For shame, Mr. Bush
While reading the two-years-after-Katrina stories I also saw an article stating that we now are throwing $3 billion a week into Iraq.
Where are our priorities? What could New Orleans do with a couple months of Iraq funding? Perhaps downsize the city to make it safer? New levees? Rebuild hospitals, schools and homes?
Nope, not President Bush and the neo-cons. I’m truly amazed Bush could even show his face in New Orleans. Shame!
Mike Archer, Golden
don't tell me you are one bit suprised by this.
but we deserve this , we elected his ass .... Twice
Posted by Fresh on September 11, 2007 01:56 AMwell the morons are still at the Bush bashing over something he doesnt have anything to do with. why not point your fingers at the local government who has the federal money but wont do the right thing.
fresh you are correct you do deserve this as its your all talk blow hard far extreme left liberals in NO that will not take care of their city.
Mike if you believe things in New Orleans would be a lick different if we weren't in Iraq, then I would like to talk to you about a bridge in Brooklyn. I think the Governments of both Louisiana and New Orleans have amply demonstrated their total incompitence.
GG
Posted by GG on September 11, 2007 07:14 AMIraq has nothing to dp with Katrina or New Orleans.Two separate issues.
New Orleans is waiting for the government to rebuild . That is not their job.It is the state's job and they are the ones continueing the mess in New Orleans.
People in Louisianna neet to stop throwing the pity party,get up off their asses and work.
They have done nothing but complain and have done nothing to better themselves.
Since when has FEMA rebuilt an entire area?
Look at Florida. They;ve been hit with major hurricanes and have rebuilt.
Stop comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, Iraq and New Orleans are two separate issues. But I think what the letter-writer meant was that the money spent on Iraq would be better spent on New Orleans. (Actually, a very small percentage of the Iraq-war money would do a lot to rebuild the US city.)
And, as many have pointed out before, Iraq is in need of being rebuilt too. The US government has failed BOTH New Orleans and Iraq.
Do some research leroy.It's the democrap party that has fail us in Iraq and N.O..It'S time to cut and run from N.O..
Posted by Keith on September 11, 2007 08:07 AMI know the Democrites HAVE failed us in Iraq, but ONLY because they have given in to the Republicans and Bush (by continuing funding for the war and by giving Bush authorization to start the war in the first place).
Tell me, please, in what way have the Democrats failed us in Iraq but the Republicans aren't even more responsible for our failures there?
Herr Bush and his brownshirts (blackwater, KBR, halliburton etc.) haven't milked the US taxpayer enough yet.
There's no reason for them to as we still have idiots supporting them,
Florida was rebuilt with FEMA funds after Andrew ,and it doesen't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the profit margin helping corporations in Iraq is bigger than helping Americans in New Orleans.
Only when we accept that fact will we find the testicular fortitude to throw the Bush crime family out of a position to keep ripping us off in the name on 9/11.
"Democrap"? As usual the rapier-sharp wit of our conservative colleagues leaves us liberals helpless with admiration for their eloquence.
Posted by Romulus on September 11, 2007 08:42 AMlery,By giving support to the enemy,it's called treason.
Posted by Keith on September 11, 2007 08:43 AMDemocrats giving aid to the enemy? How exactly?
In any case, Democrats are not "soft on terror".
They sure can be soft on the Republicans and members of the Bush Admn, however.
leroy,By leaking to the liberal N.Y.Times about the perfectly legal NSA program.By leaking to the media that Bush was tracking money that goes into terrorist hands.By lying to the American public saying we can't win this war.By saying our troops are murderers and rapist.By saying the war is illegal even when they saw the same intelligence the president saw.By the way that intelligence came from the clinton adm.By threatening to withhold funds for our troops helps Al Qaeda to recruit.etc.
Posted by Keith on September 11, 2007 09:21 AMJust a few minor corrections there keith. The NSA program is legal, the wiretaps are not. bush was actually the one putting money into the hands of the terrorists. There is nothing to win in this war. When a troop actually kills somebody who is not a threat, that is murder, and when they rape somebody, that is what's called rape. The war is illegal because there was no declaration of war, and so a war should not be going on. The only thing that is helping recruit new terrorists are the actions taken by bush. Why would think that if you throw enough money at the problem, it'll go away.
Posted by Larry on September 11, 2007 09:38 AMlarry,check the facts ,I'm totally right.You are getting your false information from liars again.Get back after you find out the facts.
Posted by Keith on September 11, 2007 09:46 AMKeith wrote:
>By leaking to the liberal N.Y.Times about the perfectly legal NSA
>program.
Perfectly legal? What part of "warrantless" do you not understand? (Yes, the wiretaps are legal NOW, thanks to the Congress. But they weren't at the time the leak occurred.)
>By leaking to the media that Bush was tracking money that goes into
>terrorist hands.
As with the NSA spying program, the financial-tracking program was looking at the finances of 10's of thousands of Americans, if not many more. You can't seriously believe that 10,000's of Americans are terrorists, can you? (Oh, right. The DEMOCRATS are all terrorists. Well, excuse me.)
>By lying to the American public saying we can't win this war.
Not a lie.
>By saying our troops are murderers and rapist.
The Democrats aren't saying this about our troops! Oh, wait. Maybe you are talking about the few specific cases where a few troops DID rape and intentionally kill unarmed civilians.
Well, in any case, no one is saying that ALL US troops, or even a significant number of US troops, are murderous or are rapists. Most of our troops are good people, actually.
>By saying the war is illegal.
>even when they saw the same intelligence the president saw.
It just came out that in 2002 CIA director Tenet told Bush that Sad-damn did NOT have WMDs, but Bush already had his little mind made up about attacking Iraq.
>By the way that
>intelligence came from the clinton adm.
If so, which I am not sure, maybe THAT is why Clinton did not attack Iraq. He knew that Sad-damn wasn't a threat.
>By threatening to withhold funds
>for our troops>
The Democrats will never stop funding the troops, and you (should) know that.
>helps Al Qaeda to recruit.etc.
I don't know what you are referring to here. I would point out that the US' use of torture and Bush's swagger ("Bring it on!") is sure doing a lot to recruit terrorists, however.
I've got to get off the computer now.
Of course, how could I have been so blind. You say your right, and so it must be. You don't need to back up anything you say because your right and everybody else is wrwong?
Posted by Larry on September 11, 2007 10:05 AMLeroy:--
"2002 CIA director Tenet told Bush that Sad-damn did NOT have WMDs"
That's why Bush invaded; no WMDS. The UN sanctions would have to be lifted since they were based on WMDs being present in Iraq. The U.S. would have to vote to lift sanctions along with the rest of the Security Council.
Bush wanted to keep the mideast as our own backyard, not China's.
Whether or not you agree with Bush, don't rag on the troops. If you can't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them. I'm sure they would appreciate a little armor between themselves and the IEDs.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 10:08 AMLarry,
Now you know exactly what the Republican Party and this Administration really have as their programs, "principles", and positions.. You've read it from the hand of the most Architypical Republican Party spokes-person posting on the website.
I have never read another Republican here who actually attempts to refute the man, or deny that he posts the TRUE Republican Party, and "conservative" positions.
From time to time, someone might urge him to moderate his language a bit, or improve his spelling and/or grammar. BUT, when it comes to presenting the Republican Party's agenda itself, HE stands out as being always supported as spokes-person.
And, you're right. He has no need to back up anything, simply because, for the Republican party, and "conservatives", whatever he says is "right"; and anybody, and everybody, else is "wrong". Just go through the postings, and you'll see for yourself..
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 10:22 AMYou go Keith. It really is a waste of time with these Anti Americans though. They are legends in their own minds. They think they know all especially old grouch who obviously is too old to remember what a real Democrat stands for.
Posted by Anti Lib on September 11, 2007 10:54 AMOld Grouch, I just hate to see another bunch of new posters fall into the "lets interact with Keith, Captain America bunch"
People keep trying, and the results are the same: a complete lack of communication.
I am not yet convinced they really are that hard headed, I still hold out some hope that they are making this stuff up to get a rise out of us.
Keith made some sensible observations on Latino workers, that told me he is real and not beyond hope.
Captain America can be downright funny at times.
Speaking of old things, as Anti-lib did, I was going to start a post with the remark "someone was asleep at the switch" but then I realized that computers probably handle switching now. Another good reference that the kids of today may not understand.
Later
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 11:10 AM$126 BILLION AND STILL COUNTING, rebuilding a below-seal-level costal city that has been doomed from day #1. The remaining people down their are still stepping over the debris and garbage of 2 years ago and the local politicos, NO's "first responders" still have no clue. The Big Easy is history, it ain't ever coming back. If NO was a stock, I would recomend shorting it.
Posted by Hank on September 11, 2007 11:22 AMHi Sharon,
Somewhere on the website today there is a letter speaking of - among other things - "anti-hating Republicans". Obviously, the letter writer has never logged on here.
And then, Jonesy is butting in, as usual - with more of his fixation on other people's nether regions. - in those areas about which he knows least - if anything at all - and holds himself out to be the pluperfect pundit on the subject.
Might this be some kind of "Post 9/11 Syndrome"? The continuing effects of "Reality Experience After-shock"? Or might it be the renewed reverberations in the vacuum between the ears of those most perfectly presenting themselves as Architypical spokes-persons for Republicanism/"conservativeism)"?
Stay tuned to this website, for all the latest developments.
Sorry. Couldn't help being reminded of the old time radio Soap Operas.
Anyway, Sharon, it's nice reading you here. Have a good day now.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 12:17 PMI tried to post on Katrina yesterday but it didn't "take."
First, the Federal Government has already sent $93 Billion of the $141 Billion promised to the Gulf Coast. It is now the responsibility of the State to rebuild with that Federal Money, not to mention the almost $250 million that was pledged to rebuild the City of New Orleans through non-government functions (private sector and charity fund raising).
Secondly, don't compare apples to oranges please. Foreign policy has nothing to do with domestic policy. But, here is my issue with rebuilding New Orleans.
Currently, New Orleans sits 1.5 feet below sea level (the mean elevation). Anthropogenic Global Warming extremists state that we could potentially see a sea level rise of 10 feet (although the IPCC accepted range is 8 - 14 inches). Do we really want to rebuild a city that has the potential to be 11 -12 feet under water?
Dr. Einstein once wrote that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. How many times do we need to have New Orleans be devastated by nature before we learn our lesson that it is probably not a good idea to rebuild a city under water?
Posted by Dan2 on September 11, 2007 12:27 PMI see the left is still scapegoating George Bush two years later for Katrina and the lack of leadership by a Democratic Mayor and Governor and the welfare city and state they created long before the disaster. They already have collected state and federal funds from the goverment and are sitting on it for their own personal slush funds. The New Orleans and LA. are a typical legacy of the Democrats and liberal welfare states they create. The residents will not do anything to help themseves. They expect the goverment to do it all for them. Look at D.C. under Marion Barry, New York City under Ed Koch & Dinkins. Rudy Guliani had to clean up their mess. and Los Angeles under Mayor Bradley who helped start the Rodney King Riot. The Elitist left has been destroying minorities families and lives since the late 1960's with their so called good intentions from hell. Throw them a few crumbs of of someone elses table so they can stay in power.
What do you think the country will look like under Osama, I mean Obama Barrack and Hillary Clinton. One Big socialist New Orleans ghetto. Evil socialist immoral kissin' cousins to the commies all the way!
Posted by No Blinders on September 11, 2007 12:31 PMWhen will the left realize that we aint spending no money on any damn americans! Them folks in New Orleans are just whiners. Our taxes are for one thing and one thing only..the glorious War in Iraq, our 400 billion dollar tribute to our greatest president ever..Mr George Bush. lay off him, it aint his fault he aint real smart!
Posted by keith on September 11, 2007 12:43 PMOG,
I think most of the people on this board understand that Keith is an out of control partisan.
I still think we should get that card game going though. I'll still bring the scotch and we could all bring a topic to discuss (instead of food to pass).
I'm also going to hijack this topic for a moment.
Truth,
I think that we have gotten a little out of control, you and I, especially with each other. I pledge to no longer argue with you about our very obvious philosophical differences. We may indeed disagree on almost every facet of discussions, but I promise to not make it personal any longer. Unless you are posting inaccurate information (ie. saying 2+2 = 5 and so forth), your personal feelings on a topic are just that, YOUR personal feelings, and I will not refute them any longer. Hope you have a wonderful day today!
We now return to the regularly scheduled opinion...
Posted by Dan2 on September 11, 2007 12:59 PMWhat Keith so eloquently stated is partially true about George Bush. The only difference between he and Bush is that at least he was smart enough to be President. Keep trying Keith. If he can do it so can you!
Posted by No Blinders on September 11, 2007 01:02 PMWhat Keith so eloquently stated about George Bush is partially true. The only difference between he and Bush is at least he was just smart enough to become President.
Give it a shot Keith. If he can do it so can you!
“All right. You’ve covered your ass now.”
~Words of President Bush to a CIA briefer who delivered the memo titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US” to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, about a month before the September 11 attacks happened-- a memo Bush himself ignored.
We will never forget.
Posted by Dan on September 11, 2007 05:45 PMOnly a very small fraction of the monies promised New Orleans have been actually allocated or spent. Yes, the graft and waste is huge and ugly - but a pittance compared to Halliburton's take in Iraq.
The reason the money hasn't been spent is that is is promised over years and years; its not there - its in Iraq.
For $300 billion of the money down the toilet in Iraq every major American city could have state-of-the-art light-rail and monorail, saving up to 15% of our oil consumption. But that doesn't figure for the Military-Industrial complex that now runs America - Iraq is so much more profitable. War is good for capitalism; if you don't believe me read Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the nation in 1960. He was a REAL Republican.
Posted by Mike A on September 11, 2007 05:49 PMGood post Mike A.
you and Sharon B (and GW) have made the most sense and have obviously read up on the true facts and can discuss issues calmly. But it's not easy when we have numbnut sheep like Keith, et al, regurgitating propaganda points of rush and the rest of the fascist brigade from Fox and Company egging these idiots on.
(Someone should really tighten the restraints on keith's straightjacket so she can't reach a keyboard.)
Or at least give her a dictionary.
Hey dumb-asses Aka liberals 12:43 isn't my post.That post is from a meatball that gives service after somebody taps there foot.
Posted by Keith on September 11, 2007 09:49 PMFresh,
You're right and He's a PUSHOVER,
scared of Calderon.
Hey Keith, darling, is that your foot rubbing mine under the stall wall? Sigh..its great to be a Republican in love isnt it honey?
Posted by Larry on September 12, 2007 07:11 AMlarry,shane,joe and mac are waiting for you in Cheeseman park,bring your butt lube big boy.
Posted by Keith on September 12, 2007 07:59 AMuh oh...i did it agin...soiled me underpants...sigh, wood someone change me poopy pants please. i promise not to squirm so much
Posted by keith on September 12, 2007 08:03 AMIdiots,what good is a monorail if Al Qaeda keeps blowing it up.To the un-educated,we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.For once in your lifetime check out the facts.
Posted by Keith on September 12, 2007 09:41 AM(uncomfortable silence)
Posted by Charles B on September 12, 2007 12:24 PMi dont need butt lube - i jist use axil greese from my trailer. I get exitted when I watch Dookes of Hazzid - that blond dude is HOT.
Posted by keith on September 12, 2007 01:45 PMleroy,Why did clinton lie to the American people saying that Saddam has or is trying to get WMD's and is a threat to the U.S.?
Posted by Keith on September 13, 2007 10:50 AMMonica, of course.
What's BUSH'S excuse?
(War is fun and is an excuse for Bush to steal Iraq's oil and get what he wants from Congress, of course.)
Posted by Leroy on September 14, 2007 07:43 AMKeith:
Monica, of course.
What's BUSH'S excuse?
(War is fun and is an excuse for Bush to steal Iraq's oil and get what he wants from Congress, of course.)
Posted by Leroy on September 14, 2007 07:43 AMKeith said:
>Why did clinton lie to the American people saying that Saddam has or is trying to get WMD's and is a threat to the U.S.?
To which I responded:
>Monica, of course.
In case you didn't get that, I was being sarcastic.
The real reason that Clinton didn't attack Sad-damn (I am assuming, since I can't read Clinton's mind) is that the UN sanctions and inspections were working, or so said the inspectors, the UN, and (now we find out) the CIA.