"Nice job, Brownie."

[Jeff Corey]

The possibilities are endless. WTF did our unelected lieder mean by that?
Nice job on allowing all those people who dint vote for me to die.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The possibilities are endless. WTF did our unelected lieder mean by that?
Nice job on allowing all those people who dint vote for me to die.

The Gulf coast is chuck full of red states. They did vote for GW. Ok maybe not NewOrleans, but the rest of the area did.

[zakur]

Actually, he said "Heck of a job" (sometimes transcribed as "Heckuva job" to lend it more Texan flavor).

I agree, it's difficult to parse these words of praise in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but some have given it a shot:

Kate Hale, former Miami-Dade emergency management chief gets the snarky comment of the year award for this one: "He's done a hell of a job, because I'm not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm."

I also heard one Bush apologist make the outrageous claim that Bush was being sarcastic when he said it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The possibilities are endless. WTF did our unelected lieder mean by that? Two options come to mind. 1.) At the time he believed that he had done a good job. He could have dismissed early criticism as partisan and unfair. 2.) He could have thought the job not as bungled as it was and sought to spin the good.

Nice job on allowing all those people who dint vote for me to die. Insulting and presumptuous. This was a complex problem. There were many who screwed up most notably the local leaders who couldn't even enact their own emergency plan. The Feds screwed up. That is clear. I don't know the entire story. As it looks now Brown shouldn't have even had the job. I think Bush deserves criticism for that. But the notion that anyone "allowed" people to die is disgusting and unwarranted and certainly has no place on a skeptics forum.

[Manny]

Originally posted by RandFan
Two options come to mind. 1.) At the time he believed that he had done a good job. He could have dismissed early criticism as partisan and unfair. 2.) He could have thought the job not as bungled as it was and sought to spin the good.
3) As a manager he believes in public praise, private criticism. Even at a "gentleman's C" joint like Harvard you can't miss every class. ;)

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by RandFan
Two options come to mind. 1.) At the time he believed that he had done a good job. He could have dismissed early criticism as partisan and unfair. 2.) He could have thought the job not as bungled as it was and sought to spin the good.


The first option does not jibe with the accusation from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). AP story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/katrina_washington_35)

She related that she had urged Bush at the White House on Tuesday (September 6) to fire Michael Brown.

"He said 'Why would I do that?'" Pelosi said.

"'I said because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week.' And he said 'What didn't go right?'"

[Cain]

Originally posted by Ladewig
The first option does not jibe with the accusation from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). AP story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/katrina_washington_35)

Oh, that's just "he said, she lied" liberal media bullsh!t. What a bunch of Bush Bashers all of you are! I've heard enough about all those black people who got killed in the hurricane because of the government's ineptitude, so let's instead focus on the central issue at hand: permanetly abolishing the death tax.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ladewig
The first option does not jibe with the accusation from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). AP story (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/katrina_washington_35) I'm sorry, I don't get how it doesn't jibe?

ETA: The statement seems to support #1.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cain
Oh, that's just "he said, she lied" liberal media bullsh!t. What a bunch of Bush Bashers all of you are! I've heard enough about all those black people who got killed in the hurricane because of the government's ineptitude, so let's instead focus on the central issue at hand: permanetly abolishing the death tax. Straw man. Who made this argument? For the record I have been very critical of Bush et al. Brown should not have gotten the job. The Feds failed. But there is no evidence that this had anything to do with the color of anyone's skin. If you have evidence that policy or action was dictated based upon skin color then please cite it and I will be on your side calling Bush a racist and condemning such actions?

[Suddenly]

I'll retain the suspicion that if New Orleans was a swing district in a swing state a month before a presidential election the federal response would have been a mite bit better done than in the present circumstances... Be the residents white, black or candy striped... rich or poor, Christian or Satanist.....

Call me crazy.... Just one of my silly hunches...

[duggie]

But there is no evidence that this had anything to do with the color of anyone's skin. If you have evidence that policy or action was dictated based upon skin color then please cite it and I will be on your side calling Bush a racist and condemning such actions?

If 30,000 white cheerleaders were stranded in the same predicament do you seriously think they would have had to wait as long for rescue as the black single Moms did?

[Cain]

Originally posted by RandFan
Straw man.... If you have evidence...

Here we go again where you attempt to speak the lingua franca of Reason and fail miserably in application. Your posts are a homogenous blur of the same hollow words over and over and over again. "Straw man... show me your evidence... this is a Skeptic's forum!... I sometimes praise Clinton and often criticize Bush... blah blah blah."

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The possibilities are endless. WTF did our unelected lieder mean by that?
Nice job on allowing all those people who dint vote for me to die.

I heard that said by President Bush, who was elected to his second term back in November of 2003.

Who else said it that was unelected?

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Cain
Here we go again where you attempt to speak the lingua franca of Reason and fail miserably in application. Your posts are a homogenous blur of the same hollow words over and over and over again. "Straw man... show me your evidence... this is a Skeptic's forum!... I sometimes praise Clinton and often criticize Bush... blah blah blah."

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by zakur
Actually, he said "Heck of a job" (sometimes transcribed as "Heckuva job" to lend it more Texan flavor).

I agree, it's difficult to parse these words of praise in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but some have given it a shot:

Kate Hale, former Miami-Dade emergency management chief gets the snarky comment of the year award for this one: "He's done a hell of a job, because I'm not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm."

I also heard one Bush apologist make the outrageous claim that Bush was being sarcastic when he said it.

I have Bush, but when I heard that I assumed it was the typical business etiquette where you say nice things about the guy being fired no matter why he's being fired.

I've seen it happen in my line of work. A guy gets fired because he was caught falsifying w-2's to qualify people for loans they shouldn't qualify for, but he still gets the cake and ice cream send off with the nice speech from the boss about his "contribution" and how he's going to "seek other opportunities."

Why? Because someone thinks the proles might be fooled if you go through the motions. There might be someone yet who doesn't know about the scandal, and they want that someone to repeat the good version of the story, if they talk about it.

And there is always the possibility he won't go to jail for his crime and you don't want him to come back and sue you.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by RandFan
That is clear. I don't know the entire story. As it looks now Brown shouldn't have even had the job. I think Bush deserves criticism for that. But the notion that anyone "allowed" people to die is disgusting and unwarranted and certainly has no place on a skeptics forum.

Good point.

That's just pure irrational hatred. Disagree with the man's politics, as I do, but accusing him of murdering people just because they're not the demographic that voted for him is way over the top.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by duggie
If 30,000 white cheerleaders were stranded in the same predicament do you seriously think they would have had to wait as long for rescue as the black single Moms did?

If you make them all young and nubile that changes everything, but it still doesn't make it racial. p:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cain
Here we go again where you attempt to speak the lingua franca of Reason and fail miserably in application. Your posts are a homogenous blur of the same hollow words over and over and over again. "Straw man... show me your evidence... this is a Skeptic's forum!... I sometimes praise Clinton and often criticize Bush... blah blah blah." :rolleyes:

So, you can't defend your argument and instead you personalize your post and make your argument about me.

So I guess your evidence won't be forth coming? No rebuttal that your argument wasn't a straw man?

[Skeptic]

Oh, that's just "he said, she lied" liberal media bullsh!t.

Well, when the source is Ms. Pelosi in particular, it is; her view of Bush has about as much credibility as, say, Michael Moore's.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cain
Here we go again where you attempt to speak the lingua franca of Reason and fail miserably in application. Your posts are a homogenous blur of the same hollow words over and over and over again. "Straw man... show me your evidence... this is a Skeptic's forum!... I sometimes praise Clinton and often criticize Bush... blah blah blah."

What I've never understood is how such a misanthrope can be drawn to the study of philosophy?

[clk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/


The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.

How this could be—how the president of the United States could have even less "situational awareness," as they say in the military, than the average American about the worst natural disaster in a century—is one of the more perplexing and troubling chapters in a story that, despite moments of heroism and acts of great generosity, ranks as a national disgrace.


Is it really so much to ask that the President turn on CNN every once in a while when he is on vacation, and when a category 5 hurricane is making landfall near a major low lying city??

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
...The possibilities are endless. WTF did our unelected lieder mean by that?While there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Bush rose to office the first time under extremely dubious circumstances, he was, indeed, elected in 2004.Originally posted by clk
Is it really so much to ask that the President turn on CNN every once in a while when he is on vacation, and when a category 5 hurricane is making landfall near a major low lying city?? He had bicycles to ride and brush to clear, my friend.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by clk
Is it really so much to ask that the President turn on CNN every once in a while when he is on vacation, and when a category 5 hurricane is making landfall near a major low lying city?? That's a fair question though I'm not certain that he really needs to watch the news. I think his aides could accurately paint the picture for him. I watched the news those first few nights and I was not at all certain exactly how serious the situation was though I suspected it was pretty serious from the look of it. I'm not sure how much CNN would have told him that his aides were not telling him. Obviously for those who know the President failed in every way possible and knew that the president could do no right then this is proof of something.

Sadly the article really doesn't really tell us much but the perceptions of the author as it relates to Bush. He seems to try and answer that which is not yet known. What did Bush know and when did he know it. Further why did he respond the way he responded? Did Bush rely too heavily on bureaucrats like Chertoff and Brown? Did concerns of being seen as heavy handed play a part? Interesting that the author points out that "it will take months to sort out who is to blame." And then concludes that Bush's style produced a disaster within a disaster.

Odd that the author then glosses over the blunders of the Governor and the Mayor and paints them in a positive light. "Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a motherly but steely figure known by the nickname Queen Bee"

She and the Mayor failed to implement the emergency plan. The mayor turned down an offer from Amtrak to transport people out of the city. The buses were left to drown. The governor was running around like a chicken with her head cut off. It was their job to prepare for this eventuality. They failed.

"Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a motherly but steely figure known by the nickname Queen Bee"

Give me a f***** break. She blew it. She KNEW what was coming. She knew what was supposed to happen but we are going to wait months to criticize her. Why?

All she could do was plead for help from Bush who promptly went to bed. Yes, Bush f***** up. No question but let's not paint the governor and mayor in a good light while savaging Bush. Grow some balls Evan and report the truth. The WHOLE truth.

The article is scant on any real information. It's ham fisted and transparent. Hopefully this is not typical of the reporting that will come out in days ahead. I just want the truth. I want an unbiased report of what happened and let the chips fall where they may.

ETA: Going back over the article I noticed that I had not read the last page which I think does offer a bit more than the previous pages and I think is better at showing the failure of Bush to sieze control of what the Governor did not want to give up. But then that action was frought with problems in and of itself.

[Cain]

Originally posted by RandFan
:rolleyes:

So, you can't defend your argument and instead you personalize your post and make your argument about me.

So I guess your evidence won't be forth coming? No rebuttal that your argument wasn't a straw man?

You have not even understood what I said in the slightest. Instead you're just given to reciting more platitudes. I have more important things to do... like watch reruns of Big Brother: Sweden...

[duggie]

Randfan wrote:
I watched the news those first few nights and I was not at all certain exactly how serious the situation was though I suspected it was pretty serious from the look of it.

No s**t Sherlock! Three nights of mayhem and you were beginning to arrive at a suspicion.
You have encapsulated in one sentence the barking stupidity and paralysis of thought and action endemic to the administration you clumsily defend.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by RandFan
Two options come to mind. 1.) At the time he believed that he had done a good job. He could have dismissed early criticism as partisan and unfair. 2.) He could have thought the job not as bungled as it was and sought to spin the good.




Originally posted by Ladewig
The first option does not jibe with the accusation from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).



Originally posted by RandFan
I'm sorry, I don't get how it doesn't jibe?

ETA: The statement seems to support #1.

You're right.

If the quote is accurate, however, it is evidence that Bush was either very out of touch (it came on September 6) or has a pathological devotion to Reagan's "eleventh commandment:" thou shall not speak ill of any Republican (or both).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by clk
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/



Is it really so much to ask that the President turn on CNN every once in a while when he is on vacation, and when a category 5 hurricane is making landfall near a major low lying city??



Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a motherly but steely figure known by the nickname Queen Bee, knew that she needed help. But she wasn't quite sure what. At about 8 p.m., she spoke to Bush. "Mr. President," she said, "we need your help. We need everything you've got."

Bush, the governor later recalled, was reassuring. But the conversation was all a little vague. Blanco did not specifically ask for a massive intervention by the active-duty military. "She wouldn't know the 82nd Airborne from the Harlem Boys' Choir," said an official in the governor's office, who did not wish to be identified talking about his boss's conversations with the president. There are a number of steps Bush could have taken, short of a full-scale federal takeover, like ordering the military to take over the pitiful and (by now) largely broken emergency communications system throughout the region. But the president, who was in San Diego preparing to give a speech the next day on the war in Iraq, went to bed.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by duggie
If 30,000 white cheerleaders were stranded in the same predicament do you seriously think they would have had to wait as long for rescue as the black single Moms did?

Exactly right! I hate to agree; but it's obvious to me that there is a very clear "Natalee Holloway" bias going on in this country. Hell, 30,000 cheerleaders...white, black, yellow, or red and I'd have been down there with my Bass Tracker doing the rescue myself! ;)

That said, the Federal response is still second eschelon...the first response is at state level. Remember the national guard troops not letting the Red Cross into NO?? Those were controlled by the Governor of Louisianna....not any Federal entity.

-z

[zakur]

Originally posted by zakur
I also heard one Bush apologist make the outrageous claim that Bush was being sarcastic when he said it. I was just thinking that perhaps this tactic should be known as the "Coulter Defense."

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

There are a number of steps Bush could have taken, short of a full-scale federal takeover, like ordering the military to take over the pitiful and (by now) largely broken emergency communications system throughout the region


Not without the state requesting it, or him invoking the insurrection act.

This situation is a prime example of locals officals dropping the ball from square one.

[headscratcher4]

the Federal response is still second eschelon...

At least when you are accused of significant ineptitude...can there be any doubt that if this was well executed and FEMA and Homeland Security hitting all pistons, that the chest thumping for the great management skills of the Administration would have already begun?

BTW...this is true for all Administrations. James Lee Witt, a very competent Administrator, didn't have to face Katrina. I suspect, at the core, his execution and delivery would have been better, but there would still, likely be massive problems -- if I am being fair about it, which I hate.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cain
You have not even understood what I said in the slightest. Instead you're just given to reciting more platitudes. I have more important things to do... like watch reruns of Big Brother: Sweden... So that's a no on the argument then? All you can muster is rhetoric and then declare that I don't understand.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by duggie
No s**t Sherlock! Three nights of mayhem and you were beginning to arrive at a suspicion.
You have encapsulated in one sentence the barking stupidity and paralysis of thought and action endemic to the administration you clumsily defend. How have I defended it? I've been damn critical of the administration. Just what do you think "Yes, Bush f***** up." means? I don't buy the conclusions that this guy does and I don't buy yours. And how does my sentence encapsulate anything about the Bush administration? Regardless of what the Bush administration or even the local government did or didn't do there would have been very serious problems. The city was flooded and many people refused to leave. The picture was not clear at first though certainly there were reasons to be concerned. So how does that encapsulate anything? Again, if you lack skepticism and critical thought and don't like Bush then there is only one conclusion that you are likely to come to. It was all Bush's fault.

Why not simply find the truth and hold everyone responsible who failed at fault?

So don't tell me what I clumsily defend or don't. I have been as harsh on Bush as anyone.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
BTW...this is true for all Administrations. James Lee Witt, a very competent Administrator, didn't have to face Katrina. I suspect, at the core, his execution and delivery would have been better, but there would still, likely be massive problems -- if I am being fair about it, which I hate. Understood. You value reason. When it comes to politics some people's critical thinking turns to mush. Politically this is a great opportunity to acheive an agenda. Why screw it up with reason. Focusing on anything other than Bush is an idiot and it is all his fault is counter to that agenda. Note how many folks won't even acknowledge that the Mayor and the Governer had any responsibility whatsoever. Now if they had been Republican you can damn sure bet that they would be mentioned. And I'm accused of defending Bush? I'll say it again for those who refuse to acknowledge that I hold this position, Bush f***** up! Pure and simple.

[clk]

Originally posted by RandFan
That's a fair question though I'm not certain that he really needs to watch the news. I think his aides could accurately paint the picture for him. I watched the news those first few nights and I was not at all certain exactly how serious the situation was though I suspected it was pretty serious from the look of it. I'm not sure how much CNN would have told him that his aides were not telling him. Obviously for those who know the President failed in every way possible and knew that the president could do no right then this is proof of something.


No, I think in some cases, you HAVE to watch television to see just how horrendous the situation is. Example: 9/11. If his aides tell him that a plane has hit the WTC, that does not begin to describe how bad the situation really is. Some things you have to see for yourself, and nothing else will cut it.

Some people may ask, "what do you expect Bush to do?". Well, how about something along these lines:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287435/
In September 1965, a massive hurricane hit New Orleans. By the next day the president—a Texan in a time of war—was in the city, visiting a shelter. With no electricity in the darkness there, Lyndon Baines Johnson held a flashlight to his face and proclaimed, "This is the president of the United States and I'm here to help you!"

http://www.whitehousetapes.org/exhibits/betsy/
On the evening of September 9, 1965, Hurricane Betsy came ashore near Grand Isle, Louisiana as a Category 4 storm, with the National Weather Service reporting wind gusts near 160 mph. As the storm tracked inland, the city of New Orleans was hit with 110 mph winds, a storm surge around 10 feet, and heavy rain. Betsy devastated low-lying areas on the eastern side of the city and eventually led to the expansion of an already impressive levee system to protect a city that lay mostly below sea-level. After the storm passed, Louisiana Senator Russell Long, the son of the legendary Senator and Governor Huey Long, called President Johnson to get the President to tour the devastated areas. In Long’s unique style, he let the LBJ know that the Betsy had severely damaged his own home and had nearly killed his family.

LBJ arrived in New Orleans five hours after talking to Senator Long. He was shocked by the suffering and in particular by thirst of survivors in one shelter. He immediately announced that the “red tape be cut,� and he took personal control of operations, which he continued—according to the Washington Post—“day and night.�

[RandFan]

Originally posted by clk
Some people may ask, "what do you expect Bush to do?". I for one certainly expected more.

[clk]

Originally posted by RandFan
I for one certainly expected more.

I will say, for the record, that the governor and mayor also f*cked up badly. I think it's bullsh*t that the mayor asked the President for 'every Greyhound bus' in the country a few days after the storm, when the mayor had access to hundreds of school buses that were left unused. I think a bi-partisan, independent commission should be set up to investigate what went wrong and to see what the mayor, the governor, and the president could have done to respond adequately.

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by clk
I will say, for the record, that the governor and mayor also f*cked up badly. I think it's bullsh*t that the mayor asked the President for 'every Greyhound bus' in the country a few days after the storm

The response he finally came up with was something along the lines of "I can't get workers to show up on sunny days, let alone in front of a hurricane".

This was later echoed by a US Senator. I'll add links once I can scrounge themup, if something shiny doesn't catch my attention first.

[King of the Americas]

...following the storm, were NON-EXISTANT in regards to his 'response' to the devastation.

The day after 9-11, he stood upon the rubble, with loudspeak in hand, reassuring the nation, the rescue workers, and those who'd lost loved ones that help was there and that he HEARD the crys of those in need.

How long did it take for him to hit ground zero- I.e. New Orleans & Biloxi???

He flew OVER the region a day after the fact, and he only just this weekend managed to find his way to New Orleans.

Sure the local and state government had their d*cks in their arses, but a major U.S. city was all but completely destroyed. The response of this President was minimal, if that...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ShowMe
Not without the state requesting it, or him invoking the insurrection act.

This situation is a prime example of locals officals dropping the ball from square one.

Help was requested the moment it was certain the hurricane would would hit and it would be bad. I don't believe troops were requested at that time, but there are many resources available apart from troops. Just a decent emergency communications system would have done wonders.

[Kopji]

It seems to have been more like one of those famous mafia kisses.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by duggie
If 30,000 white cheerleaders were stranded in the same predicament ...(snip)

OH MY GOD.
THIS HAS TO BE THE BEST IDEA FOR A REALITY TV SHOW EVER!!!

[WildCat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The day after 9-11, he stood upon the rubble, with loudspeak in hand, reassuring the nation, the rescue workers, and those who'd lost loved ones that help was there and that he HEARD the crys of those in need.

The "bullhorn speech" was on 9/14, 3 days later.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by duggie
If 30,000 white cheerleaders were stranded in the same predicament do you seriously think they would have had to wait as long for rescue as the black single Moms did? 30,000 cheerleaders would be rescued immediately no matter WHAT color they were.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I heard that said by President Bush, who was elected to his second term back in November of 2003.

Who else said it that was unelected? 2003?

[King of the Americas]

My bad. I will conceed your fact.

However, I will add that the President WAS at one ground zero the day after the planes struck.

On September 12th, the President took guilded tour of the "Pentagon" with the Sec. of Def.

I didn't think you were nitpicking, but rather correcting the inaccuracy of my fact. Although, even given your correction, I find the President's immediate actions in regards to Katrina...well 'lacking' to say the least.