PDA

View Full Version : World stunned as US struggles with Katrina



BrianS
09-02-2005, 11:17 AM
I'd like to see the Rebublican that can win in 2008...Bush has fucked over just about everyone at this point.

World stunned as US struggles with Katrina (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/weather_katrina_reaction_dc&printer=1)
By Andrew Gray
Fri Sep 2,10:16 AM ET

The world has watched amazed as the planet's only superpower struggles with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with some saying the chaos has exposed flaws and deep divisions in American society.

World leaders and ordinary citizens have expressed sympathy with the people of the southern United States whose lives were devastated by the hurricane and the flooding that followed.

But many have also been shocked by the images of disorder beamed around the world -- looters roaming the debris-strewn streets and thousands of people gathered in New Orleans waiting for the authorities to provide food, water and other aid.

"Anarchy in the USA" declared Britain's best-selling newspaper The Sun.

"Apocalypse Now" headlined Germany's Handelsblatt daily.

The pictures of the catastrophe -- which has killed hundreds and possibly thousands -- have evoked memories of crises in the world's poorest nations such as last year's tsunami in Asia, which left more than 230,000 people dead or missing.

But some view the response to those disasters more favorably than the lawless aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

"I am absolutely disgusted. After the tsunami our people, even the ones who lost everything, wanted to help the others who were suffering," said Sajeewa Chinthaka, 36, as he watched a cricket match in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

"Not a single tourist caught in the tsunami was mugged. Now with all this happening in the U.S. we can easily see where the civilized part of the world's population is."

SINKING INTO ANARCHY

Many newspapers highlighted criticism of local and state authorities and of President Bush. Some compared the sputtering relief effort with the massive amounts of money and resources poured into the war in Iraq.

"A modern metropolis sinking in water and into anarchy -- it is a really cruel spectacle for a champion of security like Bush," France's left-leaning Liberation newspaper said.

"(Al Qaeda leader Osama) bin Laden, nice and dry in his hideaway, must be killing himself laughing."

A female employee at a multinational firm in South Korea said it may have been no accident the U.S. was hit.

"Maybe it was punishment for what it did to Iraq, which has a man-made disaster, not a natural disaster," said the woman, who did not want to be named as she has an American manager.

"A lot of the people I work with think this way. We spoke about it just the other day," she said.

Commentators noted the victims of the hurricane were overwhelmingly African Americans, too poor to flee the region as the hurricane loomed unlike some of their white neighbors.

New Orleans ranks fifth in the United States in terms of African American population and 67 percent of the city's residents are black.

"In one of the poorest states in the country, where black people earn half as much as white people, this has taken on a racial dimension," said a report in Britain's Guardian daily.

Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, in a veiled criticism of U.S. political thought, said the disaster showed the need for a strong state that could help poor people.

"You see in this example that even in the 21st century you need the state, a good functioning state, and I hope that for all these people, these poor people, that the Americans will do their best," he told reporters at a European Union meeting in Newport, Wales.

David Fordham, 33, a hospital anesthetist speaking at a London underground rail station, said he had spent time in America and was not surprised the country had struggled to cope.

"Maybe they just thought they could sit it out and everything would be okay," he said.

"It's unbelievable though -- the TV images -- and your heart goes out to them."

Seltzer Water
09-02-2005, 11:20 AM
Wow, there are a lot of assholes in the world

Gunter
09-02-2005, 11:21 AM
FTW

WAKKAJAWAKKA
09-02-2005, 11:23 AM
Wow, there are a lot of assholes in the world

Word.

Wayno.

BrianS
09-02-2005, 11:23 AM
Wow, there are a lot of assholes in the world

Starting with President Bush... :twisted:

MattKrizan
09-02-2005, 11:26 AM
Wow, some people are really naive.


"Not a single tourist caught in the tsunami was mugged. Now with all this happening in the U.S. we can easily see where the civilized part of the world's population is."

Er...I'm pretty sure there were reports of tsunami survivors being kidnapped or raped.

Ben
09-02-2005, 11:26 AM
Starting with President Bush... :twisted:
Give the guy a break. He was on VACATION! He works so hard, he deserves it.

Forget the fact that most of the people killed probably hadn't had a vacation in years.

Seltzer Water
09-02-2005, 11:27 AM
Appellate Judge Richard Posner had an article in the New York Times a few weeks ago that addresses an issue such as this. Is there really any need in "good journalism" to have this section:

[Many newspapers highlighted criticism of local and state authorities and of President Bush. Some compared the sputtering relief effort with the massive amounts of money and resources poured into the war in Iraq.

"A modern metropolis sinking in water and into anarchy -- it is a really cruel spectacle for a champion of security like Bush," France's left-leaning Liberation newspaper said.

"(Al Qaeda leader Osama) bin Laden, nice and dry in his hideaway, must be killing himself laughing."]

It doesn't advance the story or inform people, it just serves to show one of the many opposing sides of the story and to inflame different segments of the population. To quote a non-mainstream French paper seems frivolous

Yannick
09-02-2005, 11:28 AM
Wow, there are a lot of assholes in the world

Does that include all americans who think, as well, that the situation ws no handled at its best ?

PeterSparker
09-02-2005, 11:29 AM
Give the guy a break. He was on VACATION! He works so hard, he deserves it.

Forget the fact that most of the people killed probably hadn't had a vacation in years.

Yeah Clinton never took vacations. That wasn't him on Martha's Vineyard every summer, just someone who looked like him.

Seltzer Water
09-02-2005, 11:29 AM
Does that include all americans who think, as well, that the situation ws no handled at its best ?

read my post above yours for a clarification on the comment

Yannick
09-02-2005, 11:32 AM
read my post above yours for a clarification on the comment

Slow connection, apologies...

BrianS
09-02-2005, 11:32 AM
Yeah Clinton never took vacations. That wasn't him on Martha's Vineyard every summer, just someone who looked like him.


Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
With Long Sojourn at Ranch, President on His Way to Surpassing Reagan's Total (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201703_pf.html)
By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 3, 2005; A04

WACO, Tex., Aug. 2 -- President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.

The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening for a stretch of clearing brush, visiting with family and friends, and tending to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.

The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- nearly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further.

Bush's long vacations are more than a curiosity: They play into diametrically opposite arguments about this leadership style. To critics and late-night comics, they symbolize a lackadaisical approach to the world's most important day job, an impression bolstered by Bush's two-hour midday exercise sessions and his disinclination to work nights or weekends. The more vociferous among Bush's foes have noted that he spent a month at the ranch shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when critics assert he should have been more attentive to warning signs.

To Bush and his advisers, that criticism fundamentally misunderstands his Texas sojourns. Those who think he does not remain in command, aides say, do not understand the modern presidency or Bush's own work habits. At the ranch, White House officials say, Bush continues to receive daily national security briefings, sign documents, hold teleconferences with aides and military commanders, and even meet with foreign leaders. And from the president's point of view, the long Texas stints are the best way to clear his mind and reconnect with everyday America.

"I'm looking forward to getting down there and just kind of settling in," Bush told reporters from Texas newspapers during a roundtable interview at the White House on Monday. "I'll be doing a lot of work. On the other hand, I'll also be kind of making sure my Texas roots run deep."

"Spending time outside of Washington always gives the president a fresh perspective of what's on the minds of the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Friday. "It's a time, really, for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."

Just as Bush has made these August trips a regular feature of his presidency, so, too, have Democrats made a tradition of needling him about them. This year, opposition politicians are tying his departure from Washington to the CIA leak case that has swept up his top adviser, Karl Rove.

"The White House stonewalling operation is moving to Crawford for the dog days of summer, but they can't hide from the legitimate questions dogging the president and his refusal to keep his promise and fire Karl Rove," said Josh Earnest, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

Presidents have often sought refuge from the pressures of Washington and from life in the White House, which Harry S. Truman called the crown jewel of the American prison system. Richard M. Nixon favored Key Biscayne, Fla. Bush's father preferred Maine. Bill Clinton, lacking a home of his own, borrowed a house on Martha's Vineyard, except for two years when political adviser Dick Morris nudged him into going to Jackson, Wyo., before his reelection because it polled better.

Until now, probably no modern president was a more famous vacationer than Ronald Reagan, who loved spending time at his ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif. According to an Associated Press count, Reagan spent all or part of 335 days in Santa Barbara over his eight-year presidency -- a total that Bush will surpass this month in Crawford with 3 1/2 years left in his second term.

"The Oval Office is wherever the president of the United States is," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who was Reagan's last White House chief of staff. "With the communications being what they are, the president can communicate instantly with whomever he wants anywhere in the world."

Bush will not return to the White House until after Labor Day, but his staff has peppered his schedule with events to dispel any impression that he is not on duty. He will visit at least seven states, mostly with quick day trips, including New Mexico, where he plans to sign energy legislation into law. He gets off to a quick start this week, with a speech Wednesday in nearby Grapevine, Tex., then he plays host to President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia at the ranch Thursday. His schedule is clear Friday through Sunday.

At some point, Bush told reporters Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld will visit for consultations. "I have a busy couple of weeks down there," Bush said.

But he will make time for fun, or at least his idea of it. Bush rarely takes the type of vacation one would consider exotic -- or, to some, even appealing. His notion of relaxation is chopping cedar on his ranch or mountain biking through rough terrain, all in 100-degree-plus temperatures in dusty Texas where crickets are known to roast on the summer pavement. He seems to relish the idea of exposing aides and reporters to the hothouse environment.

"I just checked in with the house -- it's about 100 degrees," he told reporters Monday. "But no matter how hot it gets, I enjoy spending time in Texas."

Kody
09-02-2005, 11:34 AM
Starting with President Bush... :twisted:

Man, you guys that hate Bush so much it seems that's all you care about anymore. If you'd like to actually place blame for things not working the way they should, please put the blame on our local and state politicians and our past and present governors including, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and the Louisiana voters. Engineers have been calling for a better hurricane barrier for New Orleans since the 20's. It's in the news every single hurricane season.

It's got nothing to do with President Bush no matter how much you'd like it to.

BrianS
09-02-2005, 11:36 AM
Man, you guys that hate Bush so much it seems that's all you care about anymore. If you'd like to actually place blame for things not working the way they should, please put the blame on our local and state politicians and our past and present governors including, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and the Louisiana voters. Engineers have been calling for a better hurricane barrier for New Orleans since the 20's. It's in the news every single hurricane season.

It's got nothing to do with President Bush no matter how much you'd like it to.

Yes, and Bush cut the funding. He diverted the funds to Homeland Security, its been all over the news for days...

PeterSparker
09-02-2005, 11:36 AM
Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
With Long Sojourn at Ranch, President on His Way to Surpassing Reagan's Total (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201703_pf.html)
By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 3, 2005; A04

WACO, Tex., Aug. 2 -- President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.

The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening for a stretch of clearing brush, visiting with family and friends, and tending to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.

The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- nearly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further.

Bush's long vacations are more than a curiosity: They play into diametrically opposite arguments about this leadership style. To critics and late-night comics, they symbolize a lackadaisical approach to the world's most important day job, an impression bolstered by Bush's two-hour midday exercise sessions and his disinclination to work nights or weekends. The more vociferous among Bush's foes have noted that he spent a month at the ranch shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when critics assert he should have been more attentive to warning signs.

To Bush and his advisers, that criticism fundamentally misunderstands his Texas sojourns. Those who think he does not remain in command, aides say, do not understand the modern presidency or Bush's own work habits. At the ranch, White House officials say, Bush continues to receive daily national security briefings, sign documents, hold teleconferences with aides and military commanders, and even meet with foreign leaders. And from the president's point of view, the long Texas stints are the best way to clear his mind and reconnect with everyday America.

"I'm looking forward to getting down there and just kind of settling in," Bush told reporters from Texas newspapers during a roundtable interview at the White House on Monday. "I'll be doing a lot of work. On the other hand, I'll also be kind of making sure my Texas roots run deep."

"Spending time outside of Washington always gives the president a fresh perspective of what's on the minds of the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Friday. "It's a time, really, for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."

Just as Bush has made these August trips a regular feature of his presidency, so, too, have Democrats made a tradition of needling him about them. This year, opposition politicians are tying his departure from Washington to the CIA leak case that has swept up his top adviser, Karl Rove.

"The White House stonewalling operation is moving to Crawford for the dog days of summer, but they can't hide from the legitimate questions dogging the president and his refusal to keep his promise and fire Karl Rove," said Josh Earnest, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

Presidents have often sought refuge from the pressures of Washington and from life in the White House, which Harry S. Truman called the crown jewel of the American prison system. Richard M. Nixon favored Key Biscayne, Fla. Bush's father preferred Maine. Bill Clinton, lacking a home of his own, borrowed a house on Martha's Vineyard, except for two years when political adviser Dick Morris nudged him into going to Jackson, Wyo., before his reelection because it polled better.

Until now, probably no modern president was a more famous vacationer than Ronald Reagan, who loved spending time at his ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif. According to an Associated Press count, Reagan spent all or part of 335 days in Santa Barbara over his eight-year presidency -- a total that Bush will surpass this month in Crawford with 3 1/2 years left in his second term.

"The Oval Office is wherever the president of the United States is," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who was Reagan's last White House chief of staff. "With the communications being what they are, the president can communicate instantly with whomever he wants anywhere in the world."

Bush will not return to the White House until after Labor Day, but his staff has peppered his schedule with events to dispel any impression that he is not on duty. He will visit at least seven states, mostly with quick day trips, including New Mexico, where he plans to sign energy legislation into law. He gets off to a quick start this week, with a speech Wednesday in nearby Grapevine, Tex., then he plays host to President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia at the ranch Thursday. His schedule is clear Friday through Sunday.

At some point, Bush told reporters Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld will visit for consultations. "I have a busy couple of weeks down there," Bush said.

But he will make time for fun, or at least his idea of it. Bush rarely takes the type of vacation one would consider exotic -- or, to some, even appealing. His notion of relaxation is chopping cedar on his ranch or mountain biking through rough terrain, all in 100-degree-plus temperatures in dusty Texas where crickets are known to roast on the summer pavement. He seems to relish the idea of exposing aides and reporters to the hothouse environment.

"I just checked in with the house -- it's about 100 degrees," he told reporters Monday. "But no matter how hot it gets, I enjoy spending time in Texas."


Oh, I see Clinton took just the right amount, and also they apparently don't have phones in Texas only in DC. I get it now. (and who cares that congress took off all of August either)


And the funniest part of this is that Bush isn't running for reelection so you are accomplishing nothing here. I know you're heart felt belief that Hillary has all the answers, but she won't be running against Bush, its time you realized that.

Kody
09-02-2005, 11:37 AM
Yes, and Bush cut the funding. He diverted the funds to Homeland Security, its been all over the news for days...

Louisiana has an income, and Louisiana collects taxes. Moving dirt and pouring concrete barriers doesn't have to be a national effort.

PeterSparker
09-02-2005, 11:38 AM
Man, you guys that hate Bush so much it seems that's all you care about anymore. If you'd like to actually place blame for things not working the way they should, please put the blame on our local and state politicians and our past and present governors including, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and the Louisiana voters. Engineers have been calling for a better hurricane barrier for New Orleans since the 20's. It's in the news every single hurricane season.

It's got nothing to do with President Bush no matter how much you'd like it to.

And its this totally manic (and quite scary) attitude that will cost them future elections too. They convince NO ONE with this endless routine.

sonnylarue
09-02-2005, 11:39 AM
Louisiana has an income, and Louisiana collects taxes. Moving dirt and pouring concrete barriers doesn't have to be a national effort.


states are deserving of federal funds to repair infrastructure .

BrianS
09-02-2005, 11:41 AM
And its this totally manic (and quite scary) attitude that will cost them future elections too. They convince NO ONE with this endless routine.


We don't have to convince you...we've just got two states back that aren't being helped in a time of National crisis.

PeterSparker
09-02-2005, 11:41 AM
states are deserving of federal funds to repair infrastructure .


thanks for the info

Kody
09-02-2005, 11:42 AM
states are deserving of federal funds to repair infrastructure .

Fine, I don't debate the fact that Louisiana is entitled to national funds. We just built a multi-million dollar arena for the Hornets using Louisiana tax dollars and before this storm, we were considering building a new one for the Saints. We got no moral ground to stand on complaining about funding cuts for construction in New Orleans. Sorry, but federal funding cuts is a bullshit excuse.

GabeLogan
09-02-2005, 11:42 AM
Louisiana has an income, and Louisiana collects taxes. Moving dirt and pouring concrete barriers doesn't have to be a national effort.
And probably should never be a national effort, at least not until now.

xyzzy
09-02-2005, 11:44 AM
And its this totally manic (and quite scary) attitude that will cost them future elections too. They convince NO ONE with this endless routine.

Actually, I think that this may hurt the Republicans, just because it would have pushed domestic issues higher than national security in a lot of people's eyes.

sonnylarue
09-02-2005, 11:44 AM
thanks for the info

my pleasure, I got it from the same sources as your 'clinton took vacations too' point ;-)

Captain Nate
09-02-2005, 11:45 AM
Yes, and Bush cut the funding. He diverted the funds to Homeland Security, its been all over the news for days...

Homeland security actually being the job of the federal government...And despite that spending, they got several hundred million dollars in the recent Highway and Energy bills.

Louisiana isn't helpless, you know. 10th amendment, and all, THEY should have paid for the process if it was so important (and I doubt it would have done much)

stevapalooza
09-02-2005, 11:49 AM
So..the continent that gave us two world wars in the space of 50 years, invented concentration camps and nearly erradicated an entire religious group is stunned by OUR brutality? That's kinda funny.

Keith P.
09-02-2005, 11:51 AM
So..the continent that gave us two world wars in the space of 50 years, invented concentration camps and nearly erradicated an entire religious group is stunned by OUR brutality? That's kinda funny.

But, but...they have a lot of old building ands culture and stuff!

Captain Nate
09-02-2005, 11:59 AM
But, but...they have a lot of old building ands culture and stuff!

Stop generalizing! :cry:

Ray G.
09-02-2005, 12:02 PM
First up, you're batshit insane if you think the Republicans are actually going to suffer in 2008. We have the stronger base of voters. I'd like to see the Democrat who could actually beat most candidates.

Second, the people quoted in that article can go eat shit. They have no clue what the fuck they're talking about, and are really just trying to score cheap political points.

NickBurgess
09-02-2005, 12:08 PM
First up, you're batshit insane if you think the Republicans are actually going to suffer in 2008. We have the stronger base of voters. I'd like to see the Democrat who could actually beat most candidates.

Second, the people quoted in that article can go eat shit. They have no clue what the fuck they're talking about, and are really just trying to score cheap political points.

The Republican base can't be that much stronger, given how close things are across the country. A slight shift could change a lot. I wouldn't say someone is batshit insane for saying things could change in 3 years.

xyzzy
09-02-2005, 12:09 PM
First up, you're batshit insane if you think the Republicans are actually going to suffer in 2008. We have the stronger base of voters. I'd like to see the Democrat who could actually beat most candidates.

Insane seems little a strong word choice, to me. What are you basing your assessment on? 2008 is still a ways off, I think it's tough to say what's going to happen with absolute certainty.

Ray G.
09-02-2005, 12:09 PM
The Republican base can't be that much stronger, given how close things are across the country. A slight shift could change a lot. I wouldn't say someone is batshit insane for saying things could change in 3 years.

I would say he's batshit insane for saying a Republican can't win in 2008 because of Katrina.

You make much more sense.

NickBurgess
09-02-2005, 12:09 PM
Insane seems little a strong word choice, to me. What are you basing your assessment on?

Bush's mandate.

Ashton
09-02-2005, 12:12 PM
for those in the world (like the bitch from Korea mentioned in the article) saying the U.S. had this coming...FUCK OFF!!

NickBurgess
09-02-2005, 12:12 PM
I would say he's batshit insane for saying a Republican can't win in 2008 because of Katrina.

You make much more sense.

Okay. I will go on record saying a republican could win in 2008. My insanity is far from batshit.

CoryPlaysPiano
09-02-2005, 12:19 PM
Freaking bastards. The U.S. helped raise so much money for tsunami relief that they can't even spend it all, and when something bad happens to us there are people just waiting to jump all over it. Fuck the world. I would never celebrate such a tragedy if it happened to someone else, even now. They're starting to be pretty hypocritical about how arrogant we are, when they clearly believe themselves to be better than us because they have better attitudes... :roll:

Captain Nate
09-02-2005, 12:22 PM
Freaking bastards. The U.S. helped raise so much money for tsunami relief that they can't even spend it all, and when something bad happens to us there are people just waiting to jump all over it. Fuck the world. I would never celebrate such a tragedy if it happened to someone else, even now. They're starting to be pretty hypocritical about how arrogant we are, when they clearly believe themselves to be better than us because they have better attitudes... :roll:

To be fair, SOME people in that region must be greatful, I remember reading some very wonderful comments. But the rest of them? Let them Fuck off.

NickBurgess
09-02-2005, 12:27 PM
How many people did they quote? Like 5? I'd say this article is geared toward these very specific kinds of responses. Many countries have offered help -- these people don't represent everyone.

Kody
09-02-2005, 12:28 PM
The reality is that even with the hate toward the USA, we're still going to step up and help other countries when they need the help. And in return, we'll always get a "Fuck You" from many people in the world. We don't help because we want a universal 'thanks from the world, we do it because it's the right thing to do. As it should be.

Mick
09-02-2005, 12:28 PM
And its this totally manic (and quite scary) attitude that will cost them future elections too. They convince NO ONE with this endless routine.

Not everything has to be "strategery." Maybe we just really dislike having a prick in office, and we feel the need to vent every once in a while. But, no, conservatives didn't do that to Clinton. They loved 'im. Backed his every move. Made only constructive criticisms when the time called for it.

Kody
09-02-2005, 12:37 PM
Not everything has to be "strategery." Maybe we just really dislike having a prick in office, and we feel the need to vent every once in a while. But, no, conservatives didn't do that to Clinton. They loved 'im. Backed his every move. Made only constructive criticisms when the time called for it.

I don't get the political spin on all this, it's kind of pathetic.

Our governor is a Democrat, the mayor of New Orleans is a Democrat. Most of the local elected officials in New Orleans are Democrats. The dead people in the Gulf South are made up of republicans AND democrats. Many are white, and many are black. It's people hurting, and other people trying to help. Turning a national crisis into an election issue is probably a bad idea and also in bad taste.

sonnylarue
09-02-2005, 12:38 PM
I don't get the political spin on all this, it's kind of pathetic.

Our governor is a Democrat, the mayor of New Orleans is a Democrat. Most of the local elected officials in New Orleans are Democrats. The dead people in the Gulf South are made up of republicans AND democrats. Many are white, and many are black. It's people hurting, and other people trying to help. Turning a national crisis into an election issue is probably a bad idea and also in bad taste.

so the ineptness of the (republican run) feds should'nt be judged?

Kody
09-02-2005, 12:39 PM
so the ineptness of the (republican run) feds should'nt be judged?

Judged for launching a category 5 hurricane at the gulf coast? Sure. Hang 'em high.

mario
09-02-2005, 12:39 PM
The reality is that even with the hate toward the USA, we're still going to step up and help other countries when they need the help. And in return, we'll always get a "Fuck You" from many people in the world. We don't help because we want a universal 'thanks from the world, we do it because it's the right thing to do. As it should be.

yes! That's what the world want America to be: the right way. Honest.

But again you're reading it all wrong: first and formost: EVERYBODY sympathises with the disaster that's taken place (Castro, Chavez,...) and offering genuine aid, alot of European countries are sending their strategic fuels over to the US, dispite what they personnally feel for it's leader and administration

BUT

we genuinely feel shocked when we see those horrid inept images and wonder why you (American leaders) dropped the ball on this

We're finding it more and more difficult to look up to America for inspiration

PatrickA
09-02-2005, 12:39 PM
isn't this about the third time this same bullshit article has been posted here? I know its at least the second.

Also, if there is one thing that will get republicans elected, its people in other nations bitching in this manner about the US.

Captain Nate
09-02-2005, 12:41 PM
yes! That's what the world want America to be: the right way. Honest.

But again you're reading it all wrong: first and formost: EVERYBODY sympathises with the disaster that's taken place (Castro, Chavez,...)

Bullshit. Castro and Chavez are what are popularly known as fucktards, and for you to defend them...well...what does that make you?

sonnylarue
09-02-2005, 12:42 PM
Judged for launching a category 5 hurricane at the gulf coast? Sure. Hang 'em high.

look, Bush RAN on his efforts involving 9/11, which some felt was in bad taste too.

Like it or not presidents are judged by how well they handle a crisis, and again the man himself has pointed to the bad job HIS people have done so far.

If he's expecting applause for how well he did in NYC, he needs to answer the critisims of how quickly the feds react in this situation.

Kody
09-02-2005, 12:44 PM
look, Bush RAN on his efforts involving 9/11, which some felt was in bad taste too.

Like it or not presidents are judged by how well they handle a crisis, and again the man himself has pointed to the bad job HIS people have done so far.

If he's expecting applause for how well he did in NYC, he needs to answer the critisims of how quickly the feds react in this situation.

From my perspective, the crisis in New York City was handled by the mayor, Rudy Giuliani, not the President. Am I wrong?

kaptain
09-02-2005, 12:48 PM
Bullshit. Castro and Chavez are what are popularly known as fucktards, and for you to defend them...well...what does that make you?

I'm struggling to see where he defended them. Anyway, shouldn't you be jerking off to pictures of Ayn Rand or something... :twisted:

Captain Nate
09-02-2005, 12:51 PM
I'm struggling to see where he defended them.

The way I see it, Lumping them in with countries who gennuinely offer their support is an insult to those countries, or is meant to make them look good -- I consider that to be defending them.

sonnylarue
09-02-2005, 12:52 PM
From my perspective, the crisis in New York City was handled by the mayor, Rudy Giuliani, not the President. Am I wrong?

not wrong , just incomplete , because clearly the feds moved in and assisted, just like now.

and again Bush was using his 9/11 hardhat appearences to illustrate how great he handled that crisis.

am I wrong

Captain Nate
09-02-2005, 12:55 PM
not wrong , just incomplete , because clearly the feds moved in and assisted, just like now.

and again Bush was using his 9/11 hardhat appearences to illustrate how great he handled that crisis.

am I wrong

I think it's too soon to be judging the federal reaction to the crisis. The state dropped the ball, and within the next day or two we should see how the federal government fixes things up.

Kody
09-02-2005, 01:00 PM
not wrong , just incomplete , because clearly the feds moved in and assisted, just like now.

and again Bush was using his 9/11 hardhat appearences to illustrate how great he handled that crisis.

am I wrong

Of course the feds stepped in to help. And I'm not talking about appearances, I'm talking about what happened on the scene. Giuliani had his shit together, Giuliani had a plan. He told the feds what he needed, and the feds responded. That's how the system works.

Our leadership here in Louisiana didn't have a plan, they still don't. They're waiting for the feds to sweep in and save us. It didn't have to be that way but it is. Democrats and Republicans are working together to solve the thousands of problems we have to solve, and political blame isn't gonna fix a single one.

dEnny!
09-02-2005, 01:09 PM
So we provide aid and support to other countries in their time of need...and they criticize us?

JeremyDale
09-02-2005, 01:12 PM
So we provide aid and support to other countries in their time of need...and they criticize us?

Yeah, no kidding. Doesn't seem fair.

sonnylarue
09-02-2005, 01:15 PM
Kody, we'll agree to disagree.

Monday and Tuesday should have been days of immediate federal action, instead , you saw the Bush leadership doing photo ops , and heading to broadway plays, instead of heading immediatley back to DC and addresing this.

ANY sitting adm, would be getting grief for their slow reaction

Kody
09-02-2005, 01:21 PM
Kody, we'll agree to disagree.

Monday and Tuesday should have been days of immediate federal action, instead , you saw the Bush leadership doing photo ops , and heading to broadway plays, instead of heading immediatley back to DC and addresing this.

ANY sitting adm, would be getting grief for their slow reaction

All I'm saying is that nearly national issue this message board discusses goes through the "Bush Hate" political filter, and it usually lacks objectivity.

sonnylarue
09-02-2005, 01:26 PM
from the washington times editorial page




Troops are finally moving into New Orleans in realistic numbers, and it's past time. What took the government so long? The thin veneer separating civilization and chaos, which we earlier worried might collapse in the absence of swift action, has collapsed.

We expected to see, many hours ago, the president we saw standing atop the ruin of the World Trade Center, rallying a dazed country to action. We're pleased he finally caught a ride home from his vacation, but he risks losing the one trait his critics have never dented: His ability to lead, and be seen leading.

He returns to the scene of the horror today, and that's all to the good. His presence will rally broken spirits. But he must crack heads, if bureaucratic heads need cracking, to get the food, water and medicine to the people crying for help in New Orleans and on the Mississippi coast. The list of things he has promised is a good list, but there is no time to dally, whether by land, sea or air. We should have delivered them yesterday. Americans are dying.

Ray G.
09-02-2005, 01:26 PM
So we provide aid and support to other countries in their time of need...and they criticize us?

But we're rich, and as such inherently evil. So whatever we do is wrong. And when we donate money to poorer countries, we're just showing off and making them feel bad for being poor. Makes sense, no?

Angel of Distraction
09-02-2005, 01:27 PM
Yeah Clinton never took vacations. That wasn't him on Martha's Vineyard every summer, just someone who looked like him.

Since Clinton isn't the President I fail to see how criticisms of him are needed or useful, especially in a time like this.

ihategravity
09-02-2005, 01:33 PM
So we provide aid and support to other countries in their time of need...and they criticize us?

I believe that this resentment for the US has always been there because of jealousy. But I feel as if other countries HATE us simply because of BUSH--and his fucktardness.

Angel of Distraction
09-02-2005, 01:34 PM
I believe that this resentment for the US has always been there because of jealousy. But I feel as if other countries HATE us simply because of BUSH--and his fucktardness.

I also beleive these are criticisms from the press, not from world leaders.

Xander Boune
09-02-2005, 01:37 PM
It's not just the world press shocked by the administration's slow federal relief effort. When New Gingrich comes out and says that the adminstation's efforts have been sluggish, you know it's not a partisan issue. Does any Republican on this board feel that the federal response up to this point has been adequate?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001054151 (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001054151)


Editorials, Including Those at Conservative Papers, Rip Bush's Hurricane Response

By E&P Staff

Published: September 02, 2005 12:30 PM ET

NEW YORK
Editorials from around the country on Friday -- including at the Bush-friendly Dallas Morning News and The Washington Times -- have, by and large, offered harsh criticism of the official and military response to the disaster in the Gulf Coast. Here's a sampling.

Dallas Morning News

As a federal official in a neatly pressed suit talked to reporters in Washington about "little bumps along the road" in emergency efforts, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin issued an urgent SOS. The situation near the convention center was chaotic; not enough buses were available to evacuate thousands of survivors, and the streets were littered with the dead.

Moments later, President Bush took center stage and talked at length about the intricacies of energy policy and plans to keep prices stable. Meanwhile, doctors at hospitals called the Associated Press asking to get their urgent message out: We need to be evacuated, we're taking sniper fire, and nobody is in charge.

Who is in charge?

Losing New Orleans to a natural disaster is one thing, but losing her to hopeless gunmen and a shameful lack of response is unfathomable. How is it that the U.S. military can conquer a foreign country in a matter of days, but can't stop terrorists controlling the streets of America or even drop a case of water to desperate and dying Americans?

President Bush, please see what's happening. The American people want to believe the government is doing everything it can do -- not to rebuild or to stabilize gas prices -- just to restore the most basic order. So far, they are hearing about Herculean efforts, but they aren't seeing them.

***

The Washington Times

Troops are finally moving into New Orleans in realistic numbers, and it's past time. What took the government so long? The thin veneer separating civilization and chaos, which we earlier worried might collapse in the absence of swift action, has collapsed.

We expected to see, many hours ago, the president we saw standing atop the ruin of the World Trade Center, rallying a dazed country to action. We're pleased he finally caught a ride home from his vacation, but he risks losing the one trait his critics have never dented: His ability to lead, and be seen leading.

He returns to the scene of the horror today, and that's all to the good. His presence will rally broken spirits. But he must crack heads, if bureaucratic heads need cracking, to get the food, water and medicine to the people crying for help in New Orleans and on the Mississippi coast. The list of things he has promised is a good list, but there is no time to dally, whether by land, sea or air. We should have delivered them yesterday. Americans are dying.

***

Philadelphia Inquirer (and other Knight Ridder papers)

"I hope people don't point -- play politics during this period." That was President Bush's response yesterday to criticism of the U.S. government's inexplicably inadequate relief efforts following Hurricane Katrina.

Sorry, Mr. President, legitimate questions are being asked about the lack of rescue personnel, equipment, food, supplies, transportation, you name it, four days after the storm. It's not "playing politics" to ask why.
It's not "playing politics" to ask questions about what Americans watched in horror on TV yesterday: elderly people literally dying on the street outside the New Orleans convention center because they were sick and no one came to their aid.

The rest of America can't fathom why a country with our resources can't be at least as effective in this emergency as it was when past disasters struck Third World nations. Someone needs to explain why well-known emergency aid lessons aren't being applied here.

This hurricane is no one's fault; the devastation would be hard to handle no matter who was in charge. But human deeds can mitigate a disaster, or make it worse.

For example: Did federal priorities in an era of huge tax cuts shortchange New Orleans' storm protection and leave it more vulnerable? This flooding is no surprise to experts. They've been warning for more than 20 years that the levees keeping Lake Pontchartrain from emptying into the under-sea-level city would likely break under the strain of a Category 3 hurricane. Katrina was a Category 4.

So the Crescent City sits under water, much of its population in a state of desperate, dangerous transience, not knowing when they will return home. They're the lucky ones, though. Worse off are those left among the dying in a dying town.

The questions aren't about politics. They are about justice.

***

Minneapolis Star Tribune

But whatever the final toll, the wrenching misery and trauma confronting the people of New Orleans is much greater than it should be -- as it is, in fact, for tens of thousands of people along the strip of Mississippi that was most brutally assaulted by the storm. The immediate goal must be to ease that suffering. The second goal must be to understand how we came to this sorry situation.

How do you justify cutting $250 million in scheduled spending for crucial pump and levee work in the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project (SELA), authorized by Congress in 1995?

How do you explain the almost total lack of coordination among federal, state and local officials both in Louisiana and Mississippi? No one appeared in charge.

***

Des Moines Register

The devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina was the first practical test of the new homeland-security arrangements and the second test of President Bush in the face of a national crisis.

The performance of both has been less than stellar so far.

Katrina was a disaster that came with at least two days of warning, and it has been more than four days since the storm struck. Yet on Thursday, refugees still huddled unrescued in the unspeakable misery of the New Orleans Superdome. Patients in hospitals without power and water clung to life in third-world conditions. Untold tragedies lie yet to be discovered in the rural lowlands of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

CoryPlaysPiano
09-02-2005, 01:54 PM
I think everyone could have done better in this situation, but the leaders of Louisiana really botched their responsibility to step up and start leading. Instead, they pointed fingers, appeared completely helpless, and whined like children. Where was their plan? Did they do a single thing to try to work with what was available, despite how little there was? Giuliani was devastated and completely shocked on 9/11, yet he managed to rally the troops and a recovery began very quickly. This was the destruction of an entire city, but the scenario was waiting to happen and warned about for years. You'd think the people in charge of that place would have SOME kind of contingency plan for their own state.

Ray G.
09-02-2005, 01:55 PM
[QUOTE=Xander Boune]It's not just the world press shocked by the administration's slow federal relief effort. When New Gingrich comes out and says that the adminstation's efforts have been sluggish, you know it's not a partisan issue. Does any Republican on this board feel that the federal response up to this point has been adequate?

Absolutely not. I don't object to domestic criticism at all. I just find it incredibly unseemly to see arrogant idiots abroad gleefuly critiquing the US in order to feel superior to us.

Smokinblues
09-02-2005, 03:08 PM
there is more than enough blame to go around here. we don't know why the federal response got botched up. we don't know where the breakdowns were. the state and even the city reactions weren't a whole lot better or more organized either. we won't know what went wrong where for months.

Andrew j
09-02-2005, 04:56 PM
isn't this about the third time this same bullshit article has been posted here? I know its at least the second.

Also, if there is one thing that will get republicans elected, its people in other nations bitching in this manner about the US.

Pretty much.

Angel of Distraction
09-02-2005, 07:41 PM
Bullshit. Castro and Chavez are what are popularly known as fucktards, and for you to defend them...well...what does that make you?

They are fucktards because of facts or because the U.S. says they are? Because as far as I can tell, Castro isn't quite the villain we make him out to be. I don't know much about Chavez.

NickT
09-02-2005, 07:46 PM
there is more than enough blame to go around here. we don't know why the federal response got botched up. we don't know where the breakdowns were. the state and even the city reactions weren't a whole lot better or more organized either. we won't know what went wrong where for months.
That involves waiting though! ;-)

Andrew j
09-02-2005, 07:47 PM
That involves waiting though! ;-)

hahahaha

Captain Nate
09-02-2005, 08:14 PM
They are fucktards because of facts or because the U.S. says they are? Because as far as I can tell, Castro isn't quite the villain we make him out to be. I don't know much about Chavez.

Because they're fucking dictators (or, in Chavez's case, technically a wanna-be dictator) who abuse their people, steal their property and jail and abuse them for speaking against them.