• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Today's examples of liberal media bias 8-31-05

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
For Wednesday, 8-31-05

1. CNN's Cafferty Takes Shot at Bush's "Vacation" After Hurricane

In the 5pm EDT half hour Tuesday of CNN's The Situation Room, Jack Cafferty used the hurricane as an excuse to trash President Bush for being on vacation, as if the location of Bush, who already authorized federal action, has any impact on that federal response to the devastation. Cafferty asked host Wolf Blitzer: "Where's President Bush? Is he still on vacation?" Blitzer answered that "he's cut short his vacation. He's coming back to Washington tomorrow." Cafferty snidely contended: "Well, that would be a good idea. He was out in San Diego, I think, at a Naval air station giving a speech on Japan and the war in Iraq today. Based on his approval rating in the latest polls, my guess is getting back to work might not be a terrible idea."



2. Poll Showing Sheehan's Lack of Impact Buried by ABC and WashPost

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll found that an overwhelming 89 percent maintained Cindy Sheehan's protests have had no effect on their view of the Iraq war, with the remaining respondents split evenly between saying her efforts made them more or less likely to support the war, but you'd be hard know it since, in part thanks to hurricane coverage, ABC's World News Tonight didn't report anything on the poll Monday or Tuesday night while Good Morning America squeezed in a short item Tuesday morning. Wednesday's Washington Post didn't get to the Sheehan finding until the next to last (24th) paragraph of a story headlined, "President's Poll Rating Falls to a New Low: In Post-ABC Survey, 53 Percent of Respondents Say They Disapprove of Bush."



3. Reporters Blame Global Warming for Katrina, Not Even NYT Buys It

Some in the media have blamed the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina on global warming. NBC's Robert Bazell warned on Monday's NBC Nightly News, in a story carried repeatedly on MSNBC, that "many scientists say we can expect such storms more often as global warming increases sea temperatures around the world." In a Monday posting on Time.com. Jeffrey Kluger forwarded that "to hear a lot of people tell it, we have only ourselves -- and our global-warming ways -- to blame." Kluger conceded that "hurricanes were around a long, long time before human beings began chopping down rainforests and fouling the atmosphere," but he concluded that in the future global warming "could make even Katrina look mild." Former Washington Post and Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan, in a Tuesday Boston Globe op-ed, charged: "The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming." In contrast, the New York Times remarkably reported Tuesday: "Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming. But that is not the case, scientists say."

Courtesy, MRC
 
Last edited:

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aquapub said:
For Wednesday, 8-31-05

1. CNN's Cafferty Takes Shot at Bush's "Vacation" After Hurricane

In the 5pm EDT half hour Tuesday of CNN's The Situation Room, Jack Cafferty used the hurricane as an excuse to trash President Bush for being on vacation, as if the location of Bush, who already authorized federal action, has any impact on that federal response to the devastation. Cafferty asked host Wolf Blitzer: "Where's President Bush? Is he still on vacation?" Blitzer answered that "he's cut short his vacation. He's coming back to Washington tomorrow." Cafferty snidely contended: "Well, that would be a good idea. He was out in San Diego, I think, at a Naval air station giving a speech on Japan and the war in Iraq today. Based on his approval rating in the latest polls, my guess is getting back to work might not be a terrible idea."



2. Poll Showing Sheehan's Lack of Impact Buried by ABC and WashPost

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll found that an overwhelming 89 percent maintained Cindy Sheehan's protests have had no effect on their view of the Iraq war, with the remaining respondents split evenly between saying her efforts made them more or less likely to support the war, but you'd be hard know it since, in part thanks to hurricane coverage, ABC's World News Tonight didn't report anything on the poll Monday or Tuesday night while Good Morning America squeezed in a short item Tuesday morning. Wednesday's Washington Post didn't get to the Sheehan finding until the next to last (24th) paragraph of a story headlined, "President's Poll Rating Falls to a New Low: In Post-ABC Survey, 53 Percent of Respondents Say They Disapprove of Bush."



3. Reporters Blame Global Warming for Katrina, Not Even NYT Buys It

Some in the media have blamed the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina on global warming. NBC's Robert Bazell warned on Monday's NBC Nightly News, in a story carried repeatedly on MSNBC, that "many scientists say we can expect such storms more often as global warming increases sea temperatures around the world." In a Monday posting on Time.com. Jeffrey Kluger forwarded that "to hear a lot of people tell it, we have only ourselves -- and our global-warming ways -- to blame." Kluger conceded that "hurricanes were around a long, long time before human beings began chopping down rainforests and fouling the atmosphere," but he concluded that in the future global warming "could make even Katrina look mild." Former Washington Post and Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan, in a Tuesday Boston Globe op-ed, charged: "The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming." In contrast, the New York Times remarkably reported Tuesday: "Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming. But that is not the case, scientists say."

Courtesy, MRC



Excellent post, ...& now Cafferty can move over, as its now time for Wolf Blitzer to suggest that the help is slow in coming because Katrina's victims are, "So poor & so Black"!

Outrageous assumptions of suggesting that race & class are a factor in those being rescued, & given aid!

I wonder as to how many, "right on brutha" we will get when one considers the overwhelming population of New Orleans is populated by black american's?

Perhaps it must have slipped Blitzer, & Cafferty's minds....Naw, its a useful tool as race, & class distiction has always been the tool used by the liberal elite to help politically empower the democratic party.

CNN just reached a new high in "disgust"!:damn on CNN NEWS.
 

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stu Ghatze said:
Excellent post, ...& now Cafferty can move over, as its now time for Wolf Blitzer to suggest that the help is slow in coming because Katrina's victims are, "So poor & so Black"!

Outrageous assumptions of suggesting that race & class are a factor in those being rescued, & given aid!

I wonder as to how many, "right on brutha" we will get when one considers the overwhelming population of New Orleans is populated by black american's?

Perhaps it must have slipped Blitzer, & Cafferty's minds....Naw, its a useful tool as race, & class distiction has always been the tool used by the liberal elite to help politically empower the democratic party.

CNN just reached a new high in "disgust"!:damn on CNN NEWS.
All in all, I find the fact that Bush was off in California, rather typical of Bush.
Hell Bush is the first unamerican President in the History of the US.

Right wing= Neo Neo Nazi , facist, racist, anti American, bully, liar, no morals, no ethics, no support for the troops, except for having them die for no reason, masters of exploitation and spin, rhetoric meant to confuse while three percent of the population, control the nation, destroy the constitution, give control of government and the military to corporate interest, and I am running out of breath. talk about the War on Terrorism, yet fight and die in Iraq for corporate profits. Hey You right wing idiots, there are terrorists out there and Hurricanes here. Get our troops out of the Iragi Civil War. :confused:

 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
dragonslayer said:
All in all, I find the fact that Bush was off in California, rather typical of Bush.
Hell Bush is the first unamerican President in the History of the US.

Right wing= Neo Neo Nazi , facist, racist, anti American, bully, liar, no morals, no ethics, no support for the troops, except for having them die for no reason, masters of exploitation and spin, rhetoric meant to confuse while three percent of the population, control the nation, destroy the constitution, give control of government and the military to corporate interest, and I am running out of breath. talk about the War on Terrorism, yet fight and die in Iraq for corporate profits. Hey You right wing idiots, there are terrorists out there and Hurricanes here. Get our troops out of the Iragi Civil War. :confused:

Don't forget those little red spiders that you see in between the pages of a book you haven't opened in years....

C'Mon...If you're going to show yourself in this dim light, you might as well go all out....
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
aquapub said:
For Wednesday, 8-31-05

1. CNN's Cafferty Takes Shot at Bush's "Vacation" After Hurricane

In the 5pm EDT half hour Tuesday of CNN's The Situation Room, Jack Cafferty used the hurricane as an excuse to trash President Bush for being on vacation, as if the location of Bush, who already authorized federal action, has any impact on that federal response to the devastation. Cafferty asked host Wolf Blitzer: "Where's President Bush? Is he still on vacation?" Blitzer answered that "he's cut short his vacation. He's coming back to Washington tomorrow." Cafferty snidely contended: "Well, that would be a good idea. He was out in San Diego, I think, at a Naval air station giving a speech on Japan and the war in Iraq today. Based on his approval rating in the latest polls, my guess is getting back to work might not be a terrible idea."



2. Poll Showing Sheehan's Lack of Impact Buried by ABC and WashPost

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll found that an overwhelming 89 percent maintained Cindy Sheehan's protests have had no effect on their view of the Iraq war, with the remaining respondents split evenly between saying her efforts made them more or less likely to support the war, but you'd be hard know it since, in part thanks to hurricane coverage, ABC's World News Tonight didn't report anything on the poll Monday or Tuesday night while Good Morning America squeezed in a short item Tuesday morning. Wednesday's Washington Post didn't get to the Sheehan finding until the next to last (24th) paragraph of a story headlined, "President's Poll Rating Falls to a New Low: In Post-ABC Survey, 53 Percent of Respondents Say They Disapprove of Bush."



3. Reporters Blame Global Warming for Katrina, Not Even NYT Buys It

Some in the media have blamed the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina on global warming. NBC's Robert Bazell warned on Monday's NBC Nightly News, in a story carried repeatedly on MSNBC, that "many scientists say we can expect such storms more often as global warming increases sea temperatures around the world." In a Monday posting on Time.com. Jeffrey Kluger forwarded that "to hear a lot of people tell it, we have only ourselves -- and our global-warming ways -- to blame." Kluger conceded that "hurricanes were around a long, long time before human beings began chopping down rainforests and fouling the atmosphere," but he concluded that in the future global warming "could make even Katrina look mild." Former Washington Post and Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan, in a Tuesday Boston Globe op-ed, charged: "The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming." In contrast, the New York Times remarkably reported Tuesday: "Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming. But that is not the case, scientists say."

Courtesy, MRC
You have to admit that Bush bashers have a flair for the dramatic....and this hurricane is "showtime"....for CNN.

I was under the impression that whether Bush is in Washington, Texas or California....he's still inside U.S. territory...and since he's the President of the U.S....wherever he happens to be in this country...he's in the right place. Am I wrong?

Maybe Michael Moore can make one of his fictional documentaries and call it: "Big Brother failed to show up". That should be good for a few standing ovations in Cannes.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
galenrox said:
So you really have no issue with a man who is supposed to be representing us, and holding the most important job in the world takes the entire month of August off? What would they do to you at your job if you just walked up and told your bosses (in Bush's case that's us), and said "I'm taking the month of August off, paid, of course." Hmmm?
Stop defending him, cause it really seems to have gotten to the point where he could do ANYTHING and you guys would defend him. When are you gonna just embrace that he's a **** up, and that you made a mistake, at the very least, in the primaries in 2000?
Do you really belive the President of the United States takes a month off...or even a day off?...and I'm not just talking about Bush...I'm talking about ANY President.

The President of the United States, ANY PRESIDENT, wherever he happens to be...even on "vacation"...probably makes more decisions in a day than most heads of State make in a month....and wherever the president happens to be...Air Force One...or his ranch...or his granny's house...he's in constant touch...and capable of making any decision he can make in Washington.

You say "you guys continue to defend him".....I answer: You guys lost...live with it!

You still don't get it. This is PRECISELY why non-republicans, like me, millions of us... voted for Bush. We didn't vote FOR Bush we voted AGAINST the mentality that says it's your way... or no way at all.

We're going to be sitting on the fence again come 2008.....and remembering all the divisive bickering that's going on...and who the main players are.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nobody blames Bush for what happened. It was a hurricane. Bush had no control as to when, where or how hard it hit.

Now with that said... this was not a surprise. New Orleans has been fearing a hurricane like this for years. It was only a matter of time before it came. FEMA listed a hurricane blow to New Orleans as the third most dangerous national disaster. What did Bush do? He cut the levee funding by 44% for the war on Iraq.

oops... but hey... still, nobody's perfect.

Sat. morning Bush gives his speech about the upcoming hurricane... does he lay out a plan for help and rescue? Nope. Just says that it's going to be there... Does he take the time to meet with the governors to help brace for impact? Nope, just switches topics and talks about the 'war' on terrorism.

So, the hurricane hits and the levees break. Big surprise. Bush promises aid to the Gulf region and declare them National Disaster Areas.

So, what does this aid include?

1) A plan to sandbag the levees.
2) Federal monetary compensation
3) Some sort of Law Enforcement/Military presence to control the area

Now, let's look at how these things have turned out:
1) It took 4 days to START sandbaging the levees. Why? Because there was an engineering problem with the pulley system. Hmm... the system is flawed not the environment is not what they expected. Good going Bush.*
2) Today the Senate approved 10.5 billion dollars. Cool, that actually a lot of money. Props on the amount... but jeeze it shouldn't take 5 days to get the money. A small amount (~1 billion) should be approved within hours to help get food, water and some sort of shelter system with running water and plumbing to those people. Then, after about this time, when a more realisitc view of all the damage can be assessed, you write the check for how much they need. This isn't rocket science, just common sense. They needed help days ago, and because they didn't get any they STILL NEED HELP and the death toll has risen.
3)HA! Like I even need to say anything about this. That city out of control it's not even the slightest bit funny. Hospitals being shot at, rescue boats being flipped by armed looters, police officers openly being shot in the head. This is 100% success story.

Basically, we've failed that entire region of the country with our leadership (or lack of) dragging their feet.

*I know that Bush is not the engineer who designed the pulley system. I realize that this was somebody else's miscalculation. Well, when the stakes are this important and it's so easy to test (practice run before the hurricane hit), then it reflects extremely poorly on the country's "leadership."
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
MiamiFlorida said:
Do you really belive the President of the United States takes a month off...or even a day off?...and I'm not just talking about Bush...I'm talking about ANY President.

The President of the United States, ANY PRESIDENT, wherever he happens to be...even on "vacation"...probably makes more decisions in a day than most heads of State make in a month....and wherever the president happens to be...Air Force One...or his ranch...or his granny's house...he's in constant touch...and capable of making any decision he can make in Washington.
It's true, the President is fully capable of running this country at Crawford or Air Force One. Well, in theory at least, as Bush lacks the ablitly even when in Washington. But in any case, yeah, Presidents tend to take off Sundays and work half days on Saturdays.

This does not include their morning meetings tho. They have daily updates (even Sundays) where they are informed about current events and pressing issues (really really really pressing issues if Sunday).

So, yeah, the President never takes an actual day off, but he does have time to relax.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
IValueFreedom said:
Nobody blames Bush for what happened. It was a hurricane. Bush had no control as to when, where or how hard it hit.

Now with that said... this was not a surprise. New Orleans has been fearing a hurricane like this for years. It was only a matter of time before it came. FEMA listed a hurricane blow to New Orleans as the third most dangerous national disaster. What did Bush do? He cut the levee funding by 44% for the war on Iraq.

oops... but hey... still, nobody's perfect.

Sat. morning Bush gives his speech about the upcoming hurricane... does he lay out a plan for help and rescue? Nope. Just says that it's going to be there... Does he take the time to meet with the governors to help brace for impact? Nope, just switches topics and talks about the 'war' on terrorism.

So, the hurricane hits and the levees break. Big surprise. Bush promises aid to the Gulf region and declare them National Disaster Areas.

So, what does this aid include?

1) A plan to sandbag the levees.
2) Federal monetary compensation
3) Some sort of Law Enforcement/Military presence to control the area

Now, let's look at how these things have turned out:
1) It took 4 days to START sandbaging the levees. Why? Because there was an engineering problem with the pulley system. Hmm... the system is flawed not the environment is not what they expected. Good going Bush.*
2) Today the Senate approved 10.5 billion dollars. Cool, that actually a lot of money. Props on the amount... but jeeze it shouldn't take 5 days to get the money. A small amount (~1 billion) should be approved within hours to help get food, water and some sort of shelter system with running water and plumbing to those people. Then, after about this time, when a more realisitc view of all the damage can be assessed, you write the check for how much they need. This isn't rocket science, just common sense. They needed help days ago, and because they didn't get any they STILL NEED HELP and the death toll has risen.
3)HA! Like I even need to say anything about this. That city out of control it's not even the slightest bit funny. Hospitals being shot at, rescue boats being flipped by armed looters, police officers openly being shot in the head. This is 100% success story.

Basically, we've failed that entire region of the country with our leadership (or lack of) dragging their feet.

*I know that Bush is not the engineer who designed the pulley system. I realize that this was somebody else's miscalculation. Well, when the stakes are this important and it's so easy to test (practice run before the hurricane hit), then it reflects extremely poorly on the country's "leadership."
I think I'm going to answer that with what I posted on another thread:

Can you think of a better scapegoat?

Never mind that it's the responsibility of local and State governments to provide for the public safety......organized and well-planned evacuations....and adequate, well-supplied shelters.

That hasn't stopped New Orleans Mayor (or should I say ex-Mayor?) from publicly asking, verbatum, "where's the beef?". All we've seen of this guy are endless tirades and whining. Not even the slightest hint of leadership. But he's REAL good at pointing fingers and passing the buck.

It' irrelevant that New Orleans politicians have been warned for decades about this impending disaster and decided to let someone else fix the problem.
I wonder what percentage of their billions of tourist dollars that poured into the city every year was targeted for just such an event.

You'd think that if you ran a city that is 10 feet below sea level.....separated from total disaster by a mere levee...you'd make sure you had the most sophisticated level of organizational structure in place.

And now that Bush can't clean up their mess soon enough...it's his fault.

Go figure!
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why must partisan hacks and ideologues politicize national and global tragedies?

There's many things that I don't agree with Bush on but I don't think he could do anything in this situation that would appease the haters. If Bush responds too quickly, then he's politicizing. If he doesn't respond quickly enough with the correct funds, then he doesn't care.

I've seen many arguments from people who say if he really cared then he would be right there with the people. Yeah, that's a great idea. Lets put the President of USA in the middle of a catastrophic event where there are gangs killing cops, shooting at choppers attempting to evacuate people etc. Not to mention the dollar amount associated with actually amassing an entourage to even attempt such an excursion.

Even with all this, some people clearly neglect to mention that the mayor and governor specifically asked him not to come due to the circumstances.
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
MiamiFlorida said:
I think I'm going to answer that with what I posted on another thread:

Can you think of a better scapegoat?

Never mind that it's the responsibility of local and State governments to provide for the public safety......organized and well-planned evacuations....and adequate, well-supplied shelters.

That hasn't stopped New Orleans Mayor (or should I say ex-Mayor?) from publicly asking, verbatum, "where's the beef?". All we've seen of this guy are endless tirades and whining. Not even the slightest hint of leadership. But he's REAL good at pointing fingers and passing the buck.

It' irrelevant that New Orleans politicians have been warned for decades about this impending disaster and decided to let someone else fix the problem.
I wonder what percentage of their billions of tourist dollars that poured into the city every year was targeted for just such an event.

You'd think that if you ran a city that is 10 feet below sea level.....separated from total disaster by a mere levee...you'd make sure you had the most sophisticated level of organizational structure in place.

And now that Bush can't clean up their mess soon enough...it's his fault.

Go figure!
"Never mind that it's the responsibility of local and State governments to provide for the public safety......organized and well-planned evacuations....and adequate, well-supplied shelters."

This is just poor thinking.

Bush determined much of the Gulf coast to be a national disaster area. That means that it is now the federal governments responisibility to do the things that you've listed above. That's why whenever something major in a state happens, the governor will try to get the president to declare it. This has to go thru certain steps, i.e. being asked by the state and/or local levels, but it's what happened. To my knowledge, the governor approved everything short of martial law (which the mayor of New Orleans did) for the federal government. They were the ones who were supposed to step up, but they failed.

Now, as far as the mayor goes, I don't ever remember bringing him up in the conversation, so you're arguing me about something that I haven't even stated my position on. Listen to what I'm saying, not what you want to hear.

I don't like that mayor. He seems to be waiting for someone bigger than him to come to his rescue. He is acting as the voice of the people rather than a servant for the people. He should be implimenting proactive solutions to problems in his city. He's not. He's waiting on Bush to do something. Unfortunately, when you rely on a ****ty person, you get ****ty results.

Basically, Bush should be there to back up the state and local governments if things get over their heads. Things got over their heads, and Bush took his sweet ass time getting things started.

I blame Bush. He is the only one who is responsible to my opinions. I did not vote in the New Orleans mayor race, nor the gobernatorial race. As such, I don't give two ****s about what they did. Bush should have been there for back up but wasn't.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
IValueFreedom said:
Nobody blames Bush for what happened. It was a hurricane. Bush had no control as to when, where or how hard it hit.

Now with that said... this was not a surprise. New Orleans has been fearing a hurricane like this for years. It was only a matter of time before it came. FEMA listed a hurricane blow to New Orleans as the third most dangerous national disaster. What did Bush do? He cut the levee funding by 44% for the war on Iraq.

oops... but hey... still, nobody's perfect.

Sat. morning Bush gives his speech about the upcoming hurricane... does he lay out a plan for help and rescue? Nope. Just says that it's going to be there... Does he take the time to meet with the governors to help brace for impact? Nope, just switches topics and talks about the 'war' on terrorism.

So, the hurricane hits and the levees break. Big surprise. Bush promises aid to the Gulf region and declare them National Disaster Areas.

So, what does this aid include?

1) A plan to sandbag the levees.
2) Federal monetary compensation
3) Some sort of Law Enforcement/Military presence to control the area

Now, let's look at how these things have turned out:
1) It took 4 days to START sandbaging the levees. Why? Because there was an engineering problem with the pulley system. Hmm... the system is flawed not the environment is not what they expected. Good going Bush.*
2) Today the Senate approved 10.5 billion dollars. Cool, that actually a lot of money. Props on the amount... but jeeze it shouldn't take 5 days to get the money. A small amount (~1 billion) should be approved within hours to help get food, water and some sort of shelter system with running water and plumbing to those people. Then, after about this time, when a more realisitc view of all the damage can be assessed, you write the check for how much they need. This isn't rocket science, just common sense. They needed help days ago, and because they didn't get any they STILL NEED HELP and the death toll has risen.
3)HA! Like I even need to say anything about this. That city out of control it's not even the slightest bit funny. Hospitals being shot at, rescue boats being flipped by armed looters, police officers openly being shot in the head. This is 100% success story.

Basically, we've failed that entire region of the country with our leadership (or lack of) dragging their feet.

*I know that Bush is not the engineer who designed the pulley system. I realize that this was somebody else's miscalculation. Well, when the stakes are this important and it's so easy to test (practice run before the hurricane hit), then it reflects extremely poorly on the country's "leadership."
I don't know where you've been, but I've heard a lot of people blame Bush.

Very interesting. I watched 2 interviews today. One was the General in charge of the Corps of Engineers, and the other was Mike Parker, former Corps director who resigned during Bush's watch.

The General states that the sand bags wouldn't have done a thing to stop the flow of water into the city. As a matter of fact....right now they are preparing to breach the levee elsewhere to let water drain out of the city. You see, now the lake level is lower than that of N.O.

Mr. Parker, no friend of Bush, who in his own words, resigned 30 minutes before he was fired, repeated emphatically that there is NOTHING Bush could have done to prevent the disaster that has befallen N.O. He places blame directly on the Office of Management and Budget which is run like a fiefdom and supersedes presidents.

You see, Congress appropiated the monies 40 years ago to build a fail-safe system that was supposed to be finished by 1975, and OMB...thirty years later was only about 70% done. I believe there have been a few Democrats as well a Republicans in the White House during that time...not just Bush.

I still don't see anyone talking about the incompetence of local and State government in New Orleans. Did you know 50% of their police department just walked off their job?
 
Top Bottom