State of the Union Address

[KCConservative]

Yes, of course it's the Dem's fault - because of our huge ties to big oil companies and our leaders' background in the big oil business. :rofl

I love how you guys resent Bush and Cheney making money in the private sector before entering politics. Jealousy is a powerful thing.

 

[ludahai]

5/4, no one really was a majority, but point taken.

Sounds very simplar to todays SCOTUS confirmation process, full of partisan bickering, not to mention a select few Justices (Scalia) that really are out of thier mind. OH well, fortunately the SCOTUS always rights itself some how.

Well, technically the five IS a majority, merely a slight one.

Still, what FDR tried to do to pack the court was a pure political power play (far more than anything President Bush has been accused of doing).

 

[jfuh]

I love how you guys resent Bush and Cheney making money in the private sector before entering politics. Jealousy is a powerful thing.

Completely irrelevant argument with regards to the topic of the thread.

 

[jfuh]

Still, what FDR tried to do to pack the court was a pure political power play (far more than anything President Bush has been accused of doing).

Still the similarities are striking.

 

[MSgt]

Oopsie, don't you just feel had now? I wonder if Bush felt a little heat from the Saudis???

Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil importsBy Kevin G. HallKnight Ridder NewspapersWASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

<snip>


http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwas...38.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

The statement was made and the "retraction" was expected. I had no doubts and I was expecting that the Middle East was going to have a few things to say and we would have to be diplomatic, after all, we still need their oil at the present.

Haven't you learned how to read between the lines yet? The President can claim what he wants, but the fact of the matter is that the statement was presented and there will be a new President in a few years and then another and another and another. I haven't been "had" yet, of course, I'm not the one that hangs on every word and newspaper article. I base my intellect from my studies. The reason we continue to do business with the Sauds is because of our oil. Until we are free of them, diplomacy will always be at the forefront. It always has been. Diplomacy rarely reveals everything that is going on.

 

[ludahai]

Still the similarities are striking.

NOT! FDR tried to get MORE members added to SCOTUS because they were ruling portions of his New Deal unconstitutional. He was tampering with the traditional number of nine justices with a measure that could have increased the number of justices to as high as 13 or 14! He was doing this for solely political purposes. Explain how this is comparable to President Bush replacing members as they pass away or retire as it has been done for two centuries!

 

[tecoyah]

I love how you guys resent Bush and Cheney making money in the private sector before entering politics. Jealousy is a powerful thing.

Actually....Bush LOST alot of money...Cheney is still making his.

Dont confuse Disgust....with Jealousy

 

[KCConservative]

Actually....Bush LOST alot of money...Cheney is still making his.

Dont confuse Disgust....with Jealousy

What is disgusting? Should they have come straight from the womb and into the White House? Should they have never been allowed to have a job before politics? Should I be disgusted that you earn a living too? Bush made and lost money over the years, so did Cheney. All businessmen do. Those who resent it are jealous and are looking for anything to hate about them.

 

[tecoyah]

What is disgusting? Should they have come straight from the womb and into the White House? Should they have never been allowed to have a job before politics? Should I be disgusted that you earn a living too? Bush made and lost money over the years, so did Cheney. All businessmen do. Those who resent it are jealous and are looking for anything to hate about them.

Actually.....No. Many simply see a correlation between an Oil man in the white house....and record profits within the oil industry. Some even go so far as to reasearch the cumulative changes in Unted States policy toward corporate Taxation, and perhaps...look at a larger field than those who blindly follow the agenda fed to them. Jealous....hardly, but the blatant disregard for the welfare of most of the country is...well....disgusting.

 

[ludahai]

Actually.....No. Many simply see a correlation between an Oil man in the white house....and record profits within the oil industry. Some even go so far as to reasearch the cumulative changes in Unted States policy toward corporate Taxation, and perhaps...look at a larger field than those who blindly follow the agenda fed to them. Jealous....hardly, but the blatant disregard for the welfare of most of the country is...well....disgusting.

And if people don't understand the REAL reason for those profits and that they have nothing to do with President Bush, I believe you can lay the blame at the misinformation campaign of the left and the media. A combination of instability in a large number of major oil producing nations over the past two years (Nigeria, Iran, Ecuador, Venezuela, and a number of others) are a major reason. Don't forget the impact of Katrina on U.S. refining capacity that sent a major spike in gas prices. Don't forget the increase in demand from China, India, and other rapidly emerging economies. Of course, the left doesn't want to talk about the REALITIES of the oil market. They only want to create their fictions to falsely denigrate the PResident. There are legitimate Constitutional issues to have concerns with him on, but I doubt liberals would actually like to restore the sanctity of the constitution either.

 

[jfuh]

And if people don't understand the REAL reason for those profits and that they have nothing to do with President Bush, I believe you can lay the blame at the misinformation campaign of the left and the media.

There is also undeniable evidence that big oils solidly support the gop and this administrations policies. As well as major contribution through finances in election donations. If you are to use partisan rhetoric as an argument point then the same argument can be made from left wing rhetoric.
Unless you can provide un-biased source for such information that the media is throwing out such lies and the "REAL" reason, this argument is completely invalid.

A combination of instability in a large number of major oil producing nations over the past two years (Nigeria, Iran, Ecuador, Venezuela, and a number of others) are a major reason. Don't forget the impact of Katrina on U.S. refining capacity that sent a major spike in gas prices.

Which happened to correspond with major oil refinaries shutting down just at the time of Katrina for "maintainance".
Keep in mind the main source of oil import for the US is Canada. Confrontation or instability in those regions for two YEARS is hardly evidence to the least degree of the sudden surge and overwhelmin net profit gained by Exxon this last year.

Don't forget the increase in demand from China, India, and other rapidly emerging economies. Of course, the left doesn't want to talk about the REALITIES of the oil market. They only want to create their fictions to falsely denigrate the PResident. There are legitimate Constitutional issues to have concerns with him on, but I doubt liberals would actually like to restore the sanctity of the constitution either.

More partisan arguments? Again, completely flawed because same kind of extreemism can be argued against the right. ie, all right wing conservatives are puppets of the oil companies.
Again, increased demand from surging developing nations does not then answer as to the incredulous net profit earned by select US oil companies.

 

[ludahai]

There is also undeniable evidence that big oils solidly support the gop and this administrations policies. As well as major contribution through finances in election donations. If you are to use partisan rhetoric as an argument point then the same argument can be made from left wing rhetoric.
Unless you can provide un-biased source for such information that the media is throwing out such lies and the "REAL" reason, this argument is completely invalid.

Sure, because the GOP supports the free market. Liberals also get donations from groups because they typically support interests that they agree with. Why should oil companies not be allowed to donate to the party that agrees with them ideologically but leftist groups can?

Which happened to correspond with major oil refinaries shutting down just at the time of Katrina for "maintainance".

Source?

Keep in mind the main source of oil import for the US is Canada. Confrontation or instability in those regions for two YEARS is hardly evidence to the least degree of the sudden surge and overwhelmin net profit gained by Exxon this last year.

Canada is the largest source, but it falls well short of half. Remember, I said that was PART of the reason. Another part is the surge in global demand! Bush doesn't set oil prices. Oil companies don't set oil prices. The FREE MARKET sets oil prices.

More partisan arguments? Again, completely flawed because same kind of extreemism can be argued against the right. ie, all right wing conservatives are puppets of the oil companies.
Again, increased demand from surging developing nations does not then answer as to the incredulous net profit earned by select US oil companies.

Yes it does, because it points to demand which results in an elevated price on world markets. Sure, the oil companies don't set the prices on the NYME, BUT they DO benefit from the higher prices, just as government owned oil companies in oil exporting countries do - and they have been enjoying booming profits as well.

 

[tecoyah]

And if people don't understand the REAL reason for those profits and that they have nothing to do with President Bush, I believe you can lay the blame at the misinformation campaign of the left and the media. A combination of instability in a large number of major oil producing nations over the past two years (Nigeria, Iran, Ecuador, Venezuela, and a number of others) are a major reason. Don't forget the impact of Katrina on U.S. refining capacity that sent a major spike in gas prices. Don't forget the increase in demand from China, India, and other rapidly emerging economies. Of course, the left doesn't want to talk about the REALITIES of the oil market. They only want to create their fictions to falsely denigrate the PResident. There are legitimate Constitutional issues to have concerns with him on, but I doubt liberals would actually like to restore the sanctity of the constitution either.

First...I would Like you to read this definition:

cor·re·la·tion Audio pronunciation of "correlation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kôr-lshn, kr-)
n.

1. A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities: a correlation between drug abuse and crime.
2. Statistics. The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision.
3. An act of correlating or the condition of being correlated.

Second, I would assume by the tone of your reply you consider me a liberal (and likely anyone who might hold an opinion other than yours)
, well...ok then, label me whatever you want....other than likeminded.

Third, there is far too much Data to post so...I will simply place a paragraph....and then some links for you to ignore.

" The House this week will consider $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry at a time when some of those companies are enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices.

The vast majority of the tax breaks would benefit companies that produce and supply traditional forms of energy, with a large portion going to the oil and natural gas sector. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63958-2005Apr18.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/22/MNG45CDDBS1.DTL

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Oil_Tax_Breaks.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/nyregion/03fuels.html

 

[ludahai]

First...I would Like you to read this definition:

" The House this week will consider $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry at a time when some of those companies are enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices.

The vast majority of the tax breaks would benefit companies that produce and supply traditional forms of energy, with a large portion going to the oil and natural gas sector. "

And if you had read the rest of the article, you would know that it is AT ODDS with President Bush's plan.

 

[HighSpeed]

Not once did GW mention anything about the problem here at home, Hurricane Katrina victims. Maybe he forgot about the problem?

 

[MSgt]

Not once did GW mention anything about the problem here at home, Hurricane Katrina victims. Maybe he forgot about the problem?

Yeah, that's it. "He forgot.":roll:

What's to speak about? The problem is well in hand. The next best thing would be for the Mayor to lose in the next election. End of story.

 

[Middleground]

The statement was made and the "retraction" was expected. I had no doubts and I was expecting that the Middle East was going to have a few things to say and we would have to be diplomatic, after all, we still need their oil at the present.

Haven't you learned how to read between the lines yet? The President can claim what he wants, but the fact of the matter is that the statement was presented and there will be a new President in a few years and then another and another and another. I haven't been "had" yet, of course, I'm not the one that hangs on every word and newspaper article. I base my intellect from my studies. The reason we continue to do business with the Sauds is because of our oil. Until we are free of them, diplomacy will always be at the forefront. It always has been. Diplomacy rarely reveals everything that is going on.

LOL, okay, whatever you say, GySgt. Did you casually forget what you'd writter a day before? Based-on your previous posts, I would say that you had NO CLUE that the Prez was going to retract his statement. Based-on what YOU wrote, I would of though that you would be UPSET that your Prez let you down and did not stand his ground. And, LOL, it only took one day! Are you really that partisan? Are you really that blind that the Prez walks on water for you?

Let me give you a refresher...

Because of our industrustries, its going to take time, but what is significant is that no matter what President is in office when we finally achieve a mostly oil free civilization, it had to be voiced and initiated somewhere. Once it was publicly stated, there is no turning back.

LOL! It only too one day to turn back!!!!!!!!! :2rofll:
I'm afraid your Prez made you look like a fool.

The point, Einstein, is that until our government and a President publicly identified this, it did not matter who was screaming it. It isn't a Republican thing. It's the leader of America that is the point. This could have easily been President Clinton saying this if he chose to do so. Way to fall into the partisan rut that some of these "posters" have been typing about.

So I guess we're still at ZERO when it comes to a President willing to talk about it, eh? Notice how I refrained from calling you Einstein.

For example...the military, the CIA, and the Middle Eastern social and terrorism experts have been warning our government about the rise of Radical Islam and specific individuals within this disease for two decades. Until 9/11 happened, our government didn't want to face it, much less acknowledge it. It's always easier to pretend that all is well, when you lead a civilization full of naive people than to face the problems while dealing with your own ignorant citizens.

Annnnnnddddd... drum roll...it's still the case!

BTW, I do agree with what you said here.

Yes, but once again, you miss the point. The point is that this President publicly identified the fact that we receive our oil from unstable regions and countries. He went on to point out the Middle East and that we need to get away from it. This was significant, because in the past, our government has always refrained from speaking out against the Middle East as a problem, because of our oil needs. This is also significant, because where ever we get our oil, we have had to create controversy for ourselves with those host nation for our oil stability. Now that the leader of the free world has finally said it....there's no turning back.

But, of course, you just KNEW that he was going to retract, eh? LOL

I'm afraid this administration has blinded your ability to think for yourself. There's no mention -- ANYWHERE -- that you know a retraction was coming. In fact, you gushed -- over and over again -- about how SIGNIFICANT it was that a Prez finally had the balls to speak up about it.

I, for one, am surprised that you are okay with looking like a fool. Hook, line and sinker.

Our government can no longer withdraw into the appeasing - turn the other way - comfortable blindess it has always been in. Radical Islam has grown and spread as we are pointed out as their scapegoat by their Mullahs and elite, because of our "addiction" to oil.

Sure you can. Nothing has changed.

Other juicy tidbits:

This is where it needed to start and it needed to be stated by a President publicly. Do you get it now?

Aside from any personal Presidential gain, this was a big step for our government.

Likewise, Until President Bush said what he said last night, our government was still willing to look the other way with regards to our ties to oil, unstable regions (Middle East), and Islamic Radicalism. Hopefully this changes that, because until the powers that be, stop and focus on it, it is going to go on.

Make no mistake, for a U.S. President to finally speak of the Middle East and our need to get away from their oil, it is a great accomplishment.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I love how you guys resent Bush and Cheney making money in the private sector before entering politics. Jealousy is a powerful thing.

Bush didn't make money, he bankrupted the companies he worked for just like he's now bankrupting our nation.

If you do what you've always done you'll get what you've always got!

 

[26 X World Champs]

LOL, okay, whatever you say, GySgt. Did you casually forget what you'd writter a day before? Based-on your previous posts, I would say that you had NO CLUE that the Prez was going to retract his statement. Based-on what YOU wrote, I would of though that you would be UPSET that your Prez let you down and did not stand his ground. And, LOL, it only took one day! Are you really that partisan? Are you really that blind that the Prez walks on water for you?

Let me give you a refresher...

You make quite a strong debating argument, well done! I think using someone's own posts to show their errors is the best methodology out there.

Great job Middleground! Now let's see the spin job we get in reply...if GySgt replies at all?

 

[MSgt]

LOL, okay, whatever you say, GySgt. Did you casually forget what you'd writter a day before? Based-on your previous posts, I would say that you had NO CLUE that the Prez was going to retract his statement. Based-on what YOU wrote, I would of though that you would be UPSET that your Prez let you down and did not stand his ground. And, LOL, it only took one day! Are you really that partisan? Are you really that blind that the Prez walks on water for you?

Let me give you a refresher...

LOL! It only too one day to turn back!!!!!!!!! :2rofll:
I'm afraid your Prez made you look like a fool.

I fail to see what you are bitching about. I need no refresher, but I appreciate your simplistic behavior. It reminds me of who I am dealing with. There are plenty individuals who are slaves to their political masters on this site. You are barking in the wrong direction. You are the consistent basher. The fact that it took one day for the backlash of making such a profound public statement proves what it meant. He made the statement publicly yet diplomacy must still resume. Only a fool would believe that our oil ties to the Middle East would end immediately and only a fool would believe that any President would not have to deal with our current slavery to the Sauds. Hence, the statement that "we need to get our oil interests out of the Middle East." Perhaps you believe that because the President resumed diplomacy for our present needs that the rest of the government and our country has turned its back on ethanol or hydroelectrics? I believe you are making yourself to look like a fool.

So I guess we're still at ZERO when it comes to a President willing to talk about it, eh? Notice how I refrained from calling you Einstein.

Zero? He made the public statement. What were you expecting...ethanol tomorrow....Einstein? We are nowhere near zero. Zero is what we were at with every President before this one. Now, even the Middle East knows that our government is sick of setting aside America's morals and values for our oil from these Lords of Terror.

Annnnnnddddd... drum roll...it's still the case!

BTW, I do agree with what you said here.

Hardly. If it were still the case, the Tali Ban would still be in charge in Afghanistan. Al-Queda would still be a threat. Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq. Marines (beside Germans) wouldn't be in Ethiopia and Chad training militants to fight Radical Islam. Marines wouldn't be spying on Radical camps in Bosnia. Indonesia would still be afraid of antagonizing their Radical element. And if it still were the case, the CIA and the military would still be screaming to deaf ears about this failing civilization we face that continues to produce terrorists. Careful with those drum rolls - you are looking foolish again.

But, of course, you just KNEW that he was going to retract, eh? LOL

I'm afraid this administration has blinded your ability to think for yourself. There's no mention -- ANYWHERE -- that you know a retraction was coming. In fact, you gushed -- over and over again -- about how SIGNIFICANT it was that a Prez finally had the balls to speak up about it.

I, for one, am surprised that you are okay with looking like a fool. Hook, line and sinker.

Were you surprised? Did you expect such a public statement to be made with no backlash? I wasn't. It was significant. The only fool here is the one that is blinded by hatred and has the need to bash any word that comes from his mouth. If you were a student of the Middle East, terrorism, Radical Islam, and our foreign policy, you would appreciate the significance. Instead you are simply one more American that hangs off of newspaper articles and political verbiage and is completely naive to what is going on out there. Do yourself a favor, study for yourself instead of waiting for it to be fed to you, because what is fed to you is hardly the full story. Again...the fool here is you. Please continue, it's entertaining.

Sure you can. Nothing has changed.

No change from oil to ethanol? Surely a few days is plenty of time for such a quick and easy change.:roll: For someone that likes to throw the word "fool" around, you certainly are proving a case for yourself. You must be one of those that disagree with this "War on Terror" because some terrorists are still alive. Immediate favorable results are for fools without vision. You wear the coat well.

Other juicy tidbits:

Well, it appears that the personal problem here belongs to "Middleground." Did I embarrass you in the past so much that you feel the need to attempt to embarrass me here? There is no embarrassment. The statement was made. The Sauds didn't like the reality of the truth. The President retracted for the sake of diplomacy and for current oil needs. Perhaps you think he should not have said it? Perhaps you think we should just continue the status quo you bitch about so often? Perhaps you think he should not have practiced diplomacy and watched the oil prices rise and then you could bitch some more about that?

The only Partisan victim here is you. The truth is that is doesn't matter what Bush does, you will complain. Hardly "middleground." Bush has made mistakes. The problem with people like you is that these legit screw ups aren't good enough to complain about. You must find more and it all merely goes back to what you think about Iraq, nothing more - and you type of "blindness?"

 

[MSgt]

You make quite a strong debating argument, well done! I think using someone's own posts to show their errors is the best methodology out there.

Great job Middleground! Now let's see the spin job we get in reply...if GySgt replies at all?

How abrasive. I would have expected more from you. I don't spin. I paint the reality that interferes with other people's fantasies.

 

[26 X World Champs]

How abrasive. I would have expected more from you. I don't spin. I paint the reality that interferes with other people's fantasies.

Some relvant facts re the price of oil? Under Republicans the price spikes but under Democrats the prices dip way down low? How come? Is it because the GOP have their pockets filled with black gold?

Under Carter the price of oil per barrel fluctuated between $15 and $20 per barrel (approximately).

Then, under Reagan it fluctuated from $20 up to $38.

Bush I? Between $18 & $23.

Clinton? $11 up to $27 in 2000.

The Bush Crime Family this century? $23 in early 2001 to over $70 in 2006.

Coincidence? You decide!

 

[hipsterdufus]

Yeah, that's it. "He forgot.":roll:

What's to speak about? The problem is well in hand. The next best thing would be for the Mayor to lose in the next election. End of story.

The buck stops with the mayor? Sorry - that dog doesn't hunt. There is enough failure to go around on how this disaster continues to be mis-handled, and not just in N.O.

To me the biggest issue is that Katrina continues to display our vast unpreparedness for the next terrorist attack on our shores four plus years after 9/11. I think that's why Bush's speech writers didn't bring it up.

 

[MSgt]

Some relvant facts re the price of oil? Under Republicans the price spikes but under Democrats the prices dip way down low? How come? Is it because the GOP have their pockets filled with black gold?

Under Carter the price of oil per barrel fluctuated between $15 and $20 per barrel (approximately).

Then, under Reagan it fluctuated from $20 up to $38.

Bush I? Between $18 & $23.

Clinton? $11 up to $27 in 2000.

The Bush Crime Family this century? $23 in early 2001 to over $70 in 2006.

Coincidence? You decide!

Foolish. I guess some people believe that one man controls all of the oil aspects globally.:roll: This smacks of desperation and the partisan slavery I was accused of. I'll play your game.

Gee, so comparing oil issues between two selected Presidents is different from comparing terrorist attacks between two different Presidents? Let's try it.....

Under Clinton, American military was constantly under attack with little to no defense. Our military readiness was in a horrible state and declining. Under Bush, terrorism has been on the run and and the military has gone through leaps and bounds with regards to incentives, equipment and moral.

Under Republicans the care of troop strengths have soared, but under Democrats the stregnths are way down low? How come? Is it because the GOP have their pockets filled with poll results and appeasements to public rather leadership?

Coincidence? You decide!

Same tactic, yet you're quick to defend Clinton aren't you?

 

[MSgt]

The buck stops with the mayor? Sorry - that dog doesn't hunt. There is enough failure to go around on how this disaster continues to be mis-handled, and not just in N.O.

To me the biggest issue is that Katrina continues to display our vast unpreparedness for the next terrorist attack on our shores four plus years after 9/11. I think that's why Bush's speech writers didn't bring it up.

Who said the buck stops at the mayor? It merely started there. I also merely mentioned the next progressive step for that lemming city.

Allow me to clue you in on something. There have been leaps and bounds of improvements since Katrina. With regards to terrorism defense, Katrina was the best thing for us. It showed us how our "civil liberties" and beaurocratic complications that are in place to protect American people from government tyranny hindered our reaction. I happen to have been involved with helping to create the reactionary reports for the SECDEF for the Marine Corps. It was very enlightening how the ball was dropped at all levels. Your military and government had done all of the leg work to seek improvements in our system that would allow quicker responses.

Our reaction time for a terrorist attack last year would have ben quicker than it was for a natural disaster. The Marine Corps alone has an entire unit based at Quantico, Newport News, and Norfolk that exists for the sole purpose of terrorism response on our soil. They were ready to go last year. One of the confusions with this unit and plenty of others that have been created since 9/11 was what to do, because Katrina was not an act of terrorism. It would have done our country no good for these type units board a plane to New Orleans and preoccupy themselves while a terrorist attack occurred in another part of the country.

There have been several policy letters and SOPs distributed throughout the military, CIA, FBI, FEMA, and local police officials that set many of the prior concerns at ease. The military cannot role through an American town without the permission of everybody within the chain. This was our biggest problem. FEMA needed what it could not get. It was not as simple as picking up a phone and telling the Marine Corps or Army to send some troops and gear. One....they need to know what gear they need, two.....they need to know hoe to deploy it once they get it, and three....they need to know who assumes command at any given time during the evolution. Keep in mind, we are talking about a national government, state governments, city governments, military officials, CIA and FBI officials, local law enforcements, and little old FEMA trying to pull it all together while adhering to civil laws and "rights." This has been addressed at all levels since Katrina.

As far as our nations defense against terrorism through offensive action....

"This irregular warfare is here to stay. If we don't start to go that way, where the force is more joint and more capable across the spectrum, that's not a good thing."

The Marine Corps Special Operations Command, or MARSOC, will formally stand up its headquarters Feb. 24 at Camp Lejeune, N.C. In addition to the headquarters, Camp Lejeune will be home to the Marine Special Operations Support Group, several foreign military training units, a Marine special operations battalion, and the Marine Special Operations School, Hejlik said. Another Marine special operations battalion will be stationed at Camp Pendleton, Calif., he said.

Over the next five years, MARSOC will grow to an end strength of 2,600 people, Hejlik said. This will include 24 foreign military training units that will deploy worldwide in support of U.S. Special Operations Command and the various combatant commanders, he said. MARSOC already has three FMTUs that will deploy in 2006 and 2007, he said.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2006/20060126_4019.html

So you see, much has gone on since Katrina and just because you didn't hear about it on TV doesn't mean that nothing has been done. The end all be all of human existence is not fed to you through one television speech.