James Lee Witt in the 90's never was tested against a disaster with the scope of Katrina. The previous "big one" was Andrew in 1992. No storm matched Andrew until Katrina. For comparison, current estimates show that (dollar adjusted) Katrina packed the damage of three Andrews. To speculate that FEMA 10 years ago would have been able to respond "fast enough" is about as meaningful as claiming that the 1975 Reds would have prevailed against the 2000 Yankees.

Compare the resumes of James Lee Witt and Michael Brown. Now you tell me which one you would've hired and which one you would prefer if you had to deal with FEMA.

Charade

09-21-2005, 09:07 AM

Where is your support for his "connections"? You assume much in your statement, perhaps it is even true, but where is your support. You've made an assertion but offer not a shred of proof. So, I can simply ignore your unsupported assertion because without evidence you are unable to support your assertion.

By the way, I wonder if you were in position to help your child attain something if you would say no, I'm not helping you go out and do it on your own. I don't know many parents that don't do everything they can to give their children a leg up so to the extent that a parent does this and their child benefits then their children have "connections".

I don't doubt that President Bush had connections. He undoubted did, but he still had to perform at Yale to get passing grades (which by the way were just about the same as John F. Kerry's grades weren't they?), he had to make passing grades at Harvard to get his MBA. Then he had to make at least passable business decisions to run successfully businesses otherwise his businesses would have failed. If is connections got him elected Governor of Texas he still had to perform well enough for the citizens of Texas to reelect him to a second term. Finally, he was reelected to a second term for President. Connections can only get a person (your child or GHWB's child) just so far, they still must perform after they get into the college, the grad school, their businesses, and their political offices.

So, don't talk to me about connections because it's a bogus argument put forth by someone with a small hateful mind that just doesn't like GWB.

For the record, I don't like what he's not doing with respect to spending or immigration. I think both are dangerous to the well being of every citizen in this country.

Umm... I was trying to make a funny. I'm on your side. But that doesn't change the fact that many people (even on this board) have said that the main reason for Bush's success (and failures) were his Daddy's connections. Hence the "frat-boy" label. If you think it's because they are small minded hateful people, I might have to agree with you on that. I didn't mean to come across as one.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:13 AM

You know, what gets me is that a lot of liberals were complaining that he didn't accept responsibility for failed intel on Iraq. He now accepts responsibility for the slow response from the Federal Gov. and he's still catching grief over this. Can he do nothing right?

For me, Bush can do one thing right. He can resign.

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 09:15 AM

Well, according to liberals he can do nothing right. So I guess everything he does is giving you material. And who would you propose lead, or appoint the independant investigation? Sen.'s Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Barbara Boxer?
Actually, I could care less who leads it, so long as it is a bipartisan commission, and not one stacked towards the president's party.

But that won't happen, because the republicans in congress won't allow it. So...what do you think they are afraid of ?

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:18 AM

Where is your support for his "connections"? You assume much in your statement, perhaps it is even true, but where is your support. You've made an assertion but offer not a shred of proof. So, I can simply ignore your unsupported assertion because without evidence you are unable to support your assertion.

By the way, I wonder if you were in position to help your child attain something if you would say no, I'm not helping you go out and do it on your own. I don't know many parents that don't do everything they can to give their children a leg up so to the extent that a parent does this and their child benefits then their children have "connections".

I don't doubt that President Bush had connections. He undoubted did, but he still had to perform at Yale to get passing grades (which by the way were just about the same as John F. Kerry's grades weren't they?), he had to make passing grades at Harvard to get his MBA. Then he had to make at least passable business decisions to run successfull businesses otherwise his businesses would have failed. If is connections got him elected Governor of Texas he still had to perform well enough for the citizens of Texas to reelect him to a second term. Finally, he was reelected to a second term for President. Connections can only get a person (your child or GHWB's child) just so far, they still must perform after they get into the college, the grad school, their businesses, and their political offices.

So, don't talk to me about connections because it's a bogus argument put forth by someone with a small hateful mind that just doen't like GWB.

For the record, I don't like what he's not doing with respect to spending or immigration. I think both are dangerous to the well being of every citizen in this country.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Now, I'm not going to get into the whole "Bush was born on third base, but his base wants to believe he hit a triple" discussion. Suffice to say it's been done ad nauseum. And the record speaks for itself. Bush has accomplished nothing in his life without his connections from getting into Yale, to getting into the National Guard, to starting an oil business, and on and on. Do some research.

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 09:19 AM

For me, Bush can do one thing right. He can resign.

Dream on. :rotfl:

He's got three years, and at least two Supreme Court judgeships left. And that's what's really at the heart of a lot of the Bush-bashing.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:20 AM

I know several who got reimbursed for a generator.
:mad:

Not in this household or any of my neighbors/friends/relatives households.

richiebaseball

09-21-2005, 09:20 AM

Except that the Foxes are also "guarding the vote tabulation machines" (Diebold and their ties to the Republican party).

Black helicopter alert! You're not paranoid, they really are out to get you!

And shouldn't that be Fauxes?

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 09:21 AM

Umm... I was trying to make a funny. I'm on your side. But that doesn't change the fact that many people (even on this board) have said that the main reason for Bush's success (and failures) were his Daddy's connections. Hence the "frat-boy" label. If you think it's because they are small minded hateful people, I might have to agree with you on that. I didn't mean to come across as one.
Gee...Insult people much ? :rolleyes: Wonder how many would complain if I called you and all of the other conservatives here "small-minded hateful people" ? Yet, it's ok for you to do it ? :sad2:

Oh, and please point to all these successfull business Frat-boy has run...Last I heard, he couldn't even find oil in Texas, and has been bailed out of most of his business ventures by his daddy's rich friends. He turned Texas into one of the worst - if not the worst - states in the country in terms of it's educational system, and has been president through the worst failure of US security in our history - for which the man responsible has...not only not been caught, but Frat-boy has said he doesn't even care where he is - and has involved us in two wars, both of which are still ongoing and generating casualties.

So...where are all these successes you guys are talking about ? :confused3

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 09:22 AM

We went through Charley last year. FEMA was horrible. As a matter of fact (you'll love this one, Bet), one of the local characters here said: We were doing fine until FEMA showed up". Then again, we're a small community, mostly private homes and things were somewhat manageable locally.

I honestly don't know anyone who received a dime from FEMA.

I'm curious, who was the local character?

And why were things manageable locally? What do you see as the "then again" differences, other than the sheer number of people involved?

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 09:23 AM

Black helicopter alert! You're not paranoid, they really are out to get you!

And shouldn't that be Fauxes?
Yes...because if it were a staunch democrat that owned those machines, there were no way to verify the results given, and a democratic president was elected following a tightly contested race...Republicans wouldn't say a word about it. :rotfl:

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:23 AM

Dream on. :rotfl:

He's got three years, and at least two Supreme Court judgeships left. And that's what's really at the heart of a lot of the Bush-bashing.

What's at the heart of the Bush bashing is that he is an incompetent ignoramus who has no concept whosoever of what it means to be president and the responsiblities that go with it. He's goes through the motions, but that's it. That's what people like you will never get. Although, you're right, I can dream on.

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 09:26 AM

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 09:31 AM

What's at the heart of the Bush bashing is that he is an incompetent ignoramus who has no concept whosoever of what it means to be president and the responsiblities that go with it. He's goes through the motions, but that's it. That's what people like you will never get. Although, you're right, I can dream on.

While it's certainly true that some small percentage of the population agrees with you on this, that doesn't make it a fact. That's your opinion, shared by a few out of the mainstream liberal fanatics who are terrified of Bush's court appointments.

You guys sound more and more like the fanatical Clinton-haters every day. :rolleyes: There's actually probably some poetic justice in it, if one looks at the big picture.

Charade

09-21-2005, 09:33 AM

Gee...Insult people much ? :rolleyes: Wonder how many would complain if I called you and all of the other conservatives here "small-minded hateful people" ? Yet, it's ok for you to do it ? :sad2:

Gee, no, I don't insult people all that much. But there are some (here) that seem to be much more liberal with tossing out insults than me. And I've already been called many things for voting for Bush so have at it if you want to.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:33 AM

I'm curious, who was the local character?

I believe it was Adam Cummings.

And why were things manageable locally? What do you see as the "then again" differences, other than the sheer number of people involved?

Charley was a small, fast moving storm that struck in a non-urban area made up primarily of private homes. In less than an hour, Charley was here and gone. You wouldn't believe the devastation. And Charley was half a hurricane in that we did not have a widespread storm surge. We were never flooded. We were driving that night. Go 10 miles up the road from Charlotte Harbor, and you would've even have known there was a hurricane named Charley. It was like you just stepped into a different universe.

Good God, Bet, you can't see the difference. My mother lives in Englewood, 1 block from the Myakka river, and she didn't even lose a leaf on a tree. Restaurants opened 4 days after Charley hit.

I know you're looking for the "see, I told you local is better" but the fact is you're comparing apples (Charlotte Harbor & Charley) with oranges (the Gulf coast & Katrina) and coming up with bananas.

Lisa loves Pooh

09-21-2005, 09:34 AM

uh oh--this thread is going in the toilet!

Quick, grab a plunger!

richiebaseball

09-21-2005, 09:35 AM

Yes...because if it were a staunch democrat that owned those machines, there were no way to verify the results given, and a democratic president was elected following a tightly contested race...Republicans wouldn't say a word about it. :rotfl:

Careful, your slip is showing. I'm quite certain that many on the right would make complete fools of themselves the same way that many on the left are doing now.

And I fully expect some to subscribe to the "if the shoe were on the other foot it would stink just as bad so that makes it okay" theory.

Charade

09-21-2005, 09:35 AM

uh oh--this thread is going in the toilet!

Quick, grab a plunger!

http://www.homeenvy.com/photos/2003.07.24.mr-plunger.jpg

Tigger_Magic

09-21-2005, 09:39 AM

He turned Texas into one of the worst - if not the worst - states in the country in terms of it's educational system... :scratchin Got stats? You might want to peruse this site (http://www.nea.org/edstats/index.html) before you go making this claim.

In the 2003 - 2004 school year, WV ranked #10 out of 50 states on average daily attendance as a % of enrollment, while TX ranked #22. However, that's about the ONLY area where WV beats TX.

The number of high school graduates for 2004 -- TX ranks #2; WV -- #38. In a telling stat, from 1993 - 94 school year to 2003 - 04 the % change of # of high school graduates:

TX - #3 with a 49.6 percent INCREASE
WV -- #50 with a 14.8 percent DECREASE

Other stats are equally impressive. Makes one wonder whose state is TRULY the worst.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:39 AM

While it's certainly true that some small percentage of the population agrees with you on this, that doesn't make it a fact. That's your opinion, shared by a few out of the mainstream liberal fanatics who are terrified of Bush's court appointments.

You guys sound more and more like the fanatical Clinton-haters every day. :rolleyes: There's actually probably some poetic justice in it, if one looks at the big picture.

A small percentage? Get real. You better take a look at what's going on in this country and take off the blinders first. Bush's approval rating is down 40%. A majority of people say the Iraq war wasn't worth it. Bush support is in free-fall.

And you can talk all you want about the Clinton haters. The fact is they had no reason, other than pure partisanship, to hate Clinton. No one died in a trumped up war. Twenty-two jobs were created. And the record speaks for itself.

Now, you can roll your eyes until they slide out your back passage, but the fact is I'm not afraid of Bush justice appointees. If they get too wacky and out of the mainstream, the mainstream will take care of it. People will lose support for institution and ultimately get off their dead *** to change the laws.

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 09:40 AM

I believe it was Adam Cummings.

Charley was a small, fast moving storm that struck in a non-urban area made up primarily of private homes. In less than an hour, Charley was here and gone. You wouldn't believe the devastation. And Charley was half a hurricane in that we did not have a widespread storm surge. We were never flooded. We were driving that night. Go 10 miles up the road from Charlotte Harbor, and you would've even have known there was a hurricane named Charley. It was like you just stepped into a different universe.

Good God, Bet, you can't see the difference. My mother lives in Englewood, 1 block from the Myakka river, and she didn't even lose a leaf on a tree. Restaurants opened 4 days after Charley hit.

I know you're looking for the "see, I told you local is better" but the fact is you're comparing apples (Charlotte Harbor & Charley) with oranges (the Gulf coast & Katrina) and coming up with bananas.

Nope, I'm not looking for anything of the sort. I'm asking questions merely because I'm curious. I haven't refuted anything you've said, of your experience with Charley - you lived thru it, and you certainly have better knowledge than I do.

I'm also still curious about the question I and another poster asked last night. Do you really think the response to Katrina, by any or all levels of government, has been "a complete and total disaster"?

And as far as apples and oranges, I would like to know if you have a comparable to Katrina? I don't think there is one, but that's JMO.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:40 AM

uh oh--this thread is going in the toilet!

Quick, grab a plunger!

LOL. No joke.

Geoff_M

09-21-2005, 09:41 AM

Yeah, Geoff, you living in Michigan and reading a few articles, are much more informed and on the top of the situation than we who went through Charley, Ivan, Frances, etc and had to deal with FEMA.

You quote all the articles you want and it still doesn't change the fact that you're getting your information second or third hand.Well, you need to talk to your ideological colleagues here that think that the reason why FEMA performed so well last year was due to the fact that it was an election year. The Bush critics can't have it both ways. It ain't just little 'ol me here in Michigan that holds that opinion about the overall responses of FEMA last year. I also doubt that James Lee Witt was able to keep everyone happy all of the time.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:42 AM

Oh come on now, *you* can't be that ignorant!! :teeth: There's only one reason for Bush's success (and failures)... Connections!!! :rolleyes:

Bush's successes were because of his connections, but his failures he did all on his own.

I hope I get this one in before they close the thread. ;)

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:44 AM

Well, you need to talk to your ideological colleagues here that think that the reason why FEMA performed so well last year was due to the fact that it was an election year. The Bush critics can't have it both ways. It ain't just little 'ol me here in Michigan that holds that opinion about the overall responses of FEMA last year.

Oh stop it, Geoff. You weren't here and I was. Make the 2000 mile trip and come down here and find out what a wonderful job FEMA did last year.

FEMA may've performed better, but the situation was different and still they gave away $22,000,000 to 9000 people in Miami-Dade who had no hurricane damage. The job they did here was crap.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:47 AM

Black helicopter alert! You're not paranoid, they really are out to get you!

And shouldn't that be Fauxes?

No, fauxes would be "foses". ;)

Y'er welcome.

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 09:47 AM

A small percentage? Get real. You better take a look at what's going on in this country and take off the blinders first. Bush's approval rating is down 40%. A majority of people say the Iraq war wasn't worth it. Bush support is in free-fall.

And you can talk all you want about the Clinton haters. The fact is they had no reason, other than pure partisanship, to hate Clinton. No one died in a trumped up war. Twenty-two jobs were created. And the record speaks for itself.

Now, you can roll your eyes until they slide out your back passage, but the fact is I'm not afraid of Bush justice appointees. If they get too wacky and out of the mainstream, the mainstream will take care of it. People will lose support for institution and ultimately get off their dead *** to change the laws.

And you can throw out hyperbole like this:

he is an incompetent ignoramus who has no concept whosoever of what it means to be president and the responsiblities that go with it. He's goes through the motions, but that's it.

and claim that because Bush's approval ratings have dropped that a majority of the American public agrees with that statement. But that's just more hyperbole.

You claiming it was "trumped up" war doesn't make it a "trumped up" war. Got that? People died on Clinton's watch too.

Maybe it makes you feel better that suddenly you think a majority of people agree with your views, but no matter how you look at the polls and the numbers, your opinions and your hatred for President Bush is way out of the mainstream.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:48 AM

And you can throw out hyperbole like this:

and claim that because Bush's approval ratings have dropped that a majority of the American public agrees with that statement. But that's just more hyperbole.

You claiming it was "trumped up" war doesn't make it a "trumped up" war. Got that? People died on Clinton's watch too.

Maybe it makes you feel better that suddenly a majority of people agree with your views, but no matter how you look at the polls and the numbers, your opinions and your hatred for President Bush is way out of the mainstream.

What scares the hell out of the Bush apologists is that the country is waking up. And no matter how you spin the numbers, Bush is in free-fall.

Hark, I hear a flushing sound.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:50 AM

Gee, no, I don't insult people all that much. But there are some (here) that seem to be much more liberal with tossing out insults than me. And I've already been called many things for voting for Bush so have at it if you want to.

You swine!

Charade

09-21-2005, 09:51 AM

IB4TL :teeth:

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 09:51 AM

What scares the hell out of the Bush apologists is that the country is waking up. And no matter how you spin the numbers, Bush is in free-fall.

Hark, I hear a flushing sound.

Nope. We're not the ones throwing out the hyperbole.

I think it's that pending SCOTUS confirmation - and the next appointment that's about to be announced, that has some people a little freaked out.

Bush isn't running for re-election, remember? But he does have another 3 years as President.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:52 AM

Careful, your slip is showing. I'm quite certain that many on the right would make complete fools of themselves the same way that many on the left are doing now.

And I fully expect some to subscribe to the "if the shoe were on the other foot it would stink just as bad so that makes it okay" theory.

A better saying: "When a fish starts to rot, it stinks at the head first".

Think about it.

Geoff_M

09-21-2005, 09:53 AM

What scares the hell out of the Bush apologists is that the country is waking up. And no matter how you spin the numbers, Bush is in free-fall.Yep, and the same was said when his approval numbers were in the same neighborhood after the Iraqi prisoner scandal....

Oh stop it, Geoff. You weren't here and I was. Make the 2000 mile trip and come down here and find out what a wonderful job FEMA did last year.So it's your expectation that FEMA is responsible for patching everything back up after each hurricane? That's an interesting federal responsibility...

Compare the resumes of James Lee Witt and Michael Brown. Now you tell me which one you would've hired and which one you would prefer if you had to deal with FEMAWithout a doubt Witt had more experience... but I wasn't aware that he wanted to stay on. Instead he started an emergency preparedness consulting business, leveraged by his tenure, that no doubt earns him a lot more money than his government jobs ever did. But again, it's only speculation that Witt's FEMA would have been able to meaningfully respond to Katrina in a manner that people would deem "good enough" given that the storm was more than three times the mess than Witt organization and resources ever faced.

richiebaseball

09-21-2005, 09:53 AM

People will lose support for institution and ultimately get off their dead *** to change the laws.

Is this code for "We have a few extra voters?"

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:53 AM

Nope. We're not the ones throwing out the hyperbole.

We know what you're throwing and it isn't hyperbole.

Charade

09-21-2005, 09:54 AM

Is this code for "We have a few extra voters?"

:rotfl2:

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:55 AM

IB4TL :teeth:

Huh????

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 09:57 AM

Is this code for "We have a few extra voters?"

You never call the election until you count the cemetary vote.

Don't you know anything about American politlcs? ;)

richiebaseball

09-21-2005, 10:03 AM

A better saying: "When a fish starts to rot, it stinks at the head first".

Think about it.

You know this how? Not politics, I'm actually talking about the fish. Are you saying the fish starts to stink at the head before it starts to stink anywhere else? Not all at the same time? Is this something you have first-hand knowledge of? If you do, first, ewww, and second, why would you do this?

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 10:05 AM

Now we're talking about dead people and rotting fish? Threads do take an interesting turn sometimes!

sodaseller

09-21-2005, 10:15 AM

Just to inject a little politics into the thread ;>, Local Mass. media is reporting that Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney may be tapped by Pres. Bush to be "Katrina Czar" (their term, not mine), to supervise rebuilding. In political gossip Saturday, some friends were discussing that the Bush clan had anointed no obvious successor as Cheney will not run and Jeb apparently will not. Presidents usually try. Romney is a"hopeful for 2008", to use the parlance. If the rumors are true and he is indeed given that high profile a position (and the power to make it work) that would be a signal that the Bush political operation (and I don't mean that pejoratively) is considering "anointing" him,

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 10:20 AM

Now we're talking about dead people and rotting fish? Threads do take an interesting turn sometimes!

That's the joy of BB'ing. And why it's addictive.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 10:21 AM

You know this how? Not politics, I'm actually talking about the fish. Are you saying the fish starts to stink at the head before it starts to stink anywhere else? Not all at the same time? Is this something you have first-hand knowledge of? If you do, first, ewww, and second, why would you do this?

I don't think I like your implications here. ;)

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 10:26 AM

:scratchin Got stats? You might want to peruse this site (http://www.nea.org/edstats/index.html) before you go making this claim.

In the 2003 - 2004 school year, WV ranked #10 out of 50 states on average daily attendance as a % of enrollment, while TX ranked #22. However, that's about the ONLY area where WV beats TX.

The number of high school graduates for 2004 -- TX ranks #2; WV -- #38. In a telling stat, from 1993 - 94 school year to 2003 - 04 the % change of # of high school graduates:

TX - #3 with a 49.6 percent INCREASE
WV -- #50 with a 14.8 percent DECREASE

Other stats are equally impressive. Makes one wonder whose state is TRULY the worst.

1 - The educational system in WV sucks...I don't recall saying otherwise. :rolleyes:

2 - Mississippi is typically at the lowest end of the scale, though that varies.

3 - You can't compare numbers directly, as Texas has a significantly higher population. Comparing percentages works, but not really for graduation rates (if the system is tougher, it follows that fewer will graduate).

4 - The definitive answer for state ranking is probably the "Report Card on American Education", published annually by the American Legislative Exchange Council." According to that publication, West Virginia ranks 38th in academic achievement (hardly anything to crow about, which is why I haven't), while Texas ranks 41st. If you dont like that ranking, feel free to take it up with them. Here is the link to the study (requires Adobe reader at least):

2004 Report Card on Education (http://www.alec.org/meSWFiles/pdf/2004_Report_Card_on_Education.pdf#search='2004%20R eport%20Card%20on%20American%20Education')

Geoff_M

09-21-2005, 10:31 AM

Romney is a"hopeful for 2008", to use the parlance. If the rumors are true and he is indeed given that high profile a position (and the power to make it work) that would be a signal that the Bush political operation (and I don't mean that pejoratively) is considering "anointing" him,Interesting, but I don't think he'll take it. Just such an assignment is what propelled Herbert Hoover into the national limelight, but I think the Katrina "pool" is way too poisoned for Romney to wade into with much hope of a positive outcome. People have discovered that any problem (real, hyped, or imagined) can be pinned on the Feds to great effect.

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 10:33 AM

Interesting, but I don't think he'll take it. Just such an assignment is what propelled Herbert Hoover into the national limelight, but I think the Katrina "pool" is way too poisoned for Romney to wade into with much hope of a positive outcome. People have discovered that any problem (real, hyped, or imagined) can be pinned on the Feds to great effect.

Agreed, with the additional factor of the cesspool of corruption that is the reality of LA and NOLA politics.

Charade

09-21-2005, 10:40 AM

1 - The educational system in WV sucks...I don't recall saying otherwise. :rolleyes:

2 - Mississippi is typically at the lowest end of the scale, though that varies.

3 - You can't compare numbers directly, as Texas has a significantly higher population. Comparing percentages works, but not really for graduation rates (if the system is tougher, it follows that fewer will graduate).

4 - The definitive answer for state ranking is probably the "Report Card on American Education", published annually by the American Legislative Exchange Council." According to that publication, West Virginia ranks 38th in academic achievement (hardly anything to crow about, which is why I haven't), while Texas ranks 41st. If you dont like that ranking, feel free to take it up with them. Here is the link to the study (requires Adobe reader at least):

2004 Report Card on Education (http://www.alec.org/meSWFiles/pdf/2004_Report_Card_on_Education.pdf#search='2004%20R eport%20Card%20on%20American%20Education')

Shocked that two reports can have two totally different implications!! Shocked!!! Sounds like the reports generated at my company. It depends on their intended audience or actions to be taken which report is used. And I'm shocked that a liberal would not acknowledge a report from the NEA.

But seriously, if you claim that one system is "tougher" than another, how can any direct comparisons be made?

Tigger_Magic

09-21-2005, 10:40 AM

1 - The educational system in WV sucks...I don't recall saying otherwise. :rolleyes: No, you said and I quote He turned Texas into one of the worst - if not the worst - states in the country in terms of it's educational system... Seems that the facts state otherwise. 2 - Mississippi is typically at the lowest end of the scale, though that varies. Deflection never works well. 3 - You can't compare numbers directly, as Texas has a significantly higher population. Comparing percentages works, but not really for graduation rates (if the system is tougher, it follows that fewer will graduate). :rotfl2: The old "you can't compare numbers directly" argument. How did I know this one was coming?
4 - The definitive answer for state ranking is probably the "Report Card on American Education", published annually by the American Legislative Exchange Council." According to that publication, West Virginia ranks 38th in academic achievement (hardly anything to crow about, which is why I haven't), while Texas ranks 41st. If you dont like that ranking, feel free to take it up with them. Here is the link to the study (requires Adobe reader at least):

2004 Report Card on Education (http://www.alec.org/meSWFiles/pdf/2004_Report_Card_on_Education.pdf#search='2004%20R eport%20Card%20on%20American%20Education') 38th in academic achievement? What is that? With a nearly 15% decrease in high school graduates in the past decade, you want to gloat about ranking 3 points above TX in some ill-defined category?

Face it... your lame attempt to bash President Bush on education by claiming that TX was the worst state in the country in terms of education holds water about as well as a sieve.

I believe President Bush deserves his lumps for legitimate errors, not ones pulled out of thin air with no basis in reality.

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 10:52 AM

:rotfl:
No, you said and I quote...Seems that the facts state otherwise.
Umm..no, they don't. See the link I posted.
Deflection never works well. :rotfl2:
Which is why I wasn't using it...but you are. :rolleyes:
The old "you can't compare numbers directly" argument. How did I know this one was coming?
If you went by pure numbers - not percentages - then China has the greatest number of high school graduates in the world. Does that mean they also have the best educational system ? :rolleyes: Maybe you "knew it was coming" because you knew you were wrong in the first place ? :rotfl:
38th in academic achievement? What is that? With a nearly 15% decrease in high school graduates in the past decade, you want to gloat about ranking 3 points above TX in some ill-defined category?
I provided the link. Read it for yourself. I wasn't "gloating" about anything at all. YOU were the one that brought WV's educational system into the discussion, not me.
Face it... your lame attempt to bash President Bush on education by claiming that TX was the worst state in the country in terms of education holds water about as well as a sieve.
I would agree, except I didn't say it was the worst. I would qualify being in the bottom 10 ranking as "one of the worst", which is what I actually said.
I believe President Bush deserves his lumps for legitimate errors, not ones pulled out of thin air with no basis in reality.
Yeah...like you'd ever admit that Frat Boy has done something wrong. :rotfl: :rotfl2: :rotfl: :rotfl2: (I backed my comments up with a verifiable, legitimate study - otherwise known as facts... :rolleyes: )

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 10:59 AM

...and by the way: that's my last post on educational rankings on this thread or board, as it has nothing to do with anything relevant. If you want to start a discussion on this topic on the main board, I'll gladly join in. But the study speaks for itself, and I see no reason to continue this discussion here.

Brainhammer

09-21-2005, 11:10 AM

Actually, I could care less who leads it, so long as it is a bipartisan commission, and not one stacked towards the president's party.

But that won't happen, because the republicans in congress won't allow it. So...what do you think they are afraid of ?

C'mon, let's be real. The same thing would happen of the Democrats were in control of Congress. It's what comes with being in power. The Watergate investigation wasn't bi-partisan. The Iran-Contra investigation wasn't bi-partisan. It comes with the territory.

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 11:18 AM

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 11:22 AM

C'mon, let's be real. The same thing would happen of the Democrats were in control of Congress. It's what comes with being in power. The Watergate investigation wasn't bi-partisan. The Iran-Contra investigation wasn't bi-partisan. It comes with the territory.

The Watergate investigation wasn't bi-partisan? You're rewriting history.

The members of the Senate Watergate Committee were:

Sam Ervin (Democrat - North Carolina), chair
Howard Baker (Republican - Tennessee), ranking member
Edward J. Gurney (Republican - Florida)
Daniel Inouye (Democrat - Hawaii)
Joseph Montoya (Democrat - New Mexico)
Herman Talmadge (Democrat - Georgia)
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (Republican - Connecticut)

The Committee had two chief counsels, Sam Dash and Fred Thompson, who advised the Democratic and Republican members of the committee, respectively.

Hearings opened on May 17, 1973, and the Committee issued its seven-volume, 1,250-page report on June 27, 1974, entitled Report on Presidential Campaign Activities.

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

A little more info:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/050173-1.htm

If the investigation into the Watergate scandal wasn't an example of bi-partisan, kindly tell me what is.

Brainhammer

09-21-2005, 11:25 AM

A small percentage? Get real. You better take a look at what's going on in this country and take off the blinders first. Bush's approval rating is down 40%. A majority of people say the Iraq war wasn't worth it.

And despite all this, still not as low as Carter's was (%34), or Nixon's (24%). Clinton actually hit a 43% at one point, and Reagan - the conservative's icon, hit a 41% low--- so Bush seems to be in pretty good company.

Interestingly, Bush was at 46% in May of 2004, but managed to win the election. Unprecedented in the past 50 years with that approval rating that late in the election cycle (for an incumbent)

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 11:29 AM

The 9/11 commission was, and it was hugely successfull, largely because neither side got to completely control the language or the direction of the investigation and resulting report. In a country as divided as ours currently is, it is irresponsible and unrealistic to let partisan politics control something as crucial as emergency response, and you know that is what would happen if either party was to make up a majority of any investigative committee.

The 9/11 Commission has had some rather large holes poked in it lately. The definitive history of its' success can't really be measured yet.

It's unrealistic to expect that any commission (Congressional or independent) wouldn't have a hugely political dimension.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 11:35 AM

And despite all this, still not as low as Carter's was (%34), or Nixon's (24%). Clinton actually hit a 43% at one point, and Reagan - the conservative's icon, hit a 41% low--- so Bush seems to be in pretty good company.

Interestingly, Bush was at 46% in May of 2004, but managed to win the election. Unprecedented in the past 50 years with that approval rating that late in the election cycle (for an incumbent)

Today's mantra: Hope springs eternal.

Brainhammer

09-21-2005, 11:35 AM

The 9/11 commission was, and it was hugely successfull, largely because neither side got to completely control the language or the direction of the investigation and resulting report. In a country as divided as ours currently is, it is irresponsible and unrealistic to let partisan politics control something as crucial as emergency response, and you know that is what would happen if either party was to make up a majority of any investigative committee.

Hey, I agree is should be bi-partisan, but that's likely not going to happen. So, and "independent" one would be more amenable to me. And, there are some that say with Goerlick on the 9/11 commission, it was hardly bi-partisan.

Brainhammer

09-21-2005, 11:37 AM

Today's mantra: Hope springs eternal.

Just giving peole some historical context. Interpret it however you like.

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 11:37 AM

The 9/11 Commission has had some rather large holes poked in it lately. The definitive history of its' success can't really be measured yet.

It's unrealistic to expect that any commission (Congressional or independent) wouldn't have a hugely political dimension.
1 - The commission can only work with what it has. Maybe if Bush hadn't been so reluctant to work with it, those "holes" wouldn't be appearing now...or did you forget how he obstructed the commission's work anytime it got near him ?

2 - I didn't say "non-partisan", I said "bi-partisan". Of course a congressional committee is going to have some political motivations. But so long as neither side is in complete control of the committee, those motivations can be controlled. If the committee is weighted towards one side or the other, that agenda can become reality, which is why Dems are demanding a bipartisan commission. Not sure why Republicans are refusing...I'll leave that for you to decide.

Tigger_Magic

09-21-2005, 11:39 AM

:rotfl:

Umm..no, they don't. See the link I posted.

Which is why I wasn't using it...but you are. :rolleyes:

If you went by pure numbers - not percentages - then China has the greatest number of high school graduates in the world. Does that mean they also have the best educational system ? :rolleyes: Maybe you "knew it was coming" because you knew you were wrong in the first place ? :rotfl:

I provided the link. Read it for yourself. I wasn't "gloating" about anything at all. YOU were the one that brought WV's educational system into the discussion, not me.

I would agree, except I didn't say it was the worst. I would qualify being in the bottom 10 ranking as "one of the worst", which is what I actually said.

Yeah...like you'd ever admit that Frat Boy has done something wrong. :rotfl: :rotfl2: :rotfl: :rotfl2: (I backed my comments up with a verifiable, legitimate study - otherwise known as facts... :rolleyes: ) Better keep your eyes on the road, because with all this backpedaling you're in serious danger of crashing. :rotfl2: But I guess pulling a Lester Maddox is easier than admitting you were wrong. :rolleyes:

Tigger_Magic

09-21-2005, 11:42 AM

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 11:42 AM

Better keep your eyes on the road, because with all this backpedaling you're in serious danger of crashing. :rotfl2: But I guess pulling a Lester Maddox is easier than admitting you were wrong. :rolleyes:
My posts are there for anyone to read. Not sure how proving my point is considered "backpedaling"...or were you referring to my forcing you to go by what I actually said, instead of what you implied ? :rolleyes:

But like I said...I proved my point, and that side discussion has nothing to do with the hurricane or anything else on this board. If you want to discuss education, do it on the main board. I'm done with you now. :wave2:

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 11:45 AM

The 9/11 Commission has had some rather large holes poked in it lately. The definitive history of its' success can't really be measured yet.

By who, Curt Weldon, who's trying to sell a book.

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 11:50 AM

1 - The commission can only work with what it has. Maybe if Bush hadn't been so reluctant to work with it, those "holes" wouldn't be appearing now...or did you forget how he obstructed the commission's work anytime it got near him ?

That's not what I was referring to. The Commission has developed some serious credibility problems lately, as more information continues to come to light about pre-9/11 intelligence.

Not sure why Republicans are refusing...I'll leave that for you to decide.

Maybe there's a clue to be found in your reaction to the levee issue. Your "concern" about finding out what went wrong in NOLA is there for everyone to see.

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 11:55 AM

Deleted because it just isn't worth getting banned over.

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 12:01 PM

By who, Curt Weldon, who's trying to sell a book.

That was my first thought too. But that surely doesn't explain why the Pentagon won't allow its people to testify at today's Senate hearings, does it?

But I forget, you're not interested in knowing what really happened with this issue either. :rolleyes:

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 12:07 PM

Deleted because it just isn't worth getting banned over.

You know,wvrevy - when you insult the conservatives on this board, I don't complain about it. But I do ratchet up my retoric accordingly. If you see that as an insult, quit throwing punches.

sodaseller

09-21-2005, 12:12 PM

By who, Curt Weldon, who's trying to sell a book.
You are correct - there is no credibility to the latest attack - the 9/11 Commission shoudl still be lauded by those hoenst about it

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 12:15 PM

But I forget, you're not interested in knowing what really happened with this issue either. :rolleyes:

As a child, did anyone ever tell you that if you kept putting rubber bands on your arm, you would cut off the circulation and your arm would fall off?

More advice: If you keep rolling your eyes, they're going to slide out your back passage and then you'll have no eyes.

You've been warned.

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 12:15 PM

You are correct - there is no credibility to the latest attack - the 9/11 Commission shoudl still be lauded by those hoenst about it

Where's the attack? If it's false, it's false. If it's true, it's a pretty glaring ommission by the 9/11 Commission. Why wouldn't everyone want the record to be accurate, if they are honest about it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/politics/20cnd-intel.html?ex=1284868800&en=0043db8bd545cbd0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

bsnyder

09-21-2005, 12:16 PM

As a child, did anyone ever tell you that if you kept putting rubber bands on your arm, you would cut off the circulation and your arm would fall off?

More advice: If you keep rolling your eyes, they're going to slide out your back passage and then you'll have no eyes.

You've been warned.

Thank you. I'm in need of a mom these days.

richiebaseball

09-21-2005, 12:19 PM

Thank you. I'm in need of a mom these days.

:grouphug:

Charade

09-21-2005, 12:24 PM

You are correct - there is no credibility to the latest attack - the 9/11 Commission should still be lauded by those honest about it

Really? Maybe you can explain why the Pentagon is forbidding members of Able Danger from testifying before a Congressional committee?

Lisa loves Pooh

09-21-2005, 12:36 PM

No, fauxes would be "foses". ;)

Y'er welcome.

Ooh...and then it could rhyme with "Moses, supposes his toeses are roses....but moses supposes erroneously".

Hmmm...how could that work with Fox? :teeth:

(It's raining outside ride now--had to throw in a little Singin' in the Rain :umbrella: ).

M:SteveO

09-21-2005, 12:56 PM

I can't think of any good why Bush wouldn't want to know, but that's not the issue.

Here's the issue: Bush does not understand what's required of him. He loves being president, but has concept whatsoever about the responsiblities of the job. There is no "there" there. Mercifully, even the Republicans are starting to acknowledge that.

So in answer to your question, sure he'd love to know but it won't make a damned bit of difference because Bush doesn't understand why he should know.

This is just complete incompetence and ignorance on your part. This notion that Bush is complete idiot is nonsense. Clinton was very smart, as was Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, the list goes on. All presidents are smart guys, they know what goes on. He does understand why he should know what went wrong - so that it won't happen again. These personal attacks kill me. You liberals just resort to name calling or "Bush is an idiot" argument whenever you're down. You get pinned down with facts or get caught in lies, and you resort to the "Bush is an idiot" argument. It doesn't work and it doesn't help the argument. Conservatives, like me, didn't agree with much of what Clinton did, but he's still a very smart man and I respect him because he was the president (though I've lost some of that respect in the last few days). He made some very tough decisions, like every president, and you can't be stupid to be president.

Bush wants to know exactly went wrong in the federal gov't so that he can fix it, he doesn't want this to happen again. Internal reviews happen all of the time, so a company can fix what's wrong so that it doesn't happen again. The argument that Bush is an ignoramus so he doesn't care what happens or doesn't have the capacity to want to know what went wrong is ridiculous and ruins all credibility you have. Anything coming from a person (ThAnswr) who wants to tax the American people at over a 50% rate, thinks the response was a complete and total failure, thinks Bush is evil, and has no rational viewpoint on anything has no credibility with me.

Oh, and, George Bush hates black people.

shortbun

09-21-2005, 01:07 PM

Can someone tell me how to report a post to the moderators? I thought the method was right on the board somewhere. nevermind. found it.

sodaseller

09-21-2005, 01:08 PM

This is just complete incompetence and ignorance on your part. This notion that Bush is complete idiot is nonsense. Clinton was very smart, as was Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, the list goes on. All presidents are smart guys, they know what goes on. He does understand why he should know what went wrong - so that it won't happen again. These personal attacks kill me. You liberals just resort to name calling or "Bush is an idiot" argument whenever you're down. You get pinned down with facts or get caught in lies, and you resort to the "Bush is an idiot" argument. It doesn't work and it doesn't help the argument. Conservatives, like me, didn't agree with much of what Clinton did, but he's still a very smart man and I respect him because he was the president (though I've lost some of that respect in the last few days). He made some very tough decisions, like every president, and you can't be stupid to be president.

Bush wants to know exactly went wrong in the federal gov't so that he can fix it, he doesn't want this to happen again. Internal reviews happen all of the time, so a company can fix what's wrong so that it doesn't happen again. The argument that Bush is an ignoramus so he doesn't care what happens or doesn't have the capacity to want to know what went wrong is ridiculous and ruins all credibility you have. Anything coming from a person (ThAnswr) who wants to tax the American people at over a 50% rate, thinks the response was a complete and total failure, thinks Bush is evil, and has no rational viewpoint on anything has no credibility with me.

Oh, and, George Bush hates black people.Deleted because TM responded to the bully in a far better way

Lisa loves Pooh

09-21-2005, 01:09 PM

Can someone tell me how to report a post to the moderators? I thought the method was right on the board somewhere.

The triangle with exclamation point that is in the left of the post below the name (at the bottom border of the post).

Tigger_Magic

09-21-2005, 01:11 PM

This is just complete incompetence and ignorance on your part. Whoa, is this a personal attack? If personal attacks on President Bush "kill" you, why turn around an make one on another poster? :confused: Bush wants to know exactly went wrong in the federal gov't so that he can fix it, he doesn't want this to happen again. Internal reviews happen all of the time, so a company can fix what's wrong so that it doesn't happen again. The argument that Bush is an ignoramus so he doesn't care what happens or doesn't have the capacity to want to know what went wrong is ridiculous and ruins all credibility you have. Anything coming from a person (ThAnswr) who wants to tax the American people at over a 50% rate, thinks the response was a complete and total failure, thinks Bush is evil, and has no rational viewpoint on anything has no credibility with me.

Oh, and, George Bush hates black people. President Bush waited quite some time to order this internal investigation. The failures of the administration, of FEMA, or Brownie and his co-horts were abundantly clear, not only with Katrina, but with the 2004 hurricanes that hit FL (did you read some of the fiascos that ThAnswr has posted). I'll give President Bush "props" for calling for an internal review or whatever it will be called, but this should have been demanded sooner.

The real tests are going to hit this weekend when Rita slams back into the U.S. The administration says it's ready and it had better be. Rita is now a Cat 4 storm and still has time to grow.

In the final analysis, history will record what this administration actually DOES with this review/investigation. There are some practical steps that can and should be taken -- NOW, not months or years from now -- to correct the mess that is FEMA. I doubt any gov't. agency will every operate at 100% efficiency, but FEMA has done better in the past and it has to perform much, much better in the future.

People are watching very closely this time.

richiebaseball

09-21-2005, 01:11 PM

Can someone tell me how to report a post to the moderators? I thought the method was right on the board somewhere.

Just click your heels together three times and say there's no place like home.

Wait, that's not right.

Oh well, I'm sure you can figure it out.

Charade

09-21-2005, 01:12 PM

Can someone tell me how to report a post to the moderators? I thought the method was right on the board somewhere. nevermind. found it.

Uh oh...

Lisa loves Pooh

09-21-2005, 01:15 PM

Uh oh...

I think we've gone where no toilet plunger can repair.

Bye bye thread :wave: .

I hope it wasn't my moses comment.

wvrevy

09-21-2005, 01:16 PM

Whoa, is this a personal attack? If personal attacks on President Bush "kill" you, why turn around an make one on another poster? :confused: President Bush waited quite some time to order this internal investigation. The failures of the administration, of FEMA, or Brownie and his co-horts were abundantly clear, not only with Katrina, but with the 2004 hurricanes that hit FL (did you read some of the fiascos that ThAnswr has posted). I'll give President Bush "props" for calling for an internal review or whatever it will be called, but this should have been demanded sooner.

The real tests are going to hit this weekend when Rita slams back into the U.S. The administration says it's ready and it had better be. Rita is now a Cat 4 storm and still has time to grow.

In the final analysis, history will record what this administration actually DOES with this review/investigation. There are some practical steps that can and should be taken -- NOW, not months or years from now -- to correct the mess that is FEMA. I doubt any gov't. agency will every operate at 100% efficiency, but FEMA has done better in the past and it has to perform much, much better in the future.

People are watching very closely this time.

And I hereby retract my comments on that other thread...Well said, Tigger_Magic !

bcvillastwo

09-21-2005, 01:48 PM

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Now, I'm not going to get into the whole "Bush was born on third base, but his base wants to believe he hit a triple" discussion. Suffice to say it's been done ad nauseum. And the record speaks for itself. Bush has accomplished nothing in his life without his connections from getting into Yale, to getting into the National Guard, to starting an oil business, and on and on. Do some research.

I've done the research and it's folks like you who simply will not accept the fact that he has had success in his life and that it all can't be laid at the feet of his having connections. There are too many connected people who've been complete and utter failures.

You simply will not accept the plain facts that are right in front of your eyes to see, but you persist in not letting facts get in the way of a good story.

Again, I ask where is the proof for the assertions being made that "connections" are the reason why Bush has accomphished everything he's accomplished in his life.

Simple logic and reasoning ability plus intellectual honesty has to grant that at least some of his success has been due to something other than connections. Only a small mind given the facts can think otherwise.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 01:54 PM

This is just complete incompetence and ignorance on your part. This notion that Bush is complete idiot is nonsense. Clinton was very smart, as was Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, the list goes on. All presidents are smart guys, they know what goes on. He does understand why he should know what went wrong - so that it won't happen again. These personal attacks kill me. You liberals just resort to name calling or "Bush is an idiot" argument whenever you're down. You get pinned down with facts or get caught in lies, and you resort to the "Bush is an idiot" argument. It doesn't work and it doesn't help the argument. Conservatives, like me, didn't agree with much of what Clinton did, but he's still a very smart man and I respect him because he was the president (though I've lost some of that respect in the last few days). He made some very tough decisions, like every president, and you can't be stupid to be president.

Bush wants to know exactly went wrong in the federal gov't so that he can fix it, he doesn't want this to happen again. Internal reviews happen all of the time, so a company can fix what's wrong so that it doesn't happen again. The argument that Bush is an ignoramus so he doesn't care what happens or doesn't have the capacity to want to know what went wrong is ridiculous and ruins all credibility you have. Anything coming from a person (ThAnswr) who wants to tax the American people at over a 50% rate, thinks the response was a complete and total failure, thinks Bush is evil, and has no rational viewpoint on anything has no credibility with me.

Oh, and, George Bush hates black people.

That did it for me. Goodbye and good riddance. I am at the point in my life where I don't suffer the company of fools gladly, and more importantly, I don't have to.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt several times, but no more. I am going to report this post.

ThAnswr

09-21-2005, 02:01 PM

Whoa, is this a personal attack? If personal attacks on President Bush "kill" you, why turn around an make one on another poster? :confused: President Bush waited quite some time to order this internal investigation. The failures of the administration, of FEMA, or Brownie and his co-horts were abundantly clear, not only with Katrina, but with the 2004 hurricanes that hit FL (did you read some of the fiascos that ThAnswr has posted). I'll give President Bush "props" for calling for an internal review or whatever it will be called, but this should have been demanded sooner.

The real tests are going to hit this weekend when Rita slams back into the U.S. The administration says it's ready and it had better be. Rita is now a Cat 4 storm and still has time to grow.

In the final analysis, history will record what this administration actually DOES with this review/investigation. There are some practical steps that can and should be taken -- NOW, not months or years from now -- to correct the mess that is FEMA. I doubt any gov't. agency will every operate at 100% efficiency, but FEMA has done better in the past and it has to perform much, much better in the future.

People are watching very closely this time.

Proof positive of a robust debate without degenerating into personal insults (as opposed to witty comments) and misrepresenting what someone said.

Thank you. Sometimes the adults have to show others how to play this game.