The Cover-Up Begins
The Bush administration's censorship of media coverage of the recovery of the dead from the flood-ravaged city of New Orleans has begun in earnest.
Like the flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, they're the casualties the Bush administration does not want the American public to see.
Why? Because they know their lax attitude in responding to this disaster likely contributed to hundreds if not thousands of unnecessary deaths. While Bush played the guitar, Condi shopped for shoes, and Cheney went house-hunting for a million dollar mansion, the floodwaters rose and the Federal Emergency Management Agency sat on its hands.
Now, in addition to the media being banned from photographing the dead recovered from the floodwaters, new reports are coming in that all media are being banned from Jefferson Parish:
"At the National Guard checkpoint, they are under orders to turn away all media. All of the reporters are turning they're TV trucks around. Things are so bad, Bush is now censoring all reporting from NOLA. The First Amendment sank with the city."
Will the mainstream media let it slide again?
Pelosi on Bush: "Oblivious, in denial, dangerous."
Posted Sep. 7,2005 at 5:01 PM EST by Andy Towle in Current Affairs | Permalink
Please see the article below. Also- as much fear as you have of Bush- do you really want him with the power to declare marshall law- please research the Posse Comitatus Act ....
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Mayor slams Blanco for stalling
By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published September 7, 2005
Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco has been critical of the Bush administration's
response to the disastrous aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but, according to the mayor of
New Orleans, her indecision when President Bush offered help delayed rescue efforts and
cost lives.
New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin told CNN's "American Morning" Monday that he met
with Mr. Bush and Mrs. Blanco on Air Force One on Friday and implored the two to "get in
sync."
"If you don't get in sync, more people are going to die," Mr. Nagin said.
Mr. Bush met privately first with Mrs. Blanco, then called Mr. Nagin in for a meeting.
"He called me in that office," Mr. Nagin said. "And he said, 'Mr. Mayor, I offered two
options to the governor.' I was ready to move. The governor said she needed 24 hours to
make a decision."
That decision was a request by Mr. Bush to allow the federal government to take over the
evacuation of New Orleans, which had been marked by chaos for days. The Democratic
governor, who has clashed behind the scenes with the Bush administration since the storm
hit, refused.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed the Air Force One meeting with
Mrs. Blanco and the governor's decision not to cede her authority over the Louisiana
National Guard, but added that he didn't think "it helps any situation to get into all those
internal discussions."
"This isn't a time when people are trying to look at who's to blame or try to shift
responsibility," Mr. McClellan said. "This is a time when we're all trying to work together to
get things done."
Mr. Bush, at the request of Mrs. Blanco, declared the entire state of Louisiana a disaster
area 48 hours before the hurricane made landfall. He also asked Mrs. Blanco to order a
mandatory evacuation of New Orleans on Aug. 27 -- two days before the hurricane hit -- but
she did not make the order until Aug. 28.
Mr. Bush and federal officials have come under harsh criticism for what some see as a
slow reaction to a humanitarian crisis that unfolded last week.
"Instead of unconscionably blaming others, President Bush must take charge and take
responsibility, and must get it right, and that is my concern and the message that I will bring
to the president," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat. "Mr.
President, you should have taken charge and you should have taken responsibility."
When the levees broke Aug. 30 and flooded New Orleans, the city descended into
violence, looting and confusion. Hundreds of New Orleans police officers walked off the
Page 1 of 2 Mayor slams Blanco for stalling -- The Washington Times
9/7/2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050907-121729-5097r
job, and some survivors housed in the Superdome and the city's convention center described
rapes, robberies and killings in and around the facilities.
Mrs. Blanco yesterday complained on ABC's "Good Morning America" that the federal
government didn't act fast enough as the crisis grew.
"We didn't have enough resources," Mrs. Blanco said. "We were begging for resources,
too. We needed helicopters because of all the water, we needed helicopters that could
actually do this rescue mission, and we needed boats.
"We brought in everything we had, and we were begging for more, and nothing came as
quickly as we needed it," she said.
Supporters of the president, however, say Mrs. Blanco and Mr. Nagin, who left New
Orleans for the safety of Baton Rouge before the storm hit, also should share some blame.
"Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin weren't exactly Pataki and Guiliani," said a political
adviser with close ties to the White House, referring to the New York governor and mayor
praised for their response to the September 11 attacks. "They'll have their own problems
when this crisis abates."
Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, said, "Hindsight is 20/20," but added that Mrs.
Blanco was too slow in calling out the National Guard to keep order in New Orleans and
save lives.
"We needed to make this a full-scale military operation starting with the National Guard
immediately," Mr. Vitter said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Paul Simpson, a political blogger who lives in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, La.,
said he and other locals are puzzled by the governor's refusal to let the federal government
temporarily command the state's National Guard.
"I thought it was as standard as sunshine in California that the governor would tell the
president, 'You have the Guard.' I thought that was a given," Mr. Simpson said. "She
absolutely has no clue."
Critics have long derided Mrs. Blanco for her tendency to call for studies and special
commissions to find solutions for the state's biggest problems.
In 2003, the Shreveport Times, in endorsing her Republican opponent for governor,
Bobby Jindal, called Mrs. Blanco "indecisive" and "unprepared" for the rigors of the job.
But defenders say that this merely reflects Mrs. Blanco's deliberative temperament.
Shortly after Mrs. Blanco took office, Dan Juneau, president of the Louisiana Association of
Business and Industry, defended her as a woman who "likes to accumulate as much
information as possible before finalizing a major decision."
"She would rather be criticized for taking her time in finding the right approach than for
shooting from the hip and moving in the wrong direction," Mr. Juneau wrote.
Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Return to the article
Click Here For Commercial Reprints and Permissions
Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc.
Page 2 of 2 Mayor slams Blanco for stalling -- The Washington Times
9/7/2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050907-121729-5097r
Posted by: jake | Sep 7, 2005 9:22:20 PM
It's not a "left" or "right" issue. The commander in chief and the government that was elected last November FAILED to acknowledge the prediction of what would happen to New Orleans in the event of a hurricane of such force.
The fact of the matter is we are a society that chooses to bury its head in the sand and ignore anything of importance until it directly affects us.
Andy, I'd like to know if mainstream media is reporting this censorship?
I also fear with such focus from news on this disaster that the chief justice position will be filled by someone who just may do even more damage to the so called "freedom" of Americans.
Posted by: Nev | Sep 7, 2005 9:43:52 PM
Let's take a break from the joy of Bush bashing to reveal the dirty little secret of New Orleans: Its local government deserves an F for its planning and response to Katrina. And one other thing: The New Orleans police force would be a joke if it weren't a disgrace.
..........Then there's Mayor Ray Nagin, a Democrat, who has blamed everybody but himself. Maybe he has forgotten his plans for dealing with Katrina.
Last July, his office prepared DVDs warning that, if the city ever had to be evacuated, residents were on their own. According toa July 24 article in The Times-Picayune (spotted by the Web's Drudge Report), "Mayor Ray Nagin, local Red Cross Executive Director Kay Wilkins and City Council President Oliver Thomas drive home the word that the city does not have the resources to move out of harm's way an estimated 134,000 people without transportation."
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/344065p-293598c.html
Posted by: jay | Sep 7, 2005 10:26:55 PM
It's no secret that New Orleans has always been below sea level. It's also no secret that money that would have reinforced protection in the city and in the wetlands from such a natural disaster was diverted away to help fund a military operation overseas to a still unexplained threat.
And I don't think you can deny New Orleans suffered a deep blow because its residents were uninformed (or people simply without options), because of horrible evacuation plans... and yes absolutely from FEMA's lack of immediate action, from Homeland Security's severe lack of response, and from our own President and White House staff who remained on vacation as tragedy after tragedy struck. It's not as if we didn't know there was an approaching major hurricane.
The point isn't that Bush is 100 percent to blame. He isn't. So please don't defend him like anyone is saying that.
HOWEVER, what is blatantly obvious is that he and his appointed staff and government agencies all failed and continued to for days afterward. There was no plan. There was no action. And as a nation we all got caught with our pants down, from a plain and simple thing: a hurricane.
So you argue and ask: how can I or anyone blame the president?
My problem lies with a man who has become red in the face, incessantly mumbling about how hard he is working to make America safer. How safe we are because of the people he's appointed. How safe we are because he's created Homeland Security. And when it comes down to it, he plays a poor immitation of a cowboy who clears brush on a lot of land with rented cows. You see a real cowboy, a firefighter, a police officer, or hero would instinctively jump in. Head first and confront the disaster and fix the problem with conviction. Yes, it's a lot of people's fault this disaster is worse than it should have been... but it's hard not to look at President Bush as a beacon of why this disaster was worse than it should have been. In this situation, he is no hero. He is a flimsy politician trying desperately to say the right things to the right voters and not look like he's indirectly saying because New Orleans is predominantly black and poor it shouldn't deserve the same protection as a more affluent (take your pick in Florida) city.
It's my growing opinion, that if you were in a burning building with this man, I think he'd be the first to push you down so he could make it to the door safely. That's not me being "liberal" slamming the right, because there are plenty of democrats who are the same, if not worse. That's just saying it like it is. So it amazes me how many people still believe that the President is a heroic character protecting the free world and doing the best he can with New Orleans. I am sorry, I expect more from people.
As a person who spent their Labor Day weekend trying to help (and risking my own life and health) in New Orleans, let me say that the situation is BAD. With the heat, the rain, and in many cases with no where to go... there are many, many dead people and animals who (you could tell) had just perished (this past weekend). While these images haunt me in my head, I do think it's important that the rest of America stay aware of how bad it really is. If you say you don't care to, then you probably shouldn't say ANYTHING about this tragedy.
Eventually we moved our camp to outlying areas beyond N.O., because it became apparent we weren't going to save many more lives in our little boat and truck. And because the military needs to seize control of the city because it's a biological wasteland. That's right: I do think it's correct that the military is securing the city, because of the health risks (that's no lie!!!), but I think it's absurd as a nation to be censored from the real story and real images in New Orleans and of the amazing work that is being done by real heroes... and of course of the amazing conditions the survivors survived in.
Posted by: Steven | Sep 7, 2005 10:36:42 PM
Nagin. Landreu. Blanco. Cheney. Bush. FEMA. FOX. Arnold. Mitch - Cardwell and Not Cardwell. Leland. the Malcontent.
What an absolutely F**KED UP country.
Anything new with "Brokeback Mountain" today?
Posted by: Resurrect | Sep 7, 2005 11:00:22 PM
oh yes lets all forget how badly Bush has done everything he had done since he first became President. Next lets all lay blame on the local people for not doing more after being hit by the worst flooding the city has ever seen. Having done thus now tell me, how was the local authorities supposed to do anything while under water with no electricity, transportation, let alone food or water, and yes dry clean clothes? I was just wondering, the cel phones do not work too well either without towers and power. But let the big boys fight it out about proper paper authority and silly training classes as to harassments before doing anything.
I have an idea! But nobody will listen, its just; "Get the hell in there and help!" Worry about the paperwork later! Heck most, if not all of the paper in New Orleans and the surrounding area is soggy already.
And the Bear goes off to bed stumbleing and mumbleing still waiting for FEMA to come thru from last years fiasco.
Posted by: Bear | Sep 7, 2005 11:08:48 PM
Ok, the right wingers/closet republicans who have nothing better to do than vent their spleen on here need to start their own blog since they know more than anyone else and, of course, are always right. You guys are as boring as the drunk at the end of the bar who had too much to drink and won't shut up. Get off the bar stool and go home....or get some therapy.
Posted by: matt-chicago | Sep 7, 2005 11:36:02 PM
I knew at some point someone would have to stop attacking Bush, and start attacking us poor little gay Republicans - of which I am not - I am a conservative which is diffrent - but since your so smart, I guess you already knew that. Why is it that Liberals when they don't have an argument, they attack the messenger? Matt-Chicago you have any ideas on this subject? Oh, and just so you know there are several CONSERVATIVE gay blogs:
http://www.republicofm.com - figured I'd start with my own.
http://www.gaypatriot.org
http://www.boifromtroy.com
http://www.queer-conservative.blogspot.com
http://www.rightrainbow.com
http://www.thatgayconservative.blogspot.com
http://www.malcontent.typepad.com
http://www.bigapplegop.blogspot.com
http://www.andrewsullivan.com
http://www.anothergayrepublican.blogspot.com
http://www.gayandright.blogspot.com
http://www.gayop.blogspot.com
http://www.northdallasthirty.blogspot.com
http://www.prismwarden.blogspot.com
Check them out - you may convert.
Posted by: Mike | Sep 7, 2005 11:48:00 PM
Why can't the journalists accompany rescuers without cameras and still report the number of bodies? Everyone gets what they want then.
Posted by: txpapi | Sep 8, 2005 12:12:51 AM
Sidney Blumenthal must not have been sitting in on these meetings during the Clinton administration:
(from the imes-Picayune)
February 17, 1995
An Army Corps of Engineers "hit list" of recommended budget cuts would eliminate new flood-control programs in some of the nation's most flood-prone spots - where recent disasters have left thousands homeless and cost the federal government millions in emergency aid.
Clinton administration officials argue that the flood-control efforts are local projects, not national, and should be paid for by local taxes.
Nationwide, the administration proposes cutting 98 new projects in 35 states and Puerto Rico, for an estimated savings of $29 million in 1996.
Corps officials freely conceded the cuts, which represent only a small portion of savings the corps ultimately must make, may be penny-wise and pound-foolish. But they said they were forced to eliminate some services the corps has historically provided to taxpayers to meet the administration's budget-cutting goals.
June 23, 1995
A hurricane project, approved and financed since 1965, to protect more than 140,000 West Bank residents east of the Harvey Canal is in jeopardy.
The Clinton administration is holding back a Corps of Engineers report recommending that the $120 million project proceed. Unless that report is forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress cannot authorize money for the project, U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office said Thursday.
On June 9, John Zirschky, the acting assistant secretary of the Army and the official who refused to forward the report, sent a memo to the corps, saying the recommendation for the project "is not consistent with the policies and budget priorities reflected in the President's Fiscal Year 1996 budget. Accordingly, I will not forward the report to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance."
July 26, 1996
The House voted Thursday for a $19.4 billion energy and water bill that provides $246 million for Army Corps of Engineers projects in Louisiana.
The bill, approved 391-23, is the last of the 13 annual spending measures for 1997 approved by the House.
One area in which the House approved more financing than the president requested was for flood control and maintenance of harbors and shipping routes by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Flood control projects along the Mississippi River and its tributaries were allotted $303 million, or $10 million more than the president wanted.
June 19, 1996
The Army Corps of Engineers, which builds most flood protection levees on a federal-local cost-sharing basis, uses a cost-benefit ratio to justify a project. If the cost of building a levee is considered less than the cost of restoring a flood-ravaged area, the project is more likely to be approved.
For years, the Jean Lafitte-Lower Lafitte-Barataria-Crown Point areas couldn't convince the corps they were worthy of levee protection. But the use of Section 205 and congressional pressure has given the corps a new perspective, Spohrer said.
But even so, when the Clinton administration began to curtail spending on flood control and other projects a year ago, the corps stopped spending on Section 205 projects even after deciding to do a $70,000 preliminary Jean Lafitte study, Spohrer said.
July 22, 1999
In passing a $20.2 billion spending bill this week for water and energy projects, the House Appropriations Committee approved some significant increases in financing for several New Orleans area flood control and navigational projects.
The spending bill is expected on the House floor within the next two weeks.
For the New Orleans District of the Army Corps of Engineers, the panel allocated $106 million for construction projects, about $16 million more than proposed by President Clinton.
The bill would provide $47 million for "southeast Louisiana flood control projects," $16 million for "Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protection," $15.9 million for the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock on the Industrial Canal in New Orleans and $2 million for "West Bank hurricane protection -- from New Orleans to Venice."
Most of the projects received significant increases over what the Clinton administration had proposed. The exception: general flood control projects for southeast Louisiana, which remained at the $47 million suggested by Clinton. Local officials had hoped for double that amount.
February 8, 2000
For the metropolitan New Orleans area, Clinton's budget was seen as a mixed bag by local lawmakers and government officials. For instance, while Clinton called for $1.5 billion to be spent at Avondale Industries to continue building LPD-17 landing craft, his budget calls for significantly less than what Congress appropriated last year for Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protection and for West Bank flood control projects.
September 29, 2000
The House approved Thursday a $23.6 billion measure for water and energy programs, with sizable increases for several New Orleans area flood-control projects. The Senate will vote Monday, but it may be a while before the bill is enacted.
President Clinton is promising to veto the annual appropriation for the Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers, not because it is $890 million larger than he proposed, but because it does not include a plan to alter the levels of the Missouri River to protect endangered fish and birds.
May 8, 2005 (extra)
Ten years ago today, the Bonneaus and hundreds of thousands of New Orleans area residents rode out a rain unlike any they had ever experienced. The flood killed six people and generated more claims than any in the history of the National Flood Insurance Program. In its aftermath, Congress created a new role for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and federal and local governments spent more than a half-billion dollars to widen and line drainage canals, bury culverts bigger than cars and beef up pumping stations.
But not even those improvements could prevent massive flooding if a storm of similar intensity were to strike today.
Posted by: Mitch | Sep 8, 2005 1:24:09 AM
this is so sad:
"In the chaos that was Causeway Boulevard, this group of refugees stood out: a 6-year-old boy walking down the road, holding a 5-month-old, surrounded by five toddlers who followed him around as if he were their leader."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/20050906/ts_chicagotrib/achildinchargeof6babies;_ylt=AlhYW8EWQ7aaEV_DSjKJhYIDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Posted by: yohji | Sep 8, 2005 1:44:03 AM
From what I understand, both the NO Mayor and the LA governor knew the storm was bigger than they and called in the Feds (aka FEMA) on 8.27, who said they'd handle it. They did not. Big old bad Bushy pretty much promised the same in Iraq and... did not. These are not small errors, little goofs, they are major with massive human life loss. Since when is a call for accountability reduced to bashing? #1. How convenient. #2. He deserves a lot more than that, in my book.
Posted by: Honkybitch | Sep 8, 2005 2:30:27 AM
Mitch, Mike & the rest of you Conservative/Republican homosexuals....
Do us all a favor and explain how your political position helps to better the lives of those around you? If it doesn't that's okay, no problem....Just admit your superiority complex.
Believe me...I understand. I was once like you - an uptight protestant white boy, stubbornly clinging to other people's defintion of what I should be. Face it! Voting Republican doesn't mean Mommy and Daddy will forgive you for being a cock sucker.
What is the gay equivalent of "Uncle Tom"???
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 8, 2005 5:38:34 AM
Stephen, Thank you for putting into words better than I the feelings many of us have.
I am a republican but as such I have done my best to be at the voting polls at every election no matter how small the matter. I vote every chance I can get to vote out the family and friends who are being brought in to replace the existing. Until these family groups are taken from power, by the people, they are worse than a drug cartel. Their only purpose is to strngthen their own hold over our individual live with their money. By voting againt them, and encouraging my fellow republicans to vote againt them at every election, I hope to do my small part in bringing them down.
This is supposed to be a free country where anyone can run for office, this however is no longer so. Recently in another election several candidates for office lost out only because they did not have the personal funds to pay for the election. Before we become a country with only the rich in goverment we need to stay that power by voting against them locally and in the beginning stages of their careers.
So to you Stephen I say thanks.
Bear Acres, Florida, U.S.A.
"Oust the incumbant; oust his family"
Posted by: Bear | Sep 8, 2005 6:09:20 AM
A few points with some questions mixed in.
1. So as I understand it, you guys want to open your paper and look at a multi-page montage of the dead while you munch on your Pop-Tarts?
2. Last I checked, it was unethical for the media to show dead or critically injured bodies. Does that not apply to the liberal media, or just when there's a Republican in office?
3. Exactly what is the role of the Secreatary of State during a domestic disaster? I, and I'm sure she would like to know.
4. What, exactly, should President Bush or Vice President Cheney have done the day of the storm, since DHS was in charge of response, that would have saved anybody's life?
5. You and I both know that if the media splashed pictures of the bodies all over the place, you libs would bitch about how Bush should have prevented it.
6. It took Witt's FEMA about three (that's "3" for you liberals) weeks to respond to the flooding after hurricane Floyd in 1999. I know. I know. We're not supposed to be smart enough to remember that.
7. Why is it that the mere mention of 9/11 drives liberals to hysteria with the accusations of exploitation and politicization, but they have no problem exploiting and politicizing a natural disaster which was much worse?
8. Why is the liberal media quoting Barbara Bush, with no reference of context, but ignoring Jesse Jackson's asinine comments? Is it because Mrs. Bush is far less likely to shake them down for cash?
9. Did any of you Katrina Chickens go to New Orleans to show the responders how it should have been done?
10. Exactly how much disaster response experience/training do you have?
11. While you're blasting Mr. Brown's credentials, where's Mr. Witts degree in Emergency Management? As far as I know, he was only a county judge and a lord BJ crony who got appointed.
12. Do you stow the gear necessary to post any information of the good things that have happened the last several days, or are you just going to stick with the usual leftist hate and pessimism?
13. Why has the MSM abandoned Alabama and subsequently, Mississippi? Was there not enough "poor blacks" to exploit by playing the race and class cards? There was certainly more damage there.
14. Are you still planning on sticking to the lies that Bush started and steered the hurricane?
15. Are you still planning on sticking to the lie that all of the military is in Iraq?
16. Are you still planning on sticking to the lie that those sections of levees that broke were underfunded by Bush?
17. Are you still planning on sticking to the lie that Kyoto would have prevented all hurricanes?
18. And yes, there were hurricanes, many worse than Katrina before 19 January 2001.
19. Fill in the blank. It takes _____ (period of time) to organize a disaster response.
20. We're supposed to ignore the failures of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin, right? Well, if they had done what the state plan called for, we wouldn't have had this problem, or at least not as bad, would we?
Posted by: ThatGayConservative | Sep 8, 2005 7:00:36 AM
Oh, and why do you need pictures of the dead. Aren't the numbers going to make you spooge enough? Surely you're creaming your shorts more than the numbers out of Iraq for a change.
Or do you need the pictures for signs in some weak, Neo-Socialist Moron.org protest later?
Posted by: ThatGayConservative | Sep 8, 2005 7:13:32 AM
"the man is incapable of admitting mistake"
Actually, BITCH, he has. Just because he didn't give the liberal media the talking point they were looking for to use against him that one time, which was actually pretty smart, doesn't mean he doesn't take responsibility.
Face it, you're lying and you know it.
Posted by: ThatGayConservative | Sep 8, 2005 7:57:30 AM
I'm not for showing the dead bodies. It serves no journalistic purpose beyond sensationalism. I do think they should report an accurate count of the dead, as that - not the $25 billion in insurance payouts and hundreds of millions in government aid- is the true cost of Katrina.
Back to the dead bodies - Oprah has actually been showing quite a few dead bodies the last 2 days and that was enough. Furthermore, hershow has demonstrated - through some silly celebrity posturing but whatever - much of the human tragedy in NOLA, Mississippi and Alabama. She's shown the poor black, the poor white and even some of the affluent whites who had there physical lives decimated. I normally can't stand Oprah, but the little vignettes on her show the past couple of days have moved past the politics and the blame and just weighed the human cost and portrayed the experience of the survivor/victims so that those of us not there might better comprehend what happened. (Not to suggest there weren't a few subtle political rants, though most were about the failed response in general from all levels.)
All this bickering going on here doesn't help anyone, doesn't 'prove' anything, doesn't make anyone more right or wrong. It just demonstrates a huge missing of the point. Yes, there was failure but who cares by whom or why. Just fix it so it doesn't happen next time.
Posted by: Linear | Sep 8, 2005 8:19:01 AM
Man, this place is infested with gay trolls.
Posted by: left | Sep 8, 2005 9:26:16 AM
Stephen,
I don't really think I have a superiority complex, I just have a different political belief then you do. And I am sorry that it irritates the gay left that someone thinks for themselves. And, I am not a conservative trying to make mommy and daddy happy either because they are both lifelong Democrats. I am not a Republican as I have explained before, so I do not support the Republican Party on issues such as Gay Rights. But I do support them on other issues, because my life as I'm sure like everyone's here is made up of many aspects other then just being gay. So I did NOT vote for President Bush. But I also don't think he should be blamed for everything that happens.
Well I for one am done discussing this matter - I don't think it is doing anyone any good to bicker over left vs. right. Somehow our nation will overcome this tragedy, and I hope we do find the root of who dropped the ball, and IF it does end up going straight to the top of the food chain – then crow I will eat.
Posted by: Mike | Sep 8, 2005 10:16:57 AM
Oh man, there is a lot of seething going on here. But, in all the blather from the Right side, I have noticed that it is ALL defensive. Oddly, there is no one on the Right willing to say with a straight face (sorry, no pun intended) that they are proud of their president and the federal government's response. And yet, wasn't that the big selling point last election? Were'nt we all promised that we would be safer under his watch. Sadly, we could use a Churchill, or even a Guiliani. My heart bleeds to the left, but even I would welcome any republican with a grain of competence over Bush. (Sen. McCain for instance.) How nice it would be if we could be proud of our country and our president. I can disagree with a person politically and still respect them. But, I have no respect for Bush and his cronies. The good will of the post 9/11 world has been squandered and we are now left to flounder about in the putrid waters. Whether photgraphed or not, there remain thousands of bodies. Bloated, rotting, rat ravaged, bodies of the elderly, children and infirmed along with average citizenry. But none of that seems to even draw a tear, choke a word, cause a moments pause for this president or his cold hearted wife. The fly down there and run around smiling and waving, and backslapping. Its really creepy, there is no respect for the gravity of the national loss. It took all this time just to lower the flags to half staff. Republican, Democrat whatever, its just sad to have such an inhuman snob in command.
Posted by: Jeff | Sep 8, 2005 10:25:50 AM
You idiots who keep defending the president would be singing a different tune if you were clinging to a telephone pole in New Orleans instead of clinging to your double-latte in WeHo. Oh that's right, you would have escaped in your new 3-series anyway.
There is a lot of blame to go around and it includes the gay-bashing man you voted in.
Posted by: classic | Sep 8, 2005 10:35:51 AM
1. So as I understand it, you guys want to open your paper and look at a multi-page montage of the dead while you munch on your Pop-Tarts? No, but we can trust the media and their readers to make the best decisions on this point; the government does not need to censor this.
2. Last I checked, it was unethical for the media to show dead or critically injured bodies. Does that not apply to the liberal media, or just when there's a Republican in office? -It is not a usual practice, but the audience of the media will let them know when they cross an ethical line.
3. Exactly what is the role of the Secreatary of State during a domestic disaster? I, and I'm sure she would like to know. -She shouldn't be watching Spamalot and buying shoes when she could be coordinating and accepting foreign aid. I think if I was in her position, those would be the last two things I would be doing during this situation.
4. What, exactly, should President Bush or Vice President Cheney have done the day of the storm, since DHS was in charge of response, that would have saved anybody's life? -Well, how on earth do we know, but maybe by ending his vacation early, Bush could have evaluated his options and gave a sense to the country that he was on top of things and cared about the situation.
5. You and I both know that if the media splashed pictures of the bodies all over the place, you libs would bitch about how Bush should have prevented it. -Example of a Republican putting words into the mouths of liberals. I wouldn't have done this, and I don't think it's typical of the liberals I know.
6. It took Witt's FEMA about three (that's "3" for you liberals) weeks to respond to the flooding after hurricane Floyd in 1999. I know. I know. We're not supposed to be smart enough to remember that. -I'll just ignore the "3" comment like I ignore most sarcasm. This is neither here nor there, anyways. We're talking about the response to Katrina. Saying that others failed in a previous disaster does not exonerate anyone in this one.
7. Why is it that the mere mention of 9/11 drives liberals to hysteria with the accusations of exploitation and politicization, but they have no problem exploiting and politicizing a natural disaster which was much worse? -9/11 was used politically by the Prez to justify a war; I don't agree that this disaster should be a partisan attack. Many on this site are saying blame needs to be spread, but the focus is on the top levels. I think no one's surprised that the first full evacuation of a major American city since the Civil War didn't go off too well, but the reaction after assistance was called for appears much worse to my eyes. We'll see how it all pans out.
8. Why is the liberal media quoting Barbara Bush, with no reference of context, but ignoring Jesse Jackson's asinine comments? Is it because Mrs. Bush is far less likely to shake them down for cash? -Is the conservative media reporting Barbara Bush's full quote? Do they report Jesse Jackson's comments in context? And who really cares about what either of these people say or do?
9. Did any of you Katrina Chickens go to New Orleans to show the responders how it should have been done? -Katrina Chickens? Childish. It's not responders on the ground really that people are questioning, it's their handlers. This is really a ridiculous question.
10. Exactly how much disaster response experience/training do you have? None, but it doesn't take much to know that many things could have been done differently to both prevent the level of this disaster and effectively respond to it.
11. While you're blasting Mr. Brown's credentials, where's Mr. Witts degree in Emergency Management? As far as I know, he was only a county judge and a lord BJ crony who got appointed. -It doesn't make it OK for Brown to be in FEMA because Witt had iffy credentials. Cronyism with regards to the position of head of FEMA is bad no matter which president does it. I'll admit that. Can't we all get behind this?
12. Do you stow the gear necessary to post any information of the good things that have happened the last several days, or are you just going to stick with the usual leftist hate and pessimism? -Q to Andy, obviously, but he's obviously focusing on what he wants to. The news is filled with all kinds of information about this, and Andy does not need to cover it all or even try to be balanced.
13. Why has the MSM abandoned Alabama and subsequently, Mississippi? Was there not enough "poor blacks" to exploit by playing the race and class cards? There was certainly more damage there. -Abandoned? Is more damage more important than more death? Trust me, there are plenty of "poor blacks" throughout the Southeast, so that's not it. It happened, and people want to know about NO, so that's what the media is reporting about for the most part.
14. Are you still planning on sticking to the lies that Bush started and steered the hurricane? -Don't know any liberal that has said this...
15. Are you still planning on sticking to the lie that all of the military is in Iraq? -I don't know anyone that has said the entire military is in Iraq either, although there is obviously a large part of it there.
16. Are you still planning on sticking to the lie that those sections of levees that broke were underfunded by Bush? -Don't know enough about this one, but it's not the biggest issue; the response is. Certainly funding and planning on all levels should have been done dozens of years ago to prepare for this type of disaster.
17. Are you still planning on sticking to the lie that Kyoto would have prevented all hurricanes? -I didn't know we could sign a document and prevent hurricanes--another example of speaking for liberals and putting crazy words into our mouths. This is nothing like the reality of what the average liberal would say, so I'm not even responding to it.
18. And yes, there were hurricanes, many worse than Katrina before 19 January 2001. -No shit, Sherlock.
19. Fill in the blank. It takes _____ (period of time) to organize a disaster response. -Responses to various disasters should be pre-planned. In the event of an impending disaster with lead time, a response should be organized and ready to go immediately. Augmentations to this initial response should begin happening immediately and as soon as possible. I do not think two days is acceptable at all.
20. We're supposed to ignore the failures of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin, right? Well, if they had done what the state plan called for, we wouldn't have had this problem, or at least not as bad, would we? -I'm not ignoring them, and the problem may not have been as bad. None of us know the degree. Most definitely we would still have had a problem! And there are still problems with the federal response, that is obvious. Stop the partisan crap on both sides, I say, and let's figure out what went wrong on all levels and how to do better in the future.
Posted by: Matt | Sep 8, 2005 10:39:23 AM
A Question to the one's defending Bush and the administration:
1) What should President Bush and his administration have done differently, if anything?
Posted by: Steven | Sep 8, 2005 10:42:11 AM
I can understand why a lot of people may not agree with this: I absolutely see no problem with photographers being allowed to capture the casualties, because:
1) without these photographs it becomes less personal (this is our problem as a large nation) and it perpetuates our ongoing fear (and political motivator) of dealing with that great unknown: death.
2) I honestly think publishers will censor themselves before they fill pages full of photos of the dead. They do still have to make money, afterall. But self-censorship is always far better than a country that decides a level of "taste" for its entire, diverse population.
Posted by: Dead | Sep 8, 2005 10:50:40 AM