NEWS: Bush Under Fire for Slow Action

Just saw this header on Drudge ..

KANYE WEST ON NBC FUNDRAISER: 'GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE... They're saying black families are looting and white families are just looking for food...they're giving the (Army) permission to shoot us'... Actor Mike Myers asked people to donate... then Kanye West went on a tirade about Iraq...

Fuel the fire!

This is another example of how the Bush administration has failed in its job as a government. The government's job is to protect its people and infrastructure. It has failed royally on both counts.

Bush KNEW the hurricane was coming several weeks before it hit. He had plenty of chance to DO SOMETHING...but...he didn't. He was probably out playing a bit of golf or watching a movie or something.

And one may say, as he himself did, that Bush had told the people to evacuate, so there wasn't much more he could do. Well, Mr. Bush, in case you and your racist and elitist cronies didn't know, not everyone in America has a car. Even if they do, 99.9 percent of the people can't even begin to afford the gas to leave the state. Yeah, that's right, Mr. Bush; poverty exists in America.

Bush has allowed New Orleans to be destroyed. He has allowed for the (current) death of thousands (not including the tens of thousands more in Iraq).

Mr. Bush, you had a record amount of people executed during your governorship in Texas. "Eye for an eye", eh? Perhaps you should partake of your own medicine.

Originally posted by iceofspades
This is another example of how the Bush administration has failed in its job as a government. The government's job is to protect its people and infrastructure. It has failed royally on both counts.

Bush KNEW the hurricane was coming several weeks before it hit. He had plenty of chance to DO SOMETHING...but...he didn't. He was probably out playing a bit of golf or watching a movie or something.

I would suppose that both the Mayor's of New Orleans, Biloxi, etc. and the Governor's of both Louisiana and Alabama, etc. all "KNEW the hurricane was coming" for "several weeks" and likewise "had plenty of chance to DO SOMETHING", correct? But wait, they are excluded from blame and condemnation, eh?

Does it take Bush to have to be President of the US and then be both governor and mayor of states and cities? Probably so, based on the below quote mention:

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said that President Bush had called and urged the state to order the evacuation.

New Orleans orders evacuation








seekerof

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Seekerof]

You guys blaming 'BushCo' are pathetic. You all seem so happy and excited to tout the latest horrific scene. In fact, whomever can come up with the most gruesome and sad stories are the winners! YIPPEEE You win!! Now are you happy?

Last I heard, New Orleans had a Mayor. hmmmm, I seem to recall a Govenor for the state of Louisiana. Where are they? What have they done?

Seems to me that the call to use the Super Dome as cover was a horrible call. Where was his back up plan? Sure, the Dome would weather fine for a hurricane. What if the levee broke? Was there a back up plan for that? Why weren't the city buses and school buses gathered before hand? Why weren't they placed in position to rescue these people sooner?

Blame should be on the LOCAL government first!! The state government next.

After all is said and done. After ll those in charge failed at their responsibilities (which they did), then Mr. Prez comes in. Let's see if he fails the people, then I'll be first to blame him. Until then, put your blame where it belongs:

Mr. Mayor and Mrs. Governor! (They live there. They know the area. They know the people. They are to blame.)



[edit on 2-9-2005 by SourGrapes]

Originally posted by Seekerof

I would suppose that both the Mayor's of New Orleans, Biloxi, etc. and the Governor's of both Louisiana and Alabama, etc. all "KNEW the hurricane was coming" for "several weeks" and likewise "had plenty of chance to DO SOMETHING", correct? But wait, they are excluded from blame and condemnation, eh?

Does it take Bush to have to be President of the US and then be both governor and mayor of states and cities? Probably so, based on the below quote mention:

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said that President Bush had called and urged the state to order the evacuation.

Your argument is highly fallacied. It is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JOB to appropriate money for natural disaster diversion, such as levy reinforcement. Now was that done? NO.

The local government had been fervently petitioning for years to have the levys reinforced, but the Bush administration would not approve. D'ya know why? Simple. They didn't have the funds because all that was available was diverted into illegal wars to line the pockets of greedy white men.

So maybe you're right, that it was not directly Bush's fault that the city wasn't evacuated. But it certainly was his fault that the city flooded and the subsequent death and destruction is occurring.

My argument is no more a fallacy than yours.
You may wish to re-read what I quoted from that CNN article:

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said that President Bush had called and urged the state to order the evacuation.

You stated that Bush should have known and done more based upon length of time. I, and another, merely stated that those that no one, including you, seem to be blaming or holding accountable, those mayors and governors, are not being mentioned. How are they bypassed straight to the POTUS?

Again, does Bush not only have to be the POTUS, but he must also act for governors and mayors, as well?





seekerof

You guys blaming 'BushCo' are pathetic.

Yet, strangely, I'm the one with the sense of decorum to remand my insults to the subject under discussion, instead of lobbing them at my fellow posters. Does your 'righteous' indignation help the survivors any more than my 'righteous' condemnation?

I'd say we're in the same damn boat, the H.M.S. Unaffected.

Last I heard, New Orleans had a Mayor. hmmmm, I seem to recall a Govenor for the state of Louisiana. Where are they? What have they done?

Plenty of information about those two on ATS. The governor is being blamed for being ineffectual, the Mayor is being considered for Honorary membership in the Holy Trinity for cursing on CNN.

All nonsense of course. The people are the only ones who can help themselves. It's always been that way. The thing is, the feds shouldn't take all your money and give you NOTHING IN RETURN, which is exactly what happened to the good people of NOrleans.

2004 was the worst hurricane year on record. So of course, in 2005, the feds made the largest cuts in history to the coastline protection budget for the area most likely to suffer a horrendous loss of life. The people of New Orleans are poorer than the people of most, if not all, other states, so our efficient corporate government allocated their budget to the bank accounts of crooked Iraq contractors.

This stuff speaks for itself. Your defense of it speaks volumes as well.

Seems to me that the call to use the Super Dome as cover was a horrible call.

I know I wouldn't have been caught dead there. Come Hell or high water I feel safer on my own. The people who went there trusted their government to take care of them. That was their first mistake.

Sure, the Dome would weather fine for a hurricane.

Which is why the people were told to go there. The authorities were reasonably sure that one building would withstand whatever winds Katrina could dish out. Indeed, the dome held, and nobody inside was killed by the hurricane. The flooding on the other hand, is a whole different problem. There is a federal budget for coastline protection from severe flooding, and a special task force was established to construct defenses in NO. The federal money was taken out of that program, and redistributed to other programs, namely WAR.

The feds decided WAR was more important than saving the lives of people in NO. Now the fruit of their decisions is ripening on the vine. People are pissed. What do you expect? You want people to blame a mayor and a governor who are facing record deficits, trying to scrape together enough money to keep the lights on and stop teachers' checks from bouncing?

The states didn't blow away 400+ BILLION on a war. The states didn't pad the pockets of contractors to blow stuff up and then fix it, in a voluntary and hugely profitable sysyphus ritual. The Feds are responsible for Emergency Management, there's this giant cash sucking beast in charge, you may have heard of it, its name is FEMA.

What if the levee broke?

Run away! If you're unwilling or unable to leave a below sea level coastal city, and the water starts pouring in, RUN AWAY! The lesson to be learned here is that you can't depend on the local, state, or federal government in a time of crisis. They always drop the ball.

Why weren't the city buses and school buses gathered before hand? Why weren't they placed in position to rescue these people sooner?

At one point the water level was rising an inch every five minutes. There was simply no time to snatch up every diehard and get out before the roads became impassable. Most people thought they would be safe in their attics, and they weren't. Decisions are the responsibility of those who make them.

That being said, the Whitehouse decided to slash the budget for flood protection, and they are responsible for that goddamn decision.

Blame should be on the LOCAL government first!! The state government next.

Start at the top, and work your way down is a better approach. Every man on top is responsible for every man below, when you choose to institute a tiered system of governance.

The local governments are the ones responsible for the first response during a disaster. To expect the federal government to have an instant disaster plan and swoop in, to save everyone instantly, just isn't realistic.

One of the main problems is that a hurricane like this is a "once in a century" sort of thing.

Problem is, Hurricane Ivan was also a "once in a century" sort of thing. Ivan was supposed to have been "The Big One", and we got through pretty much fine. So alot of the blame for non-preparedness can be placed simply on overconfidence.

Originally posted by SourGrapes
The local governments are the ones responsible for the first response during a disaster. To expect the federal government to have an instant disaster plan and swoop in, to save everyone instantly, just isn't realistic.

Don't know how it is in the States (or why you need so many agencies doing seemingly not much), but here in the UK we have these apparently "unrealistic" plans in place for a whole host of potential disasters, from big terrorist attacks to major flooding or big storms.

It is foolish to think you cannot plan for such things, because you can. Besides, isn't that FEMA's very raison d'Etre? Why else would you pay billions in tax dollars to it?

In America nothing works right anymore.

Healthcares lousy. Fast food is lousy. Fuel cost are going sky high. Security is lousy. Wages are headed down. Roads are lousy. Gov't services are lousy. We're fighting lousy wars. Gov't is saying that's what ya get when you hire Republicans. Products break as soon as you get them home. Every year there's a new human, tree, animal disease to worry about. We're experiencing more blackouts all the time. Debt personal, and governmental is sky rocketing. Bush says things are getting better all the time(maybe for him). Unemployment is up. just had a major disaster....etc

Thanks for the links Nikelbee

I saw this talk President Bush was giving in Alabama last night on Channel 4 news here in Britain. Im sure they have missed out a bit of his words though.

We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch.

U.S Embassy.org

I could of sworn he said:

"Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- we'll help him rebuild it -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch."

I remember this because myself and my Uncle who were watching it were flabberghasted that he'd make such an inappropriate remark. The people of New Orleans have lost practically everything and he's out talking about helping to rebuild a fantastic house for ex-Senate Majority leader Trent Lott?

Did any one else see this footage and can either confirm or deny this missing sound bite?

On a side note, has any of my fellow Brits notice how unrestrained and down right biased our news media on location in New Orleans are? They are hugely rattled by what they are witnessing over there and coments such as "I dont believe that, thats complete rubbish" and "total lack of action is an indictment on this administration" coming from newscasters has left me shocked. Where is their impartiality and reporting of the facts with no additional personal feelings? They're all doing it.

[edit on 3/9/05 by subz]

subz,

Brits can see the total incompetence of our current gov't just like anyone else.

When reporters see people dying right in front of them, it touches their hearts as well.

Originally posted by bodebliss
Brits can see the total incompetence of our current gov't just like anyone else.

When reporters see people dying right in front of them, it touches their hearts as well.

I can understand that but im talking about anchorman level presenters here, people that have been in Iraq and countless other war zones. They always kept their cool in spots like that but they are completely scathing of the situation there. I go so far as to say its unprecedented for our news presenters.

I think they're reacting to the Washington establishment's elitist worldview arrogance and then the results that don't match it.

I can understand that but im talking about anchorman level presenters here, people that have been in Iraq and countless other war zones. They always kept their cool in spots like that but they are completely scathing of the situation there. I go so far as to say its unprecedented for our news presenters.

To be honest, I have seen a few reports, like this:

In my view the police are not being very helpful and are adding to the alienation by several notches. The police look to me like they have gone really overboard; they are heavily-armed, aggressive, not communicating and they look very, very menacing indeed.

Whilst it is clearly not unbiased, it may also be the truth and an honest conveyance of the poeples on the grouns feelings about the seemingly inappropriate concentration on protecting property rather than lives.

Source..BBC

It is clear to all and sundry, that for lack of a better term, the US Government has bollocked this up royally.

It is only fair that this is represented on the news, rather than painting over it with gloss and say "all will be ok....we're getting there...nothing to see here....move along"

Stu, thats not my point.

In my view the police are not being very helpful and are adding to the alienation by several notches. The police look to me like they have gone really overboard; they are heavily-armed, aggressive, not communicating and they look very, very menacing indeed.

With all due respect, we dont want their "view" we want the news. That is unmodified and not slanted with emotive and personal terms. There is a distinct lack of composure and impartiality in the British media at the moment and I dont know why.

The BBC even went so far as to ban the term "terrorist" from the 7/7 bombing reports as it was "biased" and "emotive" yet in their reports out of Katrina we're getting the reporters own feelings mixed in with the news. Thats not how the BBC usually operates. BBC reporters do not editorialize in their news reports.

Originally posted by Stumason
It is clear to all and sundry, that for lack of a better term, the US Government has bollocked this up royally

Oh I agree with you, and I agree with the editorializing BBC reporters but thats besides the point. Seasoned and experience news reporters are losing their cool and breaking protocol here.

Originally posted by Stumason
It is only fair that this is represented on the news, rather than painting over it with gloss and say "all will be ok....we're getting there...nothing to see here....move along"

I dont agree with that. Its not fair and it has its place in interviews, not news reports. I dont want to know how the news makes this individual reporter feel, I want to know the bare facts - thats it.

There have been many allegations in other threads and even on this one that blame should not be appropriated and political debate not slung around until the mess is over. I concur and would like to explain a few things about why I feel it is necessary that President Bush live up to the status of a 'real' leader of the people.

I am not blaming him for the hurricane. I am not blaming him for the years of neglect with the levees.

What I think the country needs now is a visible and true leader of the people holding everyone together in this time of crisis. Let the blame and the chips fall where they may after.

Bush needs to sober up (not in terms of drink) but in emotional soberiety and realise that this destruction and its aftermath is splintering the country. If he could do it after 9/11 he can do it now.

I don't care what kind of useless, idiotic, ineffectual person he has been in the past. My personal opinions aside, he is THE elected representative of the United States of America.

It is his JOB to step up to the plate right now and take control like the man his country, heck, the whole world expects him to be. He can then do whatever he wants AFTER the crisis is averted and the people will decide whether he should stand down or continue to represent them as their head of state.

My main argument has and continues to be that the US needs so much in terms of internal care and that this crisis is highlighting the need for that. There are problems with health care, insurance, poverty, racism, oil prices, solid disaster plans for every eventuality, but most of all good leadership. I have heard left and right come together in support and concern and to be quite frank - outright indignation at what has been done and not been done to save the people of New Orleans.


I don't think asking him to come back from holiday, to ask him to be serious for a moment and to step out and shake a few hands, to make a few promises and to show the world that the US is able to get through this is too much to ask is it?

I'd say 79% of the reporting here is biased.

When I hear conservatives speak, I have an urge to give a full Nazi salute.

When I hear liberals speak, I want to punch a punching bag.

Neither side reps my views.

Originally posted by subz
Stu, thats not my point.

In my view the police are not being very helpful and are adding to the alienation by several notches. The police look to me like they have gone really overboard; they are heavily-armed, aggressive, not communicating and they look very, very menacing indeed.

With all due respect, we dont want their "view" we want the news. That is unmodified and not slanted with emotive and personal terms. There is a distinct lack of composure and impartiality in the British media at the moment and I dont know why.

The BBC even went so far as to ban the term "terrorist" from the 7/7 bombing reports as it was "biased" and "emotive" yet in their reports out of Katrina we're getting the reporters own feelings mixed in with the news. Thats not how the BBC usually operates. BBC reporters do not editorialize in their news reports.

Originally posted by Stumason
It is clear to all and sundry, that for lack of a better term, the US Government has bollocked this up royally

Oh I agree with you, and I agree with the editorializing BBC reporters but thats besides the point. Seasoned and experience news reporters are losing their cool and breaking protocol here.

Originally posted by Stumason
It is only fair that this is represented on the news, rather than painting over it with gloss and say "all will be ok....we're getting there...nothing to see here....move along"

I dont agree with that. Its not fair and it has its place in interviews, not news reports. I dont want to know how the news makes this individual reporter feel, I want to know the bare facts - thats it.

Possibly Auntie has slipped lately and I do not disagree. There has been more than one occasion lately where they have raised my eyebrows with the way they portray the news and not just international news.

For example, recently some "think-tank waste of space" decided that there needs to be positive discrimination for muslims in the UK to make them feel more intergrated and the way it was reported, you got the feeling the BBC was trying to "sell" this idea rather than report the facts....thats another story for another time though.

But....bearing in mind when you watch Sky News, ITN or an American station, they shove "opinion" down your throat and all there reports are heavily laden with emotion which is uneccessary and sometimes offensive. Whislt the Beeb may be guilty of a slight slanting here, it is far less than what other News groups are feeding the masses.