Realistically and objectivly: What has the Bush administration done right?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, June 12, 2006 17:21
VIEWED: 10450
PAGE 11 of 13
Dammit. Now I have to go look it up? Son of a bitch!
I'll try my best.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Got some stuff.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/katrina-timeline.php
Neat little timeline of events. Kind of made the FL part of the hurricane worse than it was in my opinion (having been in FL when it hit), but whatever. Bullet 3 under sept. 4 references the next article.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509040369sep04,1,4
144825.story
Chicago Tribune article about the USS Bataan. It sounds like eventually someone got it together and started using the military, but if I'm reading correctly this ship still wasn't really used all that much. Canada sent 3 ships from Halifax and we couldn't handle authorizing one that was already in the area? I applaud Carnival Cruise Lines (even though cruises are evil) for using 3 of their ships in the relief effort.
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002743.html
USS Bataan down under the heading "Aiding the relief effort" Within the paragraph, the 2nd link works. The first one for the Macon paper doesn't work, but the one about wanting to do more does.
It seems like it may have been lame bureaucratic red tape, but I truly think if the president had said "dispatch them", it would have gone through. He's the commander in chief after all.
This seems like an instance where the captain probably could have gotten away with just jumping in and being like "what can we do" without permission. Taking initiative. Kind of like that helicopter in the Vietnam War that stopped the gratuitous slaughter of an entire village.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
how can anyone claim Bush really believes in the "War on Terror", and the neccessity for the patriot act, the survelience of Americans, and a multi-trillion dollar deployment in Iraq, to
"snuff out the terrorists there, so we dont have to fight them here!"
...meanwhile faciliting the free-for-all of anyone with 2 legs over our border? can someone please explain this disceprency to me, its simply irrefutably contradictive
unless, again.....the war on terror was engineered to fullfill an agenda, then it makes perfect sense
it reminds me of the the lie that "these are jobs Americans simply wont do!".....or rather, simply wont do for slave wages.
these people are soo transparent
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm fairly certain there's an agenda.
Agenda 1: Big corporations that support Bush love cheap labor. Example: Nike. Grossly expensive shoes that are kind of ugly. They wanted cheaper labor so they moved a bunch of their work to Vietnam. Minimum wage in Vietnam is $45/month which is $1.5/day. Nike pays less than minimum wage because they can't even be bothered to pay the people who make their shoes $1.50/day. Oddly enough, the price of the shoes stayed the same or increased.
Fact is companies like cheap labor. Most of the food service industry works for minimum wage or just over it. Unfortunately minimum wage doesn't equal a living wage.
Agenda 2: Oil. Extraneous corporate interests in the Middle East. Being Israel's bitch. Etc Etc Etc.
Agenda 3: Paying lip service to the extreme fundamentalist base because his ratings suck and he wants the elections in November to be Republican favored. Translation: He doesn't actually give a shit about anything that's going on and just wants votes. Though that's probably true about most politicians.
I do have to add that the statement "jobs American's won't do" isn't a total lie. My mom is a social worker and there are plenty of unemployed people (at least in Green Bay) that are "holding out for management" or some such nonsense, when there are legit jobs available.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:Quote:Erm no I mean anti-liberal hate-filled extremist right-wing rant, reference PrairieDogg's post if you want.
I believe the term you were looking for is differing viewpoint.
I'm sorry Citizen. In the stream of the thread I thought you were refering to AMIALION. I agree that Prairiedogg came across as a bit overzealous.Quote:
I'm the one in the wrong because I responded to personal insults by saying the exact same thing back, but the person who said them's okay, why's that?
Frankly if someone starts in on me with insults I'll reply. I didn't insult you so why the sermon? Why aren't you giving certain other posters here a telling off? Do you condone their comments?
I called you on it because you are a long time poster in this forum. IMHO, you fashion yourself the defender of the left. You wait until someone posts something that dosen't jibe with your beliefes and then you try to cut them down. I supported AMIALION because he/she actually tried to follow the topic of this thread. Being a new poster, perhaps AMIALION did not know what he/she was getting into here in RWED by trying to find something positive
about the Bush administration. You and Chrisisall responded in your usual sarcastic
ways and that immediately put AMIALION's defenses up. What could have been another great discussion ended up as another "dead right winger" notch in the side of your monitor. How many is that now?Quote:
I didn't label anyone anything, I said someone SPAT the dummy, not that they were a dummy, because they lost their temper when I disagreed with them.
My apologies over the mix-up. I thought spat the dummy was an English way of saying to talk stupid. Which is why I placed dummy in quotation marks.Quote:
What more do you want from me, I outright said I was joking in my post when I replied to you, do you actually want me to open a vein or do you prefer speaking from a position of outraged moral high ground?
Let's not get too overly dramatic. I am simply trying to bring some semblance of balance to RWED. IMHO, RWED has become a bash the right forum. Or at the very least, this thread has become that. Pretty confusing when you read the topic.
De-lurking to clear stuff up.NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the links Sassalicious. It sounds like a number of things went wrong, at local, state, and federal levels. I will say the timeline could have been a little less partisan though. Why was it necessary to include the stuff about Bush speaking about immigration and prescription drugs? The business of running a country can slow down but certainly not stop during a natural disaster. It seems like Bush was let down by the people he had in place to manage the disaster.
One question though. The timeline states that Bush declared a state of emergency in Louisiana on Saturday August 27th, two days before Katrina's landfall. What does declaring a state of emergency mean? Does that cut away some of the red tape and give local and state authorities more freedom to act? including ship captains.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And if the right wasn't constantly attacking the left and blaming liberals for everything that has gone wrong, every 'evil' done since the dawn of mankind I wouldn't need to.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
IMHO, you fashion yourself the defender of the left.
Quote:Well this is quite an indignant way of saying I don't respond to people saying "this guy is right!" because It adds nothing, but I do respond to people I disagree with. Shock horror, I was under the impression that was the point.
You wait until someone posts something that dosen't jibe with your beliefes and then you try to cut them down.
Do you mean waiting to post when something is said that goes against your beliefs like every 'rightist’ poster who’s posted on this thread? Because ya’ll waited until us dirty Liberals started having our ‘circle-jerk’ (very delicately put there and not at all an attempt at an insult) before any of you decided to start posting.
Cut them down, you mean like turning the thread into an attack Citizen call him a Nazi and blame him for all the problems of the RWED thread?
Quote:Actually AmIaLion responded to me and told me that I didn't know what I was talking about and he missed the meaning of my post completely, even though the meaning was fairly obvious. So really you're supporting AmIaLion not because I attacked him/her (because actually the reverse is true) but I suspect because you share similar political beliefs.
I supported AMIALION because he/she actually tried to follow the topic of this thread.
Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with that, just spare me the holier-than-thou you attack people for no reason crap.
Quote:A great discussion? AmIaLion devoted nearly half their opening post to attacking me. That's a great discussion for you?
What could have been another great discussion ended up as another "dead right winger" notch in the side of your monitor.
Don't paint me with that brush, I have had plenty of great discussions with many of the conservative posters here, the fact that most of the ‘rightist’ posters here aren't capable of it and merely want to turn every discussion into an exposition about how all the problems of the universe are caused by Liberals because Liberals are EVIL isn't my fault. Neither is their inability to argue their case.
Quote:I'm supposed to feel sorry for showing up a petty minded little modo who likes to call people Nazis when they don't agree with them for what they are?
How many is that now?
Who I might add went for me, not the other way around as you like to paint it.
Because I don't, you know I feel pretty good about it.
It's also interesting that you blame ChrisIsAll for being partly the cause, one of the most agreeable people on these forums and very quick to admit if he's wrong.
Quote:I don't see why not, I'm getting attacked for defending myself when I was attacked while the people doing the attacking are acting like they have some sort of high moral ground.
Let's not get too overly dramatic.
Quote:Given that many of the posters on the right of these forums spend most of their time telling everyone they're right and anyone who disagrees is evil and a terrorist it's hardly surprising. I miss Finn because he could actually debate a subject; I miss Dreamtrove because despite his desire to blame the left for everything he at least could discuss things.
IMHO, RWED has become a bash the right forum.
IMHO you seem to want to paint yourself as some sort of valiant crusader bringing balance and the light of your knowledge to us all. Fantastic as that maybe please cut the holier than thou crap.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well this is quite an indignant way of saying I don't respond to people saying "this guy is right!" because It adds nothing, but I do respond to people I disagree with. Shock horror, I was under the impression that was the point.
That is the point. I disagreed with one of your posts and I started a discussion about it with you.
Quote:
Do you mean waiting to post when something is said that goes against your beliefs like every 'rightist’ poster who’s posted on this thread? Because ya’ll waited until us dirty Liberals started having our ‘circle-jerk’ (very delicately put there and not at all an attempt at an insult) before any of you decided to start posting.
Take your own advice and reread the entire thread. I was the first poster who tried to actually follow the topic of the thread. I agree I supported someone else's insult. I thought it was completely called for given the "set-up" of the original thread title.
Quote:
Cut them down, you mean like turning the thread into an attack Citizen call him a Nazi and blame him for all the problems of the RWED thread?
There is a difference between two posters carrying on a discussion in a thread to an attack Citizen thread. I believe one of those is already archived somewhere in this site. Maybe that is why you seem to be overly defensive. That said, I completely agree that name calling has no place in these discussions. It makes it almost impossible to see the relevance in the name callers posts.
Quote:
A great discussion? AmIaLion devoted nearly half their opening post to attacking me. That's a great discussion for you?
I could be mistaken, but I do not remember any mention of you in Amialion's opening post. Please correct me if I am wrong, I can admit mistakes. Can you?
Quote:
I'm supposed to feel sorry for showing up a petty minded little modo who likes to call people Nazis when they don't agree with them for what they are?
Who I might add went for me, not the other way around as you like to paint it.
Because I don't, you know I feel pretty good about it.
It's also interesting that you blame ChrisIsAll for being partly the cause, one of the most agreeable people on these forums and very quick to admit if he's wrong.
Once again I urge you to reread the thread. I mentioned Chrisisall because he was the first responder to Amialion (though you were hot on his heels) and he was being his usual sarcastic quick to judge self. I mentioned this as a potential reason for Amialion's more hostile responses. You will see that Chrisisall is indeed quite agreeable and was able to end his discussion with Amialion without the namecalling.
Quote:
IMHO you seem to want to paint yourself as some sort of valiant crusader bringing balance and the light of your knowledge to us all. Fantastic as that maybe please cut the holier than thou crap.
IMHO, when you push you are not used to someone pushing back. How is what I am doing any different than your "legitimate rightists" Finn and Dreamtrove? I am not being high and mighty or holier than thou. I am engaging you in a discussion.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except the discussion we're talking about is you telling me off and telling me (for want of a better term) how much of a bad man I am and me defending myself. Just because you're not calling me a big stupid head or a Nazi doesn't make it any less of an attack Citizen discussion.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
There is a difference between two posters carrying on a discussion in a thread to an attack Citizen thread. I believe one of those is already archived somewhere in this site. Maybe that is why you seem to be overly defensive.
Quote:I didn't give anyone that advise, certainly not you, I said AmIaLion should re-read my post, not the entire thread.
Take your own advice and reread the entire thread.
Quote:Sorry it was AmIaLions second post which was directly aimed at me and began with the words Actually citizen, you really should read a history book. Followed by a whole load of stuff that had nothing to do with what I'd written. That's the post I replied to.
I could be mistaken, but I do not remember any mention of you in Amialion's opening post. Please correct me if I am wrong, I can admit mistakes. Can you?
Yes I can admit mistakes and do so all the time. Was the "can you" jibe really necessary?
Quote:Please, Chrisisall's cowboy line was hardly stinging sarcasm, you seem to be judging us by a far harsher rule than that which you judge AmIaLion. As for me being hot on his heels AmIaLion spoke directly to me, and opened with an attacking statement. Maybe you can find a way to twist that into being 'my fault', I don't know.
Once again I urge you to reread the thread. I mentioned Chrisisall because he was the first responder to Amialion (though you were hot on his heels) and he was being his usual sarcastic quick to judge self.
Quote:Except his opening response to me before I'd even spoken to him was hostile and was made before he could have read Chris's post.
I mentioned this as a potential reason for Amialion's more hostile responses.
Quote:Maybe it's because AmIaLion decided to start the name calling with me but not Chris?
You will see that Chrisisall is indeed quite agreeable and was able to end his discussion with Amialion without the namecalling.
Quote:Well you're wrong because I get 'pushed back' all the time. But of course that doesn't apply here, since you are pushing me, and I'm pushing back. Maybe you are not used to that?
IMHO, when you push you are not used to someone pushing back.
Quote:Get off the moral high horse for one minute would you please. I never said "legitimate rightists" I said I miss them because they could actually have a discussion without calling someone a Nazi or turning the entire thing into "how evil the Liberals are" session. Something not true of AURaptor, Hero or to a slightly lesser degree Geezer.
How is what I am doing any different than your "legitimate rightists" Finn and Dreamtrove? I am not being high and mighty or holier than thou. I am engaging you in a discussion.
And yes we're having a discussion, were discussing how everything is my fault, something I never did with Finn or Dreamtrove because they could discuss a topic without making it into an issue of how one's opponent is an arsehole.
When the only discussion we’ve actually had doesn’t revolve around you blaming me for all the bad feeling in the RWED, when you aren’t making excuses for other posters bad behaviour because they’re on your side but demonising myself and Chris because we are not, maybe then I can make a better estimate of your debating skills.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
It seems like Bush was let down by the people he had in place to manage the disaster.
Well, here's how I look at it. A boss is always responsible for the performance of the people that he or she hires. But if you don't hire someone because of their expertise but instead as a political favor than you are doubly responsible for their poor performance (imho). Prior to James Witt being appointed director of FEMA in 1993, people were appointed to head the agency as political favors. Witt was hired because of his expertise (in addition to the political favors part). After Witt's tenure, Bush used political motivations rather than expertise to appoint the next two directors.
Quote:
excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lee_Witt
During his tenure Clinton elevated FEMA to cabinet status, and Witt overturned FEMA's previously poor reputation. A 1992 interim report by the US Congress (prior to Hurricane Andrew led to further criticism of FEMA) had said that "FEMA is widely viewed as a political dumping ground, a turkey farm, if you will, where large numbers of positions exist that can be conveniently and quietly filled by political appointment..."
Witt, who from all accounts is a disaster management stud (and who I'm biased towards because of his background in construction - us engineers like people who actually build shit
), did a great job with the agency.Quote:
continuing with the above quote
By 1996 an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial said that "FEMA has developed a sterling reputation for delivering disaster-relief services, a far cry from its abysmal standing before James Lee Witt took its helm in 1993. How did Witt turn FEMA around so quickly? Well, he is the first director of the agency to have emergency-management experience. He stopped the staffing of the agency by political patronage. He removed layers of bureaucracy. Most important, he instilled in the agency a spirit of preparedness, of service to the customer, of willingness to listen to ideas of local and state officials to make the system work better."
And what was the record of FEMA during Witt's tenure?
Quote:
continuing with the above quote:
Witt's term of office saw approximately 348 Presidential declared disaster areas in more than 6,500 counties and in all 50 states and territories. Witt supervised the response to the most costly flood disaster in the nation's history at that time, the most costly earthquake, and a dozen serious hurricanes.
So Witt took an agency that was a discredit to the federal government and turned it into a credit to the federal government. All well and good. However, when Bush took over the Presidency he returned to the old way of appointing FEMA directors.
His first appointee was Joe Albaugh, who had no previous experience in disaster relief management. What was his previous job? He managed Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. I think it's safe to say (unless you want to engage in snark) that managing a presidential campaign is not the same as managing disaster relief.
Albaugh left FEMA when he didn't get the DHS boss job (after FEMA got folded into DHS). And Brown was appointed to replace him. Where did Brown come from and what were his qualifications? Well, read this article and weep:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12554964.htm
I have no problem with making appointments as political favors. That's the name of the game. But get someone who has experience in that field and is competent. If there's no one that you owe a favor to who fits both those criteria than you might want to look outside the close knit circle of supporters and appoint someone else. Especially for an agency that is as important as FEMA.
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
One question though. The timeline states that Bush declared a state of emergency in Louisiana on Saturday August 27th, two days before Katrina's landfall. What does declaring a state of emergency mean? Does that cut away some oNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME