Bush is the root of all evil - Part 2

[Sava]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski

Yeah and then after i did that, id find my self in a padded white room with secret service agents asking me what i know bout the jelly beans and peanuts and the infamous blue dress

no, it would be like that simpsons episode... they would spray you with rum and let you walk home and nobody would believe your story... RUMMY!

[Tuberski]

The Mrs. forgot about the 3 before (in reverse order):

The Klutz

The Crook

The Clown.

ACK!

[Winston]

And those that went before,

The Con
&
The Kraut.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I think FEMA also sucked too, but the city and state could have done things that could have saved a lot of people's lives.

Well, that's the thing. local and State governments have a LOT of priorities, a lot of things to do: thinking about how they will deal with Catastrophes of biblical proportion is really NEVER what will be in the front of their minds, simply because in that case, you are really screwed. You are correct, given how everyone saw this coming, the Lousiana authorities should have had a more comprehensive plan. But this is the deep south, and these are poor people we are talking about, lets not kid ourselves about just how much was going to be planned for the poor.

FEMA on the other hand exists solely for the purposes of helping in case of a disaster. This is their whole reason for being. Its a bit harder for me to excuse utter incompetence in dealing with a natural disaster form an agency whose sole purpose is that compared to governments with the full range od government duties.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Sandman
What I'd like to see is one of the pro-Bush people to explain specifically what desirable traits George has brought to the presidency. Why not match our 'mindless' criticism with intelligent praise?

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4368975&fsrc=nwl

Not many Presidents have the guts to engage the country in long-term projects that, while risky, can make the world a better place. Fewer still have the tenacity and moral clarity that allows them to stick with such projects even when circumstances and poll numbers are working against them.

I doubt everyone will find these to be positive qualities in a leader, but I know some of us do...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Not many Presidents have the guts to engage the country in long-term projects that, while risky, can make the world a better place. Fewer still have the tenacity and moral clarity that allows them to stick with such projects even when circumstances and poll numbers are working against them.

From the article you linked:

True enough, American pressure for democratisation has been inconsistent. The much-touted American aid programme meant to promote reform, the Middle East Partnership Initiative, gets less cash in a year than what America spends in Iraq in a day. Washington bureaucracy delayed funds for some democracy activists in Egypt. Others that did get American money include groups seeking to monitor the elections, but a quasi-official election commission blocked them from doing the job.

American policy priorities have also clashed with reformist goals. Pursuing terrorism by “rendering” suspects to torture-prone governments undercuts the many local groups lobbying to end such practices. Rather than being hailed as a model for pluralism, Iraq is widely seen as a chaos to be avoided. Many Arabs view its new constitution as the outcome of an American plot to divide and rule. Most Arab reformers warm much more to the caustic critiques of American filmmaker Michael Moore than to George Bush’s “forward strategy of freedom”. Most believe that when push comes to shove, America’s thirst for oil will exceed its democratic principles.

Which gives the lie to the idea that Dubya has managed to stick to anything other than the craw of decent-minded people.

[Straybow]

But Drake, Bush only did this for his oil buddies! You can't bring up stuff like making the world a better place by ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Only evil can come of this because Bush is teh evil.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, it'd didn't. It was supposed to stand up to a fast Cat 3. It didn't. Katie was a 4 where it made landfall but was only a Cat 2 in NOLA, and a Cat 3 in Biloxi. Now there are certain geographical features that may have magnified the impact of the storm in Lake Ponchetrain, but we don't know yet, whether those were in play.

Well, let's see what the previously cited Mr. Timeline says

Monday, August 29

7AM – KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE [CNN]

8AM – MAYOR NAGIN REPORTS THAT WATER IS FLOWING OVER LEVEE

The reach of a hurricane this size isn't confined to the storm center. The problems started long before the center dropped to cat 3 or went inland to NO. And yes, the orientation of the winds and the geography of Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne were the primary factors in topping the levees.

[Drake Tungsten]

Which gives the lie to the idea that Dubya has managed to stick to anything other than the craw of decent-minded people.

I don't see how it does. Bush has little control over bureaucratic hold-ups in Washington or the opinions of the Arab street.

He has recently refused to place a timetable on withdrawal for Iraq and vowed to stay until the job is finished, despite plenty of opposition to such a course, even from within his own administration. Such behavior seem far more relevant to judging Bush's sticktoittivness than the passage you excerpted.

[chequita guevara]

Bush is the kinda guy who would drive over a cliff rather than change direction.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4368975&fsrc=nwl

Not many Presidents have the guts to engage the country in long-term projects that, while risky, can make the world a better place. Fewer still have the tenacity and moral clarity that allows them to stick with such projects even when circumstances and poll numbers are working against them.

I doubt everyone will find these to be positive qualities in a leader, but I know some of us do...

Is that the only thing that you can come up with, that he has the guts to take risks? Why is risk taking considered an admirable trait in a world leader? If I went into an interview and told my potential employer, that I was a risk taker, but don't worry, in the long term the company will be better for it, I don't think I would make it to the second interview.

When Bush was running for office, he never said anything about running on a platform of risk taking.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MosesPresley


Is that the only thing that you can come up with, that he has the guts to take risks? Why is risk taking considered an admirable trait in a world leader? If I went into an interview and told my potential employer, that I was a risk taker, but don't worry, in the long term the company will be better for it, I don't think I would make it to the second interview.

When Bush was running for office, he never said anything about running on a platform of risk taking.

Actually if you understood politico speak he said precisely that. He pretty much said would not be like his predecessor a man bowing to the whim or poll of the day. That pretty much speaks to the fact that he was going to do what he thought (right or wrongly) was the appropriate course of action be damned what the polls said.

Now one can say his judgment on the matters may be flawed and certainly the execution is putrid.

[MosesPresley]

Oh I see, if only I understood the secret politico code that Bush speaks in. That explains a lot.

Bush never said he was going to be a risk taker. He didn't say it in politico code or otherwise.

He did say that he would "restore honor and integrity" to the white house though. Is that politico for "I'm going to trash the US's economy, let the terrorists hit our cities, alienate our allies, start a war based on lies and ineptitude, further enrich the wealthy, starve the poor and generally not be available when a natural disaster strikes?"

I think I'm starting to understand this politico code.

[chequita guevara]

Oh snap!

http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon.salon/blame_game.mov

[Guynemer]

I can not believe some of the stuff coming about about "Brownie" these past couple days... the horse association stuff is nothing.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
Oh I see, if only I understood the secret politico code that Bush speaks in. That explains a lot.

Bush never said he was going to be a risk taker. He didn't say it in politico code or otherwise.

He did say that he would "restore honor and integrity" to the white house though. Is that politico for "I'm going to trash the US's economy, let the terrorists hit our cities, alienate our allies, start a war based on lies and ineptitude, further enrich the wealthy, starve the poor and generally not be available when a natural disaster strikes?"

I think I'm starting to understand this politico code.

Precisely. And when Hillary claims she will support the military and try to create jobs from those that have gone overseas. That will mean she will look to pull the baby killing militant storm troopers (in her hippy baby booming lefto pinko vietnam biased against the military mind set) troops from Iraq here to the US.