Bush was right

[Bayshore Bandit]

It's pretty tough to dispute those facts from the video.

 

[dixipixi]

Instead of disputing facts, how about some questions:

1. Would you care if the 10 ft. of water rushing toward your house came from a breached or overtopped levee?

2. Should tax paying hard working Americans have to BEG for any amount of help from their govt?

3. Have you ever watched your children work just as hard for just as long beside grownups for days clearing trees off houses and out of roads only to tell them that they have to drink hot (room temp 80 degrees and more) water because you have no more ice and don't know when you'll ever have any more?

4. Have you ever found your generator useless because a) the electric service to your home had been "ripped away" or b) you have no fuel within a 200 mile radius to run it with?

5. Have you ever felt forgotten?

Look at my location. I've earned the right to ask those questions.

 

[TCPluto]

Did ya miss the part where the National Weather Service expert said
that the situation was of "grave" concern??

"Topped" or not....do people apologizing for Bush actually think that
decades old earthen levies would hold back flood waters from a
category 3-4 hurricane?? Maybe "breached" would have been a better
term, but c'mon, people cannot believe that Bush believed that after
a HURRICANE the waters would just "trickle" over levies

I wonder how they are going to spin the "Your doing a great job Mike",
and the "nobody anticpated the levies would be breached" quotes now?

Everyone agrees that it was of grave concern, that's why they were having the conference after all. I also caught him saying he couldn't say the levies would or would not be topped. He never mentioned breached.

Topped and breached are very different. Think about water splashing over the bow of your sailboat (topped) versus pouring through a huge gash in the hull (breached). Big difference.

With one, you're going to get wet; the other, you're going down.

There's an authority that controls a great deal of federal money, given to it every year. The money is for mintenance and improvement. In the recent past, they show a great deal of money spent on projects unrelated to levy improvement. Sounds like we should be talking to these people as well. The position of levy members is a highly political process, not related to the federal government. I'm sure someone else can weigh in to tell us if they are elected or appointed, by the city or the state.

As well, the Army Corp of Engineers has been saying for years that more was needed to shore up the levies, to make them safer for the more devastating storms that were inevitable. Congress failed to act.

No one has seen a hurricane of this level, so no, the President couldn't have known the levies would breach.

I have no interest in blindly defending anyone in this, or any other matter. But we should at least keep to the facts.

 

[TCPluto]

Instead of disputing facts, how about some questions:

1. Would you care if the 10 ft. of water rushing toward your house came from a breached or overtopped levee?

2. Should tax paying hard working Americans have to BEG for any amount of help from their govt?

3. Have you ever watched your children work just as hard for just as long beside grownups for days clearing trees off houses and out of roads only to tell them that they have to drink hot (room temp 80 degrees and more) water because you have no more ice and don't know when you'll ever have any more?

4. Have you ever found your generator useless because a) the electric service to your home had been "ripped away" or b) you have no fuel within a 200 mile radius to run it with?

5. Have you ever felt forgotten?

Look at my location. I've earned the right to ask those questions.

Every bit of that is devastating. But if the levies had held the damage would have been a slight fraction of what it was when they did breach. The point is, President Bush wasn't told that the levees would likely breach, but that they could be topped.

Good luck to you in your recovery.

 

[dixipixi]

Every bit of that is devastating. But if the levies had held the damage would have been a slight fraction of what it was when they did breach. The point is, President Bush wasn't told that the leives would likely breach, but that they could be topped.

Good luck to you in your recovery.

If they were so concerned about the possiblity of the levees being breached, then why did they take away most of the funding necessary for their upkeep?

NO is several feet below sea level. Enough water overtopping the levees would be just as destructive as a breach. Changing the words doesn't make the actuality of it any less.

Unless you were here, you just cannot understand. It was HOT (over 95 degrees everyday for over a month after Katrina). Just about the time we made a dent in the mess, along came Rita (remember we were hit with that one a month later). No ice, no electricity (lots of people needing dialysis, oxygen, etc. and not being able to get it). I think our local and state leaders did a fine job. They were at least "on the ground" sweating and suffering along with the rest of us. I'm just tired of everyone trying to blame them for everything. We had NO COMMUNICATIONS. There was no way for us to get in touch with relatives 10 miles away unless we drove (no fuel). We had absolutely no phones (not even our law enforcement), no cell phones, nothing.

Thanks for your good luck wishes. I have no ill will toward anyone with a differing opinion from mine. The world would be pretty boring if we all saw everything the same way.

I only posted this because I just feel like we are portrayed in the media as a group of people who sat around, waited on Katrina to devastate their lives, and then want to blame somebody and expect govt handouts to fix everything.

We lost our home on August 29 and we were back in it (with a few minor things left to do) by Christmas. We accomplished this on our own. Lots of hard back breaking work...but it was worth it.

 

[TCPluto]

If they were so concerned about the possiblity of the levees being breached, then why did they take away most of the funding necessary for their upkeep?

NO is several feet below sea level. Enough water overtopping the levees would be just as destructive as a breach. Changing the words doesn't make the actuality of it any less.

Your grievance on levee funding is for congress and your state representatives, not the president.

Topping and breaching are far different, and the difference in the amount of damage each would represent is huge. We know the damage caused by the breach. The damage from topping would be awful, but a fraction of what you actually suffered.

Take care.

 

[LuvDuke]

You're going to have to do better than that.

Yes, it seems possible that Rush may have had a prescription drug dependency issue to deal with. He doesn't hold public office though, does he?

But his sin is not on the level of the murdering talking wonder Ted Kennedy. Or the perjurin', cigar soakin', dress stainin' (in the oval office bathroom) Willie Clinton.

Those crimes are real. And by public officals, while in office. They are the face, and voice, of the Democrat Party. While it is a big face (either one or both are fairly huge), it's no pretty.

Ding, ding, ding..........we got a winnah here!

TCP hits the rightie Daily Double ........ Ted Kennedy AND Bill Clinton in the same paragraph.

 

[LuvDuke]

It's pretty tough to dispute those facts from the video.

C'mon, who are you going to believe? Your lying eyes/ears or the righties?

 

[LuvDuke]

Every bit of that is devastating. But if the levies had held the damage would have been a slight fraction of what it was when they did breach.

Gee, ya think.

The point is, President Bush wasn't told that the levees would likely breach, but that they could be topped.

Sorry, Solomon's just so "5 minutes ago".

Btw, could you please define the meaning of the word "is"? Thanks in advance.

And a parting gift:
http://www.internetweekly.org/2006/02/cartoon_bush_endgame.html

 

[LuvDuke]

Back to the OP.

It's been 8 days since Joe declared Bush right. In that time, Bush has taken it on the chin when it comes to security and the war. Not once has Bush even mentioned "See, I told ya so" (insert appropriate facial tick and smirk).

Bush is just lulling us into a false sense of security by letting believe he really doesn't know what he's doing. The man is a diabolical genius.

Or..................

 

[dcentity2000]

I know it's tough, but please try and rely on the facts.
Sorry.

When do you start?



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Sure, I've been countering your arguments (the same one's we've been having for close to a year on the DIS now!).

Hehe, true.

You choose to ignore the bribes issue, basically saying the equivalent of "so what."

Nah, bribery is an issue and one that happens the world over; it needs to be tackled. Do remember though that one does not make the whole, meaning that if one member of the UK or USA Governments receive a bribe, it doesn't sully the name of the Government - only that individual.

The international community ignored Iraq because:
1) Some took bribes or had special deals with Saddam, and/or
2) They couldn't care less about other nations or their people.
3) They think appeasement will defeat terrorists.
4) They would rather wait until WWIII breaks out to so something.
5) They "trust" Saddam even though he had WMD and failed to dislose its whereabouts or disposal.
6) They didn't care that Saddam supported terrorists.

Not so. They issued sanctions against him that were a "success", according to the USA - they did not appease. The reasons that the international community was against war were:

1) It was not perceived by the majority to be necessary, and when it comes to war it NEEDS to be necessary; it's a messy business.
2) War weariness is still a major issue within the EU; it wasn't all that long ago that we were in the middle of two world wars, both Europe centric abominations that were necessary to dispose of invading aggressors; for us, the war was do or die as it came to us, not the other way around.
3) In comparison to many places in the world, Iraq was not as major a humanitarian crisis as others were. True, there was a crisis, but other areas needed attention first; the war in Iraq now leaves us on this side of the pond impotent to do anything to save the people of Darfur et al; unlike the USA, we don't spend highly on our military.
4) The case for war presented to the international community centred on UN sanctions and WMDs. Most intelligence was correct in thinking that there were no WMDs and as far as UN sanctions went, well, let's just leave it at "Israel", for better or for worse. Had the case for war been presented more honestly, a better response may have been achieved.
5) The case for war presented "little discussion" as to what would happen in the aftermath, putting many nations off the idea. Had the plans for post war Iraq been sufficient to stand up to scrutiny, again you may have experienced greater co-operation.

When I was a student, I wondered how people could let the Holocaust happen. Now I know.

The holocaust ended when Russia invaded Germany, stopping the travesties that were taking place. It is important to remember, though, and I reiterate, humanitarian aid could more comfortably have been given to a place in the world that needed it most.

I'm glad our President, our troops, and allies took action. People are glad Saddam is gone, but they won't give any credit to those who ousted him.

People are glad that Saddam is gone (save for Saddam!) The argument against war is to do with evidence, timing, planning and honesty.

People don't like terrorists either, but so many think if we ignore them, coddle them, appease them, "understand" them, or let them kill other people instead, then all will be well.

Terrorists are misguided soldiers. They are committed to jihad no matter what and deserve to be locked up for good, to protect the international community. However, care must be taken not to cause terrorist ranks to grow, which (the majority believes) happened as a result of the way Iraq was handled.

One last thing - we may disagree on point of principal,, but that post was the best I've seen you come out with for quite a while Thanks for re-igniting the political side of discussion - it's very much appreciated



Rich::

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Hehe, true.



Nah, bribery is an issue and one that happens the world over; it needs to be tackled. Do remember though that one does not make the whole, meaning that if one member of the UK or USA Governments receive a bribe, it doesn't sully the name of the Government - only that individual.



Not so. They issued sanctions against him that were a "success", according to the USA - they did not appease. The reasons that the international community was against war were:

1) It was not perceived by the majority to be necessary, and when it comes to war it NEEDS to be necessary; it's a messy business.
2) War weariness is still a major issue within the EU; it wasn't all that long ago that we were in the middle of two world wars, both Europe centric abominations that were necessary to dispose of invading aggressors; for us, the war was do or die as it came to us, not the other way around.
3) In comparison to many places in the world, Iraq was not as major a humanitarian crisis as others were. True, there was a crisis, but other areas needed attention first; the war in Iraq now leaves us on this side of the pond impotent to do anything to save the people of Darfur et al; unlike the USA, we don't spend highly on our military.
4) The case for war presented to the international community centred on UN sanctions and WMDs. Most intelligence was correct in thinking that there were no WMDs and as far as UN sanctions went, well, let's just leave it at "Israel", for better or for worse. Had the case for war been presented more honestly, a better response may have been achieved.
5) The case for war presented "little discussion" as to what would happen in the aftermath, putting many nations off the idea. Had the plans for post war Iraq been sufficient to stand up to scrutiny, again you may have experienced greater co-operation.



The holocaust ended when Russia invaded Germany, stopping the travesties that were taking place. It is important to remember, though, and I reiterate, humanitarian aid could more comfortably have been given to a place in the world that needed it most.



People are glad that Saddam is gone (save for Saddam!) The argument against war is to do with evidence, timing, planning and honesty.



Terrorists are misguided soldiers. They are committed to jihad no matter what and deserve to be locked up for good, to protect the international community. However, care must be taken not to cause terrorist ranks to grow, which (the majority believes) happened as a result of the way Iraq was handled.

One last thing - we may disagree on point of principal,, but that post was the best I've seen you come out with for quite a while Thanks for re-igniting the political side of discussion - it's very much appreciated



Rich::

Thanks.

Until we meet again.

 

[LuvDuke]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20060221

From the article:

'Bush Was Right'
Posted 2/21/2006

WMD: The quote above is that of a former UNSCOM member after translating and reviewing 12 hours of taped conversations between Saddam Hussein and his aides. So what's on the covers of Time and Newsweek?

Funny thing about dictators and tyrants: Very often they are meticulous record keepers. The fall of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's Iraq all produced treasure troves of information. In Iraq's case, there were so many documents and records that even now only a small fraction have been translated and analyzed.

Among them are 12 hours of conversations from the early 1990s through 2000 between Hussein and his top advisers. They reveal, among other things, how Iraq was working on an advanced method of enriching uranium, how Iraq was conspiring to deceive U.N. inspectors regarding weapons of mass destruction and how these weapons might be used against the U.S.

The tapes were officially presented Sunday by former FBI translator Bill Tierney to a private conference of former weapons inspectors and intelligence experts in Arlington, Va. Tierney is an Arabic speaker who worked in the mid-1990s for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the agency responsible for overseeing Iraq's disarmament.

On one of the tapes, made in 2000, two years after Saddam kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors, two Iraqi scientists can be heard briefing Hussein on their progress in enriching uranium using plasma separation. If successful, their work would have given Saddam the fissile material he needed to make a nuclear bomb.

The plasma process got a brief mention in the 2004 final report of CIA arms inspector Charles Duefer, but only as a legacy program the Iraqis allegedly abandoned in the 1980s. "This not only shows the capabilities the Iraqis had, but also the weakness of international arms inspection," Tierney believes.

Some highlights from the tapes were played last Wednesday night on ABC's "Nightline." The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Pete Hoekstra, has listened to some of the tapes and said they were "authentic."

In one exchange taped in April or May 1995, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamil al-Majid, briefed Saddam and his aides on his success at concealing Iraq's WMD from inspectors. "We did not reveal all that we have," he said. "They didn't know the extent of our work on missiles."

Of the information turned over to U.N. inspectors, Hussein Kamil told Saddam: "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of materials we imported, not the volume of production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They didn't know any of this."

Skeptics will no doubt claim that this is merely a case of a sycophant massaging Saddam's ego, telling him of programs that didn't exist and progress that was never made. But many of these were programs and weapons the U.N. documented after Desert Storm and of which the U.N. itself demanded a full accounting in Resolution 1441.

So what happened to them? Both Israeli and U.S. intelligence observed large truck convoys leaving Iraq and entering Syria in the weeks and months before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told the conference that former Russian intelligence boss Yevgeny Primakov went to Iraq in December 2002 to supervise WMD transfers into Syria.

According to Georges Sada, Saddam's No. 2 Air Force officer, two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets were converted to cargo planes and moved the WMD to Syria in a total of 56 flights six weeks before the war. The flights were disguised as part of a relief effort after a Syrian dam collapsed in 2002.

So what is on the media's mind? Not Saddam's secrets, but those of Vice President Dick Cheney — as evidenced by his failure to notify the Washington press corps immediately after his hunting accident. That subject graced the covers of both Time and Newsweek and preoccupied the weekend talk shows.

No surprise.

Six weeks and 1 day since the OP declared Bush "right" and still no confirmation from the WH.

 

[eclectics]

Six weeks and 1 day since the OP declared Bush "right" and still no confirmation from the WH.

You mean "Fox" confirmation isn't good enough?

 

[LuvDuke]

It's been 6+ months since the op declared Bush "right" and still no confirmation from the WH.

However, since that time, Bush did say Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that they were wrong about Saddam Hussein's WMD's.