I cannot picture Moore without bringing up that image of him double fisting hotdogs with mustard droppings all over his shirt from Team America.  I find it kinda funny about the fat farm.  He has to pay some one to work the fat off him instead of going on diet himself and making his own choices about how to live a healthier lifestyle.  He’s probably upset because paying for his fat farm should be something the government does for him, instead of paying his own way.

Hey, to his credit, if I had tons of money from my propaganda films, I’d pay someone else to take care of my fat too, not spend months doing it myself. :P

Money brings certain conveniences that should be embraced.

Well said Lee.  :D

Money brings certain conveniences that should be embraced.

Conveniences which he detests in others, but routinely engages for himself, all the while projecting a false air of awe at the sheer irony of it all.  Imagine that!  Me!  A regular guy!  With millions!  And luxuries!  Who’da thunk it!

Piss off, Mikey.  The only thing you seem to have learned in the last four years is that the fewer people who listen to you, the more room you have to say more asinine things with impunity.  What’s really tragic is the propping up the radical left gets from Scare America Radio.  If Janene Garafalo pimps your lame book one more time I’m gonna puke.

I think it hilarious that being fat does get to this pseudo demagogue. Anyway the division between idealogies was made crstal clear again by John Edwards on the LKL show. He wants to establish bank accounts for the poor people in NO,with money placed in it by the Feds. This is the major sticking point in the national argument over the so-called poor.Remember varying definitions define the parameters of what “poor” is.
Anyway the difference between NYC’s handling of 9/11 and NO’s handling of Katrina was simple. NYC was run by a take charge mayor in a city of take charge people, NO on the other hand was populates by agroup of people that have been told and led as if they are powerless.  The victim mentality.The Dems since the Johnson Great Society have GIVEN things to people in the hopes that this will make their boat rise.  The other side of the argument is to present oppurtunities to people and teach them to fish as it were.  Both idealogies want to help people but the one makes them powerless and dependent.  The other empoers them and makes them fisherman. MM is just a pimple on the ass of any type of progress. The argument on how to help people and the microcosm of the two cities presents a good case study to frame the national argument with. Now let’s see anyone due it. GWB or anyone else.

What else can I say to Mikey-boy except “Go fuck yourself”?

With the nation’s debt at an all-time high, do you think tax cuts for the rich are still a good idea? Will you give yours back so hundreds of thousands of homeless in New Orleans can have a home?

Yes Mike i will, as have many others, just not to the government, see people have donated millions and millions, even the evil companies owned by the rich evil vile people have donated money and resources, we don’t have to depend on just the government to help people using our money.

Very well said, Lee.  You echoed just about every one of my feelings to a tee.

I was recently arguing on another site with some very “reactionary” liberal types.  I was trying to get many of the same general points across that you conveyed here.  Namely, that just because I agree with/support some policies of the Bush Administration, doesn’t mean that I’m a mindless sycophant for everything Bush says or does.  Hell, I held my nose last November when I hit that lever, too. 

Unfortunately, that seems to be the general consensus among many liberals; if you support Bush even remotely, you are a Kool-Aid drinker for everything he and the GOP do.  Sad, really...considering that many (most?) conservatives and moderates could find almost as many faults with GW as some liberals could.  Instead, the Left seems to have adopted the “all or nothing” approach to political allegiance...the one where logic, reason, and civil discourse are disposed in favor of irrational hatred of any/everything Bush does.  But I guess that’s OK, since liberals are “independant thinkers”, right? 

Meanwhile, on another planet, many liberals refuse to look in the mirror and admit their own complicity here....which is ironic, considering they lament that same supposed trait in all of us “Kool-Aid drinkers”. 

------

to keep poor people sucking at the ample, fishy teat of government

Was anyone else’s gag reflex kickin’ in over the mental imagery there?

Do they know what it means to have your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?

You see once again thats vintage Moore he thinks he speaks on behalf of every injured soldier, and every troop in Iraq.  Why is it that not just him but so many anti war people think that?

We understand that there are certain functions and needs that can only be met by government.  National defense, building roads, picking up garbage, providing fire and police rescue, that sort of thing.

Well said the government does really well when it comes to these issues.  But surely you can’t rely on government power on every single issue.

You’re a multi-millionaire, Mikey.  What did you do with your tax cut.  Did you give it back to the government, as you are asking others to do?  If you did, prove it to us.  Show us a copy of the cancelled cashier’s check to Uncle Sam, proving that you gave back your tax cut.  What’s that, Mikey?  You didn’t give it back?

No kidding, that just doesn’t apply to Moore, this applies to all those idiot celebrites who bitch about the tax cuts.  How many of them have sent theres back?

And since “the rich” are the only people in this country who actually pay any taxes, then they are the only people who will receive tax cuts.

Actually I’m going to have to disagree with you on that.  Yes the rich do pay MOST of the taxes but not all.  So even people who arent rich have recieved tax cuts.  The rich simply get more is because they pay more in taxes.

My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing stock of the world?

Oh so now were the laughing stock.  Oh so you praise countries of Canada and France has being so good and righteous.  Yet they laugh at our deaths caused by the Hurricane, and they find humor in the fact that it took us so long to feed the victims that were left behind?  Hah hah thats so funny isn’t it?  America is so powerful yet when nature strook people were dying in the streets waiting for help.  Why the fuck would you say the laughing stock?  Hey mike since you take the perspective of other people on this globe, then perhaps you find humor in our mistakes even though Americans were dying you sick fuck! 

As for the rest of the world seeing us as an evil boogyman who just wants to take over the world.  I say first of all thats not the entire rest of the world, and second of all the ones who do think like that fuck them!  People see our ways of handling terrorism has unneccesary and corrupt.  Countries that are attacked by terrorism, on a more frequent basis critisizce us.  Well excuse the U.S.A for taking steps in PREVENTING acts of terror.  I mean maybe we would be more popular in your eyes if we took your approach on terroism (ie let it happen and adapt to it) as opposed to fighting them overseas.  If its the choice of being popular in the eyes of our skeptics or protecting people at home I think the choice is obvious.  Or am I just a repug whose using a “scare tactic”
Does anyone remember Teresa Heinz Kerry implying that I don’t see what the big deal is about these terrorist attacks, I mean they happen in the U.K all the time.

We didn’t “give the world” Bush.  We had a choice to make, Bush or Kerry.  It’s fair to say that, even among Republicans, there were a lot of people who didn’t like Bush.  I could name 20 people I’d rather see as president than Bush.

Lee I bet you can’t even name 6!  And don’t give me names of ex presidents I mean people who would be eligible to run.  As for the choice of Bush or Kerry, Ok lets say Kerry did win the election.  That would have been a huge victory for the Bush haters and democrats, they would have reeped in it for all its worth.  They would have felt so great of no more Bush and celebrated the concept.  And then what?  Kerry would be in charge some people didn’t even seem to care about that.  I mean any of you who voted for Kerry did you ever think about where the country would be under his leadership?  Oh heres a response better than Bush.  What would that be based on?  Every time Kerry would have messed up they would have said well at least its not Bush.  I mean I don’t think the Bush bashing would have stopped after Kerry won it would have went on for 4 more years.  And every Kerry mistake would have been blamed on the previous adminstration.  I mean is beating Bush really more important than the direction of this country?

Well if its any consolation Chertoff wasn’t Bushs first choice.  I wonder how Bernard Kerik would have handled this situation?

Hats off to Lee. That was a brilliant post.

I think that “sucking on the ample, fishy teat of government” is bound to end up in Bartlett’s Quotations sooner or later.

The only thing I might disagree with Lee about is the idea that government should be collecting garbage. I think that companies like Waste Management are far better suited to trash removal than the government.

Why is it considered such a shocking and radical view to believe that we should be doing everything in our power to take care of ourselves? To me it seems like a pretty basic truth.

The idea that we should be taking care of ourselves can be arrived at in more than one way:

1) God gave us arms and legs so we could get where we need to go and do what we need to do. God made a separate creature, a leech, who was designed to suck blood and not much else. Therefore, God intended for us to provide for ourselves.

2) Human beings evolved arms and legs because the creatures with arms and legs were more successful than those without. It should come as no surprised that those who make the most use out of their arms and legs and brains are the most successful. Therefore, it is a matter of natural law that we should provide for ourselves or become extinct.

So, if you’re a believer in religion, opt for #1. If you think religion is a crutch or an opiate for the masses, go ahead and use #2. If you’re Michael Moore, ignore both of them, and blame Bush for the existence of the leech.

Do they know what it means to have your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?

If there was no threat there, then why did this soldier get their legs blown off? If their was no threat this soldier would still have his/her legs, would he/she not? The terrorist in Iraq who are killing our soldiers are THREATS.  I don’t understand how the left dosn’t see that.

I noticed that his letter was more than halfway through before he even mentioned the 3000 people who died in the 9/11 attacks.  He spends so much time criticizing the President, and those people are just an afterthought.

I actually happen to agree with him, to an extent, about the poverty problem.  (Yes, no kidding!  And if you knew me better you’d be quite surprised by that!) That he buries it under such juvenile demagoguery makes me want to change my mind.

Those of you who follow my own blog can take a look at what I did for the day.  As far as sensitivity in tributes goes, it’s about in the top third of those I’ve seen (if I may be forgiven for trying to judge it myself).  What Mike has written is second from the bottom, and I don’t even want to think about the one I’ve seen that exceeds this.

Friends,

On the fourth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center (I’m sorry, I feel silly calling September 11th the anniversery of September 11th), how does it feel reading my latest attempt to use a terrible tragedy to gain agrandizement?  Like it?  Good.

I like how, while I criticize the President for acting too slowly to dispach troops and what-not to New Orleans (a problem he himself has uncharictaristically aknowledge) for reasons possibly beyond his control at the time but it took me even longer to put up a simple link to any charity or anything.

Instead, I spent the whole time promoting the speaking tour of the political prostuitue who I sent to harrass the President (I used her/she used me, it’s what I call Moore’s Mutualism) for all the difference it will make.  The irony is that if she was a Republican and he was a Democrat, I would have accused her of preventing the Prez from making the neccessary rounds.

Now, because I’m a very self-centered man, I feel compelled to list all the feats I’ve accomplished since 9/11.  First, I poo-pooed the notion that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. That said, I continue to lambaste Bush for a) failing to bring him to justice and b) having relations with his family, pro-western as they may be.  Next, I made two films whose very titles (not to mention their content) evoke tragedies so that people are, you know, more compelled to see them.  Then, I traveled to London to call the passengers on the jets during 9/11 “scardey cats” and talk about how if the passengers were black, the terrorists (oh, sorry, insurgents… oh, sorry, freedom fighters) would have been too scared to act.  I’ve done more than Bush who merely overthrew the Taliban, captured a deposed dictator, cut taxes for the rich (and the poor and the middle class, all of which is racist) won re-election and appointed the most multi-cultural cabinet in history.  I think Donald Rumsfeld might be Scottish, though, I say it doesn’t count because I also think he likes maple syrup… if ya know what I mean.

Now, you might be wondering why I’m still bothering to harrange President Bush when it’s not like he can run for the Presdency agai me spell it out for you: I don’t give a damn about the liberal agenda or dgetting a Democrat in office!  It’s six-of-one-half-a-dozen -of-the-other as far as I’m concerned.  All I care about is my own arandizement!  That’s right!  Hell, I hope Rummsfeld wins in ‘08!  I need a right-winger!!!  Look at the box office grosses and ticket reciepts of The Big One and that of Fahrenheight [sic] 9/11!  In the Clinton ‘90’s, I was a fucking CULT figure!  Under George W Bush, I became a household name and a mainstream star!

And so, my friends, that is why I will continue to harrange Bush, and those are my thougts on what we shoulld have on our minds during this and every September 11th: ME!

Sincerely

Moore the Bore

I love how moore continues to ask questions that can’t be answered by verifiable fact, as in “are we safer today than pre-9/11?”

He’s also making a “fallacious” leap by tying tax cuts with the budget deficit.  The tax cuts have actually increased federal revenue by about 14% over last year, it’s just that Bush keeps writing checks for everyone from steel producers to farmers who don’t produce crops.  And if moore was being intellectually honest he’d explain the guvment phenom called baseling budgeting to his hordes.  And then monkies flew out of my ass…

I especially liked the part about moore lecturing on “gated communities”.  For some reason it just doesn’t ring true, at least not coming from a guy who owns a vacation home in Torch Lake, MI--where multi-million dollar vacation homes are the status quo.  Why, here’s one for sale right now--any takers:

http://www.brentscottage.com/buy.htm?Overture

Yes folks, this “cottage” is about average for Torch Lake residents.  Considering that his family doesn’t have any history in that area, he spent major bucks on what is essentially Norhthern Lower Michigan’s version of a gated community.  But then again, do we really expect a version of moore that’s not saturated in hypocrisy?

ARE YOU ALL FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!! MICHAEL MOORE IS A HERO AMONG THE REST OF YOU FILTHY FUCKERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY STUPID ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ. THE ENGLISH HAVE GOOD REASON TO PULL OUT OF IRAQ...AND THAT REASON WOULD BE THAT THE WAR IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ANY MEANS. YOU SHOULD ALL STOP BEING SUCH MORONS AND LOOK AROUND AT THE COUNTRY IN WHICH YOU LIVE IN!! I’M NOT SAYING DON’T BE PROUD OF YOUR COUNTRY, BUT YOU SERIOUSLY NEED TO OPEN YOUR EYES! DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT BUSH HAS MADE MORE BAD DECISIONS IN ONE TERM AS PRESIDENT THEN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES? HE IS RUINING YOUR COUNTRY. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS ONCE ONE OF THE MOST RICH AND POWERFUL COUNTRYS IN THE WORLD AND BECAUSE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION YOU ARE NOW THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD. BUSH IS BY FAR THE WORST PRESIDENT THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER ENCOUNTERED. HOW DO YOU WANT TO BE REMEMBERED? THE ERA IN WHICH THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WERE TO STUPID TO ELECT AN OFFICIAL WHO WOULD ACTUALLY DO THEIR COUNTRY GOOD OF THE ERA THAT RUINED THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT TODAY AND KILLED THOUSAND UPON THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FOR NOTHINHG!!! WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ EH? NO WAIT THEY’VE ONLY FOUND A FEW WEAPONS OF SOME SLIGHT DESTRUCTION. PLEASE I BEG OF ALL AMERICANS ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO SHARE THE VIEWS OF THOSE THAT ARE POSTING ON THIS WEBSITE...TAKE YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES AND LOOK AROUND! THE DECISION TO RE-ELECT BUSH HAS POSSIBLY STARTED THE DOWNFALL OF MANKIND AS WE KNOW IT. SO IF I WERE YOU I WOULD STOP BITCHING ABOUT THE DOING OF ONE MAN WHO IS MAKING A DIFFERANCE IN YOUR COUNTRY FOR THE BEST, AND START QUESTIONING THE DECISIONS OF YOUR “PRESIDENT” AND YOUR SENATORS. MICHAEL MOORE IS JUST ONE MAN THAT HAS NO POWER OF THE WAY THAT THIS COUNTRY IS RUN, BUT HE IS TRYING TO HELP THE REST OF YOU CLOSED-MINDED CITIZENS COME OUT OF YOUR COMA, AND TAKE A LOOK AROUND YOU. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HATE HIM SO, BECAUSE HE IS FIGHTING TO TAKE YOUR COUNTRY BACK TO WHAT IT USED TO BE WHEN IT WAS THE FRUIT OF THE MODERN WORLD. HE IS TRYING TO TAKE YOU BACK TO THE TIME WHEN AMERICA WAS IN ACTUALLITY A DEMOCRACY. YOU USED TO BE THE ENVY OF ALL OTHER COUNTRIES AND BECAUSE OF GEORGE BUSH YOU ARE NOW THE SKIDMARK OF THE WORLD. IF YOU WOULD STOP WITH YOUR HATRED FOR EDUCATED PEOPLE WITH MINDS OF THEIR OWN AND THE BALLS AND COURAGE TO SPEAK THEIR MIND THEN AMERICA WOULD ONCE AGAIN RULE THE WORLD, BUT IN A GOOD WAY NOT HOW YOU ARE DOING IT PRESENTLY. PLEASE CONSIDER AND LISTEN TO THE WORDS OF MICHAEL MOORE, BECAUSE HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH AND BRINGS UP MANY IMPORTANT AND GOOD POINTS ON MANY DIFFERNT ISSUES, NOT JUST HAVING TO DO WITH THE US GOVERNMENT IF YOU I COULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE WHICH WAS BASED ON GUN LAWS AND THE EASY ACCESS THAT THE CORPORATIONS HAVE MADE IT FOR EVEN UNDERAGED PEOPLE TO OBTAIN FIREARMS IN YOUR COUNTRY. DO PEOPLE REALLY NEED M-16S IN THEIR OWN HOUSE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES? EVEN MY 7 YEAR OLD BROTHER IS SMARTER THAN THAT! SO FOR THE LAST TIME I BEG YOU TO LOOK AROUND YOU AND INSTEAD OF HAVING SUCH A NARROW AND CLOSED MINDSET LISTEN TO THE WORDS OF OTHERS, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT SHARE THEIR VIEW AND GROW AS A PERSON, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GROW IF YOU ONLY HEAR ONE OPINION ON A SUBJECT.
-FROM A CONCERNED CANADIAN

Well. He sure told us.
What he told us, no one really knows, but hey, it’s caps lock… that’s cruise control for cool!

Moore implies that Katrina has made us the laughing stock of the world.  I don’t remember us laughing at Europe when this happened:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4485&method;=full

Blimmin ‘eck.....

Scuse me that shout cast is still making my
ears ring…

Hey folks, don’t take that as an example of all
Canadians. Just the dumbass ones.

numbersix

(yes, I’m a Canajun eh?)

numbersix

ALL YOU ALL ARE FUCKING STUPID!!!  MICHAEL MOORE IS A GREAT AMERICAN HERO!!!  HE’S TRYING TO HELP YOU!!!  THAT’S WHY HE COMES TO OTHER COUNTRIES AND DISHES OUT FALSE STATISTICS TO MAKE AMERICANS LOOK STUPID!!!  YOU’RE ALL FUCKING SHEEP!!!  NOT ME!!!  I MEAN SURE I BLINDLY FOLLOW EVERYTHING MICHAEL MOORE SAYS, BUT AT-LEAST I DON’T GUARDEDLY AGREE WITH BUSH OR TRY TO BE FAIR TO HIM OR NOTHIN’!!!  YOUR “PRESIDENT"HAS MADE MORE MISTAKES IN ONE TERM THAN EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT COMBINED!!!  THAT’S RIGHT!!!  IT’S NOT LIKE SOME GUY MADE EVERY JAPANESE AMERICAN GO TO INTERMENT CAMPS!!!  IT’S NOT LIKE THERE WAS A PRESIDENT WHO WAGED A SO-CALLED “WAR ON POVERTY” WHICH SEEMED TO CREATE MORE POVERTY!!!  IT’S NOLIKE THERE WAS SOME GUY (WHOM WE IN LEFT’SVILLE ALSO VILLIFY) WHO PASSED A WAGE-AND-PRICE-FREEZE!!!  ONLY BUSH DOES BAD AND WRONG THINGS!!!  YOU ARE STUPID BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE FREE HEALTHCARE!!!  OH SURE OUR PROGRAM LEADS TO WAITING LISTS THAT ARE SOMETIMES MORE-THAN-A-YEAR LONG AND MEN AND WOMEN HAVE BEEN FORCED TO BE ROOMMATES IN HOSPITALS!!!  BUT STILL!!!  UNLESS IT’S NECCESSARY AND THEY GO TO AN EMERGENCY ROOM, THEY MIGHT HAVE TO PAY FOR A TONCILECTAMY!!!  OH AND YOUR PRESIDENT IS TAKING AWAY YOUR FREEDOMS!!!  THAT’S WHY EVERY IDIOT CAN STRIDENTLY CALL HIM A MORON!!!  IF YOU CRITICIZE HIM, YOU MIGHT HAVE YOUR PATRIOTOISM CHALLENEGED!!!  SO MUCH WORSE THAN HOW WE KEEP CALLING PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU “RACIST”!!!  YOU’RE LOSING YOUR FREEDOMS!!!  BY THE WAY, YOU’RE STUPID FOR WANTING FEWER RESTRICTIONS ON OWNING A GUN!!!  YOU’RE ALL EVIL AND STUPID!!!  AMERICA IS A COUNTRY FULL OF CORRUPT LEADERS AND DUMB CITIZENS, BUT THROUGH THE GRACE OF MICHAEL, YOU CAN BE SAVED!!!

-FROM A WEARY AMERICAN PORTRAYING A HISTRIONIC CANADIAN!!!

Chris obviously hasn’t been reading tis blog very long.  Like most Moore-ons he comes here, reads one post, goes off on a rant, then splits, never to return again.  All too typical, I’m afraid.

Chris’ had some great lines in there, i thought. Though I think I enjoyed them in ways he hadn’t intended.

AMERICA WOULD ONCE AGAIN RULE THE WORLD, BUT IN A GOOD WAY NOT HOW YOU ARE DOING IT PRESENTLY.

THE DECISION TO RE-ELECT BUSH HAS POSSIBLY STARTED THE DOWNFALL OF MANKIND AS WE KNOW IT

ARE YOU ALL FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!!...LOOK AROUND YOU AND INSTEAD OF HAVING SUCH A NARROW AND CLOSED MINDSET LISTEN TO THE WORDS OF OTHERS, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT SHARE THEIR VIEW AND GROW AS A PERSON, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GROW IF YOU ONLY HEAR ONE OPINION ON A SUBJECT.

THE DECISION TO RE-ELECT BUSH HAS POSSIBLY STARTED THE DOWNFALL OF MANKIND AS WE KNOW IT

Good catch!  Mankind as we know it sucks!  Change is good!  :)

I loved the closing line…

I have an idea, and it isn’t a horse show.

... (crickets chirping) ... And what pray tell is your non-equestrian brainstorm, Mikey?  ... (more crickets) ... How very John Kerry of you.

First off I want to say that Lee, I commend you for posing some good arguments, and especially for trying to be objective in recognizing the failures of Bush. As a liberal and someone that disagrees with you on a number of points, I have to agree with you completely in that Kerry was a horrible candidate and that the democratic party in general is a bunch of spineless losers that are more interested in gauging public opinion than growing some balls and actually standing up for what they believe in. It is a real shame that the 2-party political system that you guys have (not that ours in Canada is much better mind you) forces you to always choose the lesser of 2 evils, rather than actually being able to vote for someone that stands for what you believe in; someone that you can be proud of voting for.

As for Michael Moore, there is no doubt that he is a propagandist, but no more than Bill O’Reilly is (ever hear of the Paris Business Review? . And while I admire your temerity in hounding Moore, unless you are willing to say the same things about Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing nuts, you are not being completely honest.

As for myself, despite what some have written above, I am more than willing and able to look honestly at the failing of my own political leanings and representatives, so please don’t generalize. I don’t think for a second that everyone that voted for Bush is a mindless drone incapable of being objective, so please extend the same courtesy to me.

Now on to your post.

Regarding Michaels Brown and Chertoff. Clearly these 2 are completely unqualified and incompetent, on this point we don’t disagree. But don’t you think Bush has to be accountable for the simple fact that he placed these 2 imbeciles in their positions of power? In a very real sense, he endangered the lives of Americans by employing cronyism as the only criteria in his selection process for the heads of DOHS and FEMA, 2 government organizations whose sole purpose is upholding national security. Can you honestly say that Bush bears absolutely no responsibility for the incompetence of Brown and Chertoff, when he was the one that appointed them?

And come on, the mere fact that he could actually provide such an unequivocal, unambigious, ringing endorsement such as “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job” on the Friday after the storm hit, by which time people had been abandonded for almost 5 days, is grounds for impeachment alone. If Brown deserves to be fired (which he clearly does, and criminally prosecuted on the charge of negligence causing death) and if Bush wholeheartedly endorses Brown (which he clearly does), then it follows that Bush should be fired as well.

Think of it another way. You are a shareholder in a company.  The CEO appoints 2 of his friends, who have absolutely no relevant experience and no qualifications as VP’s. These 2 take on a project, say an acquisition of another company, which ends in disaster and costs the company millions of dollars and significantly reduces the company’s profitability. It also turns out that the CEO did not oversee this acquisition at all during the proposal stages, when there was still time to change the plans to increase the chances for success. And in the initial stages of the implementation, again when there was still time to alter the plans, the CEO was on vacation (he did claim to be checking his blackberry though). On top of everything, after the failure of these 2 VPs is clear, the CEO still comes out in a sharehoder’s meeting and claims that they are doing a great job. Obviously the 2 VP’s deserve to be fired, but as a shareholder, are you telling me that you would not be demanding that the board of directors fire the CEO as well? Of course you would, every single time. So how is Bush any different?

The bottom line is that this was a colossal failure at every level. Make no mistake, Mayor Nagen and Governer Blanco both deserve to be fired, and they failed mierably, but ultimately, the buck stops with Bush. He could have demanded to be informed of the evacuation procedures prior to the storm hitting, to ensure that the plans in place were satisfactory, and certainly after the fact, like by Tuesday or Wednesday when the extent of the catastrophe was blatantly obvious, he could have been far more proactive in making sure that rescue efforts were running the way they should have. I mean come on, he is the President. Are you telling me that, once it was clear that things were breaking down, he could not have picked up the phone and demanded that every available helicopter and every available boat in the country was deployed to get people out, or at the very least to air drop food and water to people? He could have and he should have, and it is that failure of leadership that I have the biggest problem with.

Lastly, something a bit off topic. I know how much you guys love to slam us socialist Canadians with our crazy notion of health care as a basic human right, and our streets full of pot-smoking, legally wed gay couples, but when there is a crisis, we jump in and help, which is as it should be.

And come on, the mere fact that he could actually provide such an unequivocal, unambigious, ringing endorsement such as “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job” on the Friday after the storm hit, by which time people had been abandonded for almost 5 days, is grounds for impeachment alone.

No it isn’t.  You can’t be impeached for saying, “Brownie, you’re going a heckuva job.” I can’t believe you actually accused Lee of being dishonest.

I mean come on, he is the President. Are you telling me that, once it was clear that things were breaking down, he could not have picked up the phone and demanded that every available helicopter and every available boat in the country was deployed to get people out, or at the very least to air drop food and water to people? He could have and he should have, and it is that failure of leadership that I have the biggest problem with.

You give him the majority of the responsibility because you wanted him out of office before the hurricane even struck, but the fact is that the mayor is responsible for the evacuation and the governor is responsible for deploying the national guard, not the president.  And the president is not the governor’s boss or the mayor’s boss, so this whole buck stops at the top thing is a load of crap.  And as much as people keep calling this a national tragedy, it is not.  There was no flooding in Idaho.  An earthquake in California is also not a national tragedy.  Just because we all feel bad, doesn’t make it a national issue.  The primary responsibility for the response fell on the state and local government.  You can’t just keep shifting it upward until you find someone you don’t like.  Stop acting like George Bush is a screw-up just because he wasn’t able to save every single person who weasn’t supposed to be there in the first place.  You wouldn’t like it much if John Kerry were elected president, and we told him he had to find a way to end the war in Iraq on his first day in office, would you?  You’d say, “Well, look what got dumped in his lap.  How could he ever be able to fix such a situation so quickly that shouldn’t even exist in the first place?” WOULDN’T YOU?

It is a real shame that the 2-party political system that you guys have (not that ours in Canada is much better mind you) forces you to always choose the lesser of 2 evils, rather than actually being able to vote for someone that stands for what you believe in; someone that you can be proud of voting for.

I could not agree more.

As for Michael Moore, there is no doubt that he is a propagandist, but no more than Bill O’Reilly is (ever hear of the Paris Business Review? . And while I admire your temerity in hounding Moore, unless you are willing to say the same things about Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing nuts, you are not being completely honest.

We all understand this, and many of us have openly criticized those figures (I don’t pay any attention to them personally).  But this is moorewatch.  Just because we can’t stand him does not automatically mean we like/believe Coulter/Limbaugh/Hannity or even President Bush.

Regarding Michaels Brown and Chertoff. Clearly these 2 are completely unqualified and incompetent, on this point we don’t disagree. But don’t you think Bush has to be accountable for the simple fact that he placed these 2 imbeciles in their positions of power? In a very real sense, he endangered the lives of Americans by employing cronyism as the only criteria in his selection process for the heads of DOHS and FEMA, 2 government organizations whose sole purpose is upholding national security. Can you honestly say that Bush bears absolutely no responsibility for the incompetence of Brown and Chertoff, when he was the one that appointed them?

They are positions of policy making and planning management.  Does that mean I hold them blameless?  Absolutely not.  Nor do I hold Bush entirely blameless.  But I think you put way more on their heads than should be there.  I’ll get more into this momentarily…

And come on, the mere fact that he could actually provide such an unequivocal, unambigious, ringing endorsement such as “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job” on the Friday after the storm hit, by which time people had been abandonded for almost 5 days, is grounds for impeachment alone. If Brown deserves to be fired (which he clearly does, and criminally prosecuted on the charge of negligence causing death) and if Bush wholeheartedly endorses Brown (which he clearly does), then it follows that Bush should be fired as well.

I talked about this in another thread.  I feel that Bush propped up Brown saying’ “You’re doing a great job” for the sake of the American public.  I think he was already trying to find a replacement, but didn’t want the public to think that they were being abandoned even more.  I think that the shitstorm will hit Brown behind closed doors, rather in the public eye.

Think of it another way. You are a shareholder in a company.  The CEO appoints 2 of his friends, who have absolutely no relevant experience and no qualifications as VP’s. These 2 take on a project, say an acquisition of another company, which ends in disaster and costs the company millions of dollars and significantly reduces the company’s profitability. It also turns out that the CEO did not oversee this acquisition at all during the proposal stages, when there was still time to change the plans to increase the chances for success. And in the initial stages of the implementation, again when there was still time to alter the plans, the CEO was on vacation (he did claim to be checking his blackberry though). On top of everything, after the failure of these 2 VPs is clear, the CEO still comes out in a sharehoder’s meeting and claims that they are doing a great job. Obviously the 2 VP’s deserve to be fired, but as a shareholder, are you telling me that you would not be demanding that the board of directors fire the CEO as well? Of course you would, every single time. So how is Bush any different?

First of all, there is NO ONE with experience handling a disaster of this magnitude in the US.  Nothing like this has ever occurred before.  Last I checked, there are no Bachelor of Disaster Management degrees being offered at any university.  Secondly, as far as the “proposal” stage is concerned, there was an emergency plan in place.  That plan was not followed at the local level and was not adequate enough to meet the needs of this disaster, which was by all means an absolute worst case scenario. Thirdly, FEMA mobilized its resources faster than it ever has.  Ever.  My problem with Brown lies in the chaos that he allowed to fester.  There was poor communication and coordination between the federal, state and local governments.  There was piss poor flow of information to the public (not that they need to know everything, but).  THAT is where Brown failed.  That is why he deserves to be fired.

The bottom line is that this was a colossal failure at every level. Make no mistake, Mayor Nagen and Governer Blanco both deserve to be fired, and they failed mierably, but ultimately, the buck stops with Bush. He could have demanded to be informed of the evacuation procedures prior to the storm hitting, to ensure that the plans in place were satisfactory, and certainly after the fact, like by Tuesday or Wednesday when the extent of the catastrophe was blatantly obvious, he could have been far more proactive in making sure that rescue efforts were running the way they should have. I mean come on, he is the President. Are you telling me that, once it was clear that things were breaking down, he could not have picked up the phone and demanded that every available helicopter and every available boat in the country was deployed to get people out, or at the very least to air drop food and water to people? He could have and he should have, and it is that failure of leadership that I have the biggest problem with. 

Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, he can’t just jump on his horse and charge the cavalry in to the rescue.  The local and state governments have to make very specific requests for aid.  They didn’t.  Bush had several proposals and presented them to Gov. Blanco, but she balked at them.  This is an issue of state and local governments’ rights.  If you trample on those rights to do the right thing, you open the door to trampling them for the wrong reasons.  Bush had the evacuation plan.  It’s been in place for over a year.  It wasn’t followed.  As to demanding every available plane and helicopter being rushed to NO, what about the other areas that needed them?  What if another disaster were to strike? 

I will ask you this, why is it that the areas of the country that were hit even harder than NO not getting any press?  Entire towns have been wiped completely off the map, but you don’t hear bout them.  Bush was in charge of them as well right?  So what is the main difference here?  The local governments in Mississippi and Alabama were prepared and did what they were supposed to.

Sir Not Appearing In This Film

Just incidentally…

Technically, the United States doesn’t have a two-party system.  We have a multi-party system, in which two parties happen to vastly dominate.  There’s a small difference, true, but even a small difference is still a difference.  We’d probably all be better off if the Democrats and Republicans didn’t so overwhelmingly dominate everying over the Reform, Libertarian, Pacific Green, Alliance, Constitution, and all the rest, but the fact is that they do exist and they do all have an effect on everything else.

Lastly, something a bit off topic. I know how much you guys love to slam us socialist Canadians with our crazy notion of health care as a basic human right, and our streets full of pot-smoking, legally wed gay couples, but when there is a crisis, we jump in and help, which is as it should be.

Thanks for the help, although the article does make me wonder why people were claiming to be ignored for so long in that area when we sent the Canadians to rescue them so quickly and fabulously.  And to say that Canadians beat the U S Army seems to imply that it was a competition.  It was not.  We went to one place and sent you to a different place.  I mean what would be the point of having Canadian help if it kept going to places where we already rescued everyone?

the fact is that the mayor is responsible for the evacuation and the governor is responsible for deploying the national guard, not the president.  And the president is not the governor’s boss or the mayor’s boss, so this whole buck stops at the top thing is a load of crap.

Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, he can’t just jump on his horse and charge the cavalry in to the rescue.  The local and state governments have to make very specific requests for aid.  They didn’t.  Bush had several proposals and presented them to Gov. Blanco, but she balked at them.

Sorry this sounds like a cop out to me. You’re telling me that the President of the United States is powerless to send in rescue operations in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe unless he gets permission? That’s absurd.

You give him the majority of the responsibility because you wanted him out of office before the hurricane even struck

I am willing to admit that I cannot be completely objective, as my personal feeling about some aspects of Bush’s presidency prejudices me. However, you all have to admit that had the exact same set of circumstances occured under Clinton’s watch (of Kerry’s had he won), you would be far more critical. The point is that, let’s face it, there is no such thing as complete objectivity. All we can do is recognize and be aware of when our prejudices start to impede on our objectivity, and give the other side the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

I feel that Bush propped up Brown saying’ “You’re doing a great job” for the sake of the American public.  I think he was already trying to find a replacement, but didn’t want the public to think that they were being abandoned even more.  I think that the shitstorm will hit Brown behind closed doors, rather in the public eye.

Don’t you think the American public would have been better served, and would have far more confidence in their government, if Bush would have called Brown out and fired him instead of congratulating him? At least the perception would have been that there is a modicum of accountability for mistakes made that cost people their lives. Instead the perception is that incompetance is rewarded, and no one ever pays for their mistakes in the Bush Administration, as long as they remain loyal to the President.

First of all, there is NO ONE with experience handling a disaster of this magnitude in the US.  Nothing like this has ever occurred before.  Last I checked, there are no Bachelor of Disaster Management degrees being offered at any university.

True, but there are plenty of people with experience handling disasters, period. Of course the magnitude of this disaster is unprecedented, but at least someone that had direct, hands-on experience handling smaller scale disasters, rather than judging Arabian horses, would have been better prepared to handle this one.

Sorry this sounds like a cop out to me. You’re telling me that the President of the United States is powerless to send in rescue operations in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe unless he gets permission? That’s absurd.

I’m not telling you anything except what I wrote.  So before you call my opinions absurd, why don’t you actually ask me what they are instead of making them up?  mmm k?  Now then, the cop out is addressing something the local and state government are responsible for as a footnote (… oh yeah, they should be fired too ...) in the midst of paragraph after paragraph expressing your outrage against someone whose biggest fault is apparently that he wasn’t able to clean up the mess of the local and state governments fast enough for you.  Now that’s absurd.  The fact that you think Bush should have the power to go against the wishes of the Louisiana governor and just take over the Louisiana national guard is absurd.  Can you possibly think of a reason why the founding fathers would not give the president the power to commandeer the state militias every time he felt it was necessary?  Can you throw your bias out the window already and think about this like the consitution wasn’t written just to deal with this one hurricane?  Now maybe it’s a flawed system, but that’s what the system is.  So, the governor, who was safe and sound during the hurricane, had the responsibility to get the ball rolling or pass the buck to the president (as he offered numerous times).  The governor did neither.  Again, why don’t you care as much about that collosal screw-up (based on the amount of writing you’ve done about it)?  Because she’s not Bush.

I am willing to admit that I cannot be completely objective, as my personal feeling about some aspects of Bush’s presidency prejudices me. However, you all have to admit that had the exact same set of circumstances occured under Clinton’s watch (of Kerry’s had he won), you would be far more critical.

BULLSHIT!  Don’t apply your admitted prejudice to me.  Don’t tell me what I have to admit.  I am sick of people defending their bias by applying the same bias to me in hypothetical situations.  You don’t know how critical I WOULD BE if Clinton were president.  I only know how critical you ARE since Bush is president.  I swear, you’re as biased against me as you are against Bush.

How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?

How does it feel to know Mike Brown slid through Senate confirmation hearings like humus through a fat pseudo-intellectual Manhattanite’s intestinal tract? And which party was in control of the Senate on June 19th 2002? And confirmed with a voice vote no less. No need for a ballot for the “horse whisperer” Brown. It’s good to know that the Dems finally take their advise and consent roll so seriously, now that they are in the minority.

100 point question for all the Liberal crybabies out there; how many people does FEMA actually employ?

Breaking news - Mike Brown resigned.  Not really all that suprising.

Sorry this sounds like a cop out to me. You’re telling me that the President of the United States is powerless to send in rescue operations in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe unless he gets permission? That’s absurd.

You might not like it, but it is the law.  It is to prevent a situation where the President usurps the local governments to push his own agenda.  You take the bad with the good.  The laws that prevent the president from taking over local governments for nefarious puropses prevent him from taking over for legitimate, humanitarian reasons.  Why not ask why Blanco/Nagin refused to surrender thier power instead of asking why Bush didn’t just seize it?

I am willing to admit that I cannot be completely objective, as my personal feeling about some aspects of Bush’s presidency prejudices me. However, you all have to admit that had the exact same set of circumstances occured under Clinton’s watch (of Kerry’s had he won), you would be far more critical. The point is that, let’s face it, there is no such thing as complete objectivity. All we can do is recognize and be aware of when our prejudices start to impede on our objectivity, and give the other side the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

Nope.  I am able to overcome my prejudices.  I have my grievances with this administration.  I take them to task over it as best as I can.  I did not particularlly like Clinton, but I give him credit where it’s due and call him out when necessary.  The only election that I have voted for the winner in the last four was Bush the first time.  I voted Badnarik this time around.

Don’t you think the American public would have been better served, and would have far more confidence in their government, if Bush would have called Brown out and fired him instead of congratulating him? At least the perception would have been that there is a modicum of accountability for mistakes made that cost people their lives. Instead the perception is that incompetance is rewarded, and no one ever pays for their mistakes in the Bush Administration, as long as they remain loyal to the President.

Really?  Is that why Brown was fired today?  Oh, wait… He resigned. So now what is different than it was 12 hours ago?  How are the people of NO being better served THIS SECOND now that Brown is gone as opposed to 12 hours ago?  The fact is you want a dog and pony show.  All I want are results.  I said last week that this was coming.  Bush wasn’t happy, but he put on the “Good job” facade to provide a unified front and appear strong for the resident’s of NO.  Do you really think that those displaced really want to hear their president say, “We screwed up!” Does that make them feel better?  Does it instil any confidence in them? 

True, but there are plenty of people with experience handling disasters, period. Of course the magnitude of this disaster is unprecedented, but at least someone that had direct, hands-on experience handling smaller scale disasters, rather than judging Arabian horses, would have been better prepared to handle this one.

As I said, the position is one of management.  Period.  How much disaster experience does Admiral Allen have?  What he has is management experience.  How much disaster experience did Brown’s predicessors have?  Brown choked under pressure.  He allowed things to spiral out of control and could not put the media in check.  He could not convince the state and local governments to give up control to the feds and he could not adapt to an ever changing situation.  That is where Brown fucked himself and Bush.

Sir Not Appearing In This Film

Actually, the choice we had in 2004 was much more then just Bush or Kerry. It was:

Bush
Kerry
Badnarik
Nader
Peroutka
Cobb

Out of the full slate of candidates, personally, I don’t think there is any question that Badnarik would have been the best choice - the only candidate that would have cut spending, taxes and preserved our liberties while fighting those who are actually a threat to us.

Nader wasn’t a choice here in California.

The fact is you want a dog and pony show.

If thats what he wanted, wouldn’t Brown have been the perfect person for the job, with his past experience considered?

Most questions poorly answered. Points for enthusiasm though.

I applaud the fact that some bush supporters (not all) are willing to hold Bush accountable for his “terrible, despicable” acts.  What I would like to see is Bush actually appologize for these acts.

Accusing MM of hating America is just sounds like more of that “you’re either with us or you’re against us” mentality.  I love this country too, but I hate the way it’s being run.  I love my freedom to express myself and follow my dreams but I hate the fact that the rich getting richer often at the expense of the poor who are getting poorer.  And I hate the fact that the religous right is trying to impose their moral standard on the masses.  I see a country that belongs to the people but is being run in the interests of only a few.

Are we safer now? It seems obvious to me, judging by recent events, that we are not.  Is disaster preparedness critical to our safety? Absolutely.  To suggest that disaster preparedness has nothing to do with our safety is just ignorant.  Will our efforts in Iraq pay off in 20 or 30 years?  I hope so, but as the cost of that gamble is approaching 2000 american soldier’s lives, I can’t support it.  In other words, if it does pay off in 20 to 30 years, does that mean the ends justifies the means?  I don’t think so.

Glad to see Chertoff is on your hit list.  I’ll stay tuned.

You dodge MM’s blown-off limbs question, by accusing him of “whoring” Peter Damon to attack bush.  Then you yourself whore Peter Damon to attack MM.  Is this move supposed to be ironic?  As a side note, when Damon appeared in the NBC interview footage, he most deffinately had to sign a document giving NBC permission to use the footage as they saw fit.  If he didn’t want someone to use it in a way that was against his political ideas, he should never have signed that document.  He did though, so it seems a little naive of him to complain about it after the fact.  I’m not saying MM was justified in using the footage here, only that he was not breaking any laws or agreements by using it.  Also, Peter Damon is just one soldier out of many that have been dismembered in this conflict.  I’m sure there are injured soldiers of all political leanings.  It probably would have been in MM’s best interests to use footage of someone who actually was against the war, but I think the take home message is that they have been dismembered or killed for very questionable reasons.  Not that this one soldier in particular felt this way.  If MM had used a different soldier (and there are thousands) in a similar scene, one who shared MM’s opinion on the war, it would have conveyed the same message. 

I think it’s great that the great evil corporatoin WAL-MART donated water and ice when it was needed.  I wish more corporations could show this kind of compassion instead of just concerning themselves with the bottom line. Actually, WAL-MART is now using their humanitarianism to garner advertising and positive PR.  Keep an eye on their press releases.  http://www.walmartfacts.com/newsdesk/press-releases.aspx?CategoryID=347
But they did good so I ain’t complaining.

But to say that private corporations can ALWAYS be trusted over government?  That is just a little naive as well.  Especially when private interests become so closely tied into the government itself.  For example, we can see how Halliburton has fared since this war started: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=HAL
Is this safe? Is this fair to the tax payer?  I don’t think so.

Anyway, good little read this article has been.  I’ve enjoyed it.  Many good points made, and many I don’t agree with.  This is just the few that I felt like commenting on.

For example, we can see how Halliburton has fared since this war started: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=HAL
Is this safe? Is this fair to the tax payer?  I don’t think so.

I guess Halliburton is just supposed to close down for 8 years because Dick Cheney is in the White House.  They put in the lowest bid to do some work in the gulf states (a contract signed last year), but no one cares about the details.  It’s Halliburton making money.  We can’t have highly skilled people with ties to highly skilled companies running around doing jobs that require highly skilled people to use highly skilled companies.

BULLSHIT!  Don’t apply your admitted prejudice to me.  Don’t tell me what I have to admit.  I am sick of people defending their bias by applying the same bias to me in hypothetical situations.  You don’t know how critical I WOULD BE if Clinton were president.  I only know how critical you ARE since Bush is president.  I swear, you’re as biased against me as you are against Bush.

Nope.  I am able to overcome my prejudices.

Guys, come on. Let’s be completely honest. I am simply trying to point out that complete objectivity is beyond the realm of possibility. Do you think the Supreme Court Justices are completely objective? I am sure that they try to be, and yet over the years, many decisions fell 5-4 exactly down right-left lines. So if individuals who are supposed to be the most impartial and objective people in the country have trouble getting past their own ideologies, then how are we supposed to. It is simply a fact that your moral and political beliefs will necessarily influence how you view different public figures and their actions. It is only natural that if you voted for Bush, you will be, at the very least, ever so slightly predisposed to viewing him more favourably, and vice-versa. I’m not sure why you reacted to defensively to this statement, but I can’t see how you can possibly claim that you are 100% completely objective.

Do you really think that those displaced really want to hear their president say, “We screwed up!” Does that make them feel better?  Does it instil any confidence in them?

Absolutely. In that press conference, if Bush would have turned to Brown and said, “Brownie, you have screwed up miserably and as a result people died. You failed in your role as head of FEMA, and you are now hereby relieved of your duty” (or words to that effect), I think people would have responded far more positively. I mean come on, how can “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job.” be seen as anything other than ridiculous? You think the thousands of people that were still waiting to be rescued, or the millions watching throughout the country could see this comment as anything short of absurd? For the previous 4 days, 24/7 coverage was illustrating that the reality was the exact opposite of what Bush was saying, and it is precisely this disconnect from reality that has infuriated so many people.

By covering for Brown, instead of coming off as the “take-charge” President; steadfast and resolute, Bush came off as instigating a whitewash. I guarantee you that if Bush would have been truthful from the beginning, he would have come across as far less ineffectual.

Now then, the cop out is addressing something the local and state government are responsible for as a footnote (… oh yeah, they should be fired too ...)

So, the governor, who was safe and sound during the hurricane, had the responsibility to get the ball rolling or pass the buck to the president (as he offered numerous times).  The governor did neither.  Again, why don’t you care as much about that collosal screw-up (based on the amount of writing you’ve done about it)?  Because she’s not Bush.

The reason that I am focusing on Bush is because we agree on Blanco, so there’s really nothing more to talk about with her, but just for clarification, let me say it again. She (and Nagen) failed. Completely. Unequivically. It is completely irrelevant to me what her political affiliation is. You seem to get very defensive if someone suggests that Bush’s “Republicanism” is a factor in your viewpoint, so please don’t assume that Blanco’s “Democratism” is a factor in mine - especially since I’ve already said that I have zero respect for the Democrats (I am a member of the Green Party of Canada, BTW).

You might not like it, but it is the law.  It is to prevent a situation where the President usurps the local governments to push his own agenda.  You take the bad with the good.  The laws that prevent the president from taking over local governments for nefarious puropses prevent him from taking over for legitimate, humanitarian reasons.  Why not ask why Blanco/Nagin refused to surrender thier power instead of asking why Bush didn’t just seize it?

Blanco actually declared a state-level state of emergency on Aug. 26, and the next day, Bush declared a federal state of emergency for Louisiana. This gave the federal government all of the authority they needed to take over the evacuations before the storm and the rescue efforts after.

They put in the lowest bid to do some work in the gulf states (a contract signed last year), but no one cares about the details.  It’s Halliburton making money.

You can’t possibly be defending Halliburton, can you?

You do realize that the current reconstruction projects in the Gulf Coast were of the no bid variety, don’t you?

And considering Halliburton has earned more than $9 billion in Iraq, and that Pentagon audits released in June showed $1.03 billion in “questioned” costs and $422 million in “unsupported” costs for Halliburton’s work in Iraq. I think that public concern that Halliburton is once again fleecing the taxpayers is wholly warranted.

We all understand this, and many of us have openly criticized those figures (I don’t pay any attention to them personally).  But this is moorewatch.  Just because we can’t stand him does not automatically mean we like/believe Coulter/Limbaugh/Hannity or even President Bush.

I am very happy to hear that, because it is due to those people on the right, and people like Moore on the left that political discourse has degenerated into (mostly) empty rhetoric.

I am curious though, as to how many others on this site agree with you, Sir Not. What are others’ opinions on Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly et al?

Also, I am curious as to what your opinion is of Jon Stewart and The Daily Show?

Blanco actually declared a state-level state of emergency on Aug. 26, and the next day, Bush declared a federal state of emergency for Louisiana. This gave the federal government all of the authority they needed to take over the evacuations before the storm and the rescue efforts after.

This DID NOT give the feds the authority to come in and take over evacuations.  Blanco never turned over authority, which is why the President was considering the invocation of the Insurrection Act to take control away from her.

Seriously, do a little research before posting crap.  From the Governor’s office:

SECTION 2: The state of Louisiana’s emergency response and recovery program is activated under the command of the director of the state office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness to prepare for and provide emergency support services and/or to minimize the effects of the storm’s damage.

One last point; don’t you think that the fact that Bush has proposed to lead the investigation into what went wrong is just a wee bit ridiculous? I mean, even if you think that Bush is completely blameless, don’t you feel that an impartial investigation, ala the 9/11 commission, would be more in order?

In law, whenever a judge is faced with an issue related to conflict of interest, the measure to be used in determining if that judge should recluse him/herself, is not actual conflict of interest, but percieved conflict of interest. So even if a judge is completely free of bias, if there is even the slightest perception that there may be a conflict, then the judge must refuse to hear the case.

I think that this would be the only prudent thing to do in this case.

the President was considering the invocation of the Insurrection Act to take control away from her.

Exactly. Therefore, Bush legally could have taken over control if he wanted to.

Exactly. Therefore, Bush legally could have taken over control if he wanted to.

Man, you are dense.  Why did he have to do that at all?  If they needed help that badly, why didn’t the governor just give up power?  The shitstorm that would have erupted had Bush invoked the act would have been tremendous.  But that’s what you really want, right?  You want Bush to do something like that so he gets hamstrung as President or even impeached for overriding the state’s authority.

I don’t know why I bother.  You are so jaded in your views that I’d have more success trying to talk to a wall.

I’m not sure why you reacted to defensively to this statement, but I can’t see how you can possibly claim that you are 100% completely objective.

I’m defensive because you think you can read my mind.  And you’re totally confusing ideology that affects your decisions with bias that perverts your logic.  Let me clarify.  You don’t like Bush, so therefore he’s guilty.  That’s not ideology.  That’s bias. 

Blanco actually declared a state-level state of emergency on Aug. 26, and the next day, Bush declared a federal state of emergency for Louisiana. This gave the federal government all of the authority they needed to take over the evacuations before the storm and the rescue efforts after.

I’m sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

One last point; don’t you think that the fact that Bush has proposed to lead the investigation into what went wrong is just a wee bit ridiculous? I mean, even if you think that Bush is completely blameless, don’t you feel that an impartial investigation, ala the 9/11 commission, would be more in order?

You going to keep bringing this up until it sticks?  For the millionth time, Bush is not physically going to lead the investigation.  It’s not in his power.  He’s calling for an investigation.  It will be a bi-partisan circus, just like everything else.

P.S.  The Insurrection Act was never a practical option.

I’m not sure why you reacted to defensively to this statement, but I can’t see how you can possibly claim that you are 100% completely objective.

I am objective in that I maintain what I believe to be a standard of behavior and do not deviate from it.  I will not support Bush when he is wrong, just like I would not bash Clinton when he was right.  I am loyal not to a party, but to a set of morals and ideals that I hold sacred.  If I disagree with you, I don’t care what party you are from.

Absolutely. In that press conference, if Bush would have turned to Brown and said, “Brownie, you have screwed up miserably and as a result people died. You failed in your role as head of FEMA, and you are now hereby relieved of your duty” (or words to that effect), I think people would have responded far more positively. I mean come on, how can “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job.” be seen as anything other than ridiculous? You think the thousands of people that were still waiting to be rescued, or the millions watching throughout the country could see this comment as anything short of absurd? For the previous 4 days, 24/7 coverage was illustrating that the reality was the exact opposite of what Bush was saying, and it is precisely this disconnect from reality that has infuriated so many people

You misunderstood me.  I really don’t care what you or anyone else thought about the situation.  I asked if any of the New Orleans residents really cared at that moment whether or not Bush laid down othe gauntlet on Brown.  I’ll tell you right now, they didn’t.  They were/are too worried about being rescued, getting food, finding shelter and piecing their lives back together to give a rats ass about whether or not Bush blamed Brown publiclly.  It’s those of us who are sitting on the sidelines safely, with roofs over our heads, a closet full of clothes, belly full of food and jobs to go to tomorrow who give a shit about appearances (and that’s all a public admonishment would be for.  The result would be the same.  Brown is no longer with FEMA.  Call it resignition if you want, but you know that he was told that he was resigning).

The reason that I am focusing on Bush is because we agree on Blanco, so there’s really nothing more to talk about with her, but just for clarification, let me say it again. She (and Nagen) failed. Completely. Unequivically. It is completely irrelevant to me what her political affiliation is. You seem to get very defensive if someone suggests that Bush’s “Republicanism” is a factor in your viewpoint, so please don’t assume that Blanco’s “Democratism” is a factor in mine - especially since I’ve already said that I have zero respect for the Democrats (I am a member of the Green Party of Canada, BTW).

Fair enough.  I’m an independant conservative.

Blanco actually declared a state-level state of emergency on Aug. 26, and the next day, Bush declared a federal state of emergency for Louisiana. This gave the federal government all of the authority they needed to take over the evacuations before the storm and the rescue efforts after.

I understand that.  What you are failing to understand is that she has to make very specific requests as to what type of aid she wants and how it is to be administered.  Those were the plans that Bush brought to her that she needed 24 hours to think about.  See, she is still in charge of her state, even after the state of emergency is declared.  When the initial declaration was declared, FEMA scrambled the standard hurricane package if you will, the aid most typically requested in times like this.  But this one turned out to be worse than anything we had seen.  Blanco still had to assess the situation and submit a request for the aid that was needed. 

So, I will ask two questions of you.  First of all, why is it that this is the only city we are hearing about?  Why aren’t Gulfport and Biloxi Missippi screaming about the ineptitude of the Feds?  What was different about the federal response to those two cities (that practically no longer exist) as compared to New Orleans, when they were hit more directly and had far more actual destruction than NO?  Second, how is the federal response so poor when they were on the ground a full 2 days faster than they have been for most disasters?  The FEMA disaster plan calls on the state to be on their own for 72-96 hours, so why is it that we put it on the feds to be there immediately?

Sir Not Appearing In This Film