Another conspiracy by the Bush administration

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
The trouble with this is that it equates a state governor doing his job with a president not doing a different state governor's job. They're not comparable. Nor should they be. If we want to get rid of the federal system, that's one thing. But until we do, all levels of government should be obligated to work within that system. Incompetence should be dealt with where it appears, not where it doesn't.

Although the reason we have the federal system is more historical accident than anything else, I don't think we really want to eliminate it. But even if elimination is a good idea, it won't happen, as the Senate is a historical accident also, and Senators don't want to eliminate their own offices.


Well, I knew that the pres and a governor are not one and the same. What I couldn't believe during the five days I was watching it on tv, while nothing was happening, is that a PRES would simply stand by and watch. Nobody's going to tell me that motherfucker doesn't have access to a tv! While I have been duly unimpressed with the quality of "intelligence" coming out of there, a goddamned tv isn't too much to expect.

Yes, Nagin was terribly remiss in his duties, but what does it take to declare a national disaster? I'm not asking about protocol here, but severity of an event. By day two, bush should have stepped in, like it or not, and declared an emergency. Yeah, hindsight's 20/20, but fuck- this was just too obvious to shuffle away with limp excuses.

Of course, the no-bid contracts awarded to Haliburton for "rebuilding" had nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of compassion.:rolleyes:

I'm just saying that Schwarzenegger appears to actually give a shit about handling his business. Quite different from what we've come to expect from the whitehouse.
 

davidjh7

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
2,607
Media
0
Likes
114
Points
283
Location
seattle
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Actually, the explosion of a GAS tanker was a consipiracy to drive up gas prices....mark my words, gas prices will soon go up as a result. They'll claim gas shortages as the reason, and blowing up a gasoline tanker DOES reduce the overall supply of fuel, right?
 

B_Think_Kink

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
10,419
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
193
Gender
Female
Actually, the explosion of a GAS tanker was a consipiracy to drive up gas prices....mark my words, gas prices will soon go up as a result. They'll claim gas shortages as the reason, and blowing up a gasoline tanker DOES reduce the overall supply of fuel, right?
This seems like a logical answer... but what do I know.... I don't even know how to pump gas.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
but what does it take to declare a national disaster? I'm not asking about protocol here, but severity of an event. By day two, bush should have stepped in, like it or not, and declared an emergency.

Unfortunately, a declaration of emergency means little more than that the feds toss in a lot of money (probably what Blanco was shooting for all along). It doesn't mean that the president can have a useless mayor and governor and all their useless aids arrested and kept out of the way while the grownups get to work. And while such a system might have improved things in NO, I doubt that we'd want it most of the time.

The three-tiered emergency response system - local, then state, then federal - not only makes organizational sense, but it means that not everybody is helpless if one or two of the other tiers turn out to be too corrupt or lazy or incompetent to do the job. In this case we had a do-nothing mayor, a dithering governor, and a president who - despite the usual dire claims to the contrary - shows no tendency to simply ignore the established order of government. He's not likely to just sweep state and local government out of the way because it seems like a good idea at the time. That would be the function of a tyrant (the classical definition, a man given supreme power to cope with some temporary emergency), but there is no provision for such a thing in the US government. Not even wars are sufficient to intrude on government as usual - which is normally considered a good thing.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Sorry, but that apostrophe is causing me actual physical pain.
Yes, now that you mention it, it is painful. Mea maxima culpa. I will swear off apostrophes for 40 days and 40 nights.

* self flagellate, self flagellate, ...*
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Unfortunately, a declaration of emergency means little more than that the feds toss in a lot of money (probably what Blanco was shooting for all along). It doesn't mean that the president can have a useless mayor and governor and all their useless aids arrested and kept out of the way while the grownups get to work. And while such a system might have improved things in NO, I doubt that we'd want it most of the time.

The three-tiered emergency response system - local, then state, then federal - not only makes organizational sense, but it means that not everybody is helpless if one or two of the other tiers turn out to be too corrupt or lazy or incompetent to do the job. In this case we had a do-nothing mayor, a dithering governor, and a president who - despite the usual dire claims to the contrary - shows no tendency to simply ignore the established order of government. He's not likely to just sweep state and local government out of the way because it seems like a good idea at the time. That would be the function of a tyrant (the classical definition, a man given supreme power to cope with some temporary emergency), but there is no provision for such a thing in the US government. Not even wars are sufficient to intrude on government as usual - which is normally considered a good thing.


We seem to be the only two who are not in on the hoax, but wtf.

You aren't telling me anything that hasn't been widely publicised on the issue. Here's where the rubber meets the road- can you imagine any other president in our lifetime doing nothing while watching that mayhem? Can you even imagine the US taking that long to respond to our own citizens? Believe me, I heard you over and over about the protocal, but does the buck not stop at the whitehouse, ultimately? This was the largest natural disaster in our history, if THAT'S not reason for federal intervention, then nothing is. I guess bush isn't responsible for installing this friend from the Arabian Horse assoc. as the head of FEMA either, nor the miserable lack of communication. I guess when natural disasters happen, ALL leaders go on publicity tours.:rolleyes: Jesus fucking christ.

bush has given us PLENTY of examples of disregarding the established rules of order. You really don't want me compiling of list of these, do you? You know I don't have a job/life. What's so FUCKING horrifying to me is that he dances around the law, and blatantly breaks it, and no one has made him stop yet. He lies about his actions, until he is exposed for being a liar, when he switches the story to "Well, I was still within my rights", and says something so stupid my head explodes, and apparently just baffles everyone into accepting his absurdities. You and I are old enough to recognise this for what it is, and it has NOT been set by precedent thus far, not to this degree. Nowhere close.

Fuck it, I'm way off track. I was just so thrilled to see a repub who isn't completely incompetent and corrupt I almost pissed myself. I'm off to go kick a cat or stomp on a ferret.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
You aren't telling me anything that hasn't been widely publicised on the issue. Here's where the rubber meets the road- can you imagine any other president in our lifetime doing nothing while watching that mayhem? Can you even imagine the US taking that long to respond to our own citizens?

Oh, I can imagine some other presidents popping up wherever a TV camera might appear and giving us the usual windy orations. But actually doing something? I can't think of who would have done anything useful, or what it might have been. Specifically, that is, rather than a diffuse demand that somebody "do something!!!!" But this particular confluence of three factors probably hasn't ever happened before -

1. A mayor who would actually fiddle while his city is approached by an obvious problem (it's not like nobody's ever heard of a Gulf hurricane before). Even better, it was a problem which he could actually watch on satellite while it happened;

2. An obstructionist, dithering governor who apparently won't so much as fart unless she can find a way to get somebody else to pay for it;

and 3. A president who will, automatically, be bitterly denounced for whatever he does or doesn't do. Which exacerbates (1) and (2), as both know they can fall down flat on their jobs, and Bush will be blamed, no matter what.

Given the situation with the mayor and the governor, and given that Bush just might be justified in his apparent belief that the federal system is not something to be trashed casually, he did do something, and maybe the best thing possible in those circumstances. The two Marine amphibious assault ships, the Guadalcanal and the Iwo Jima - the ones with the on-board hospital facilities, the huge kitchens, the fresh-water generators, and the helicoptors and search & rescue facilities - which arrived immediately behind the storm front probably weren't there by accident. Coast Guard S&R put in a significant appearance too. These boats and helicopters are all under federal control. The Gulf was the only avenue of approach which couldn't be blocked by the governor and the federal system. Pretty good thinking on somebody's part - I don't know whose, but it was probably somebody at federal level.

Of course, Bush could have tried to kick Blanco and Nagin's butts into gear before the storm actually hit. But he did that. The next criticism would be that he should have kicked them earlier, and harder. Maybe he should have.

Herbert Hoover might have done more - probably the best organizer who's ever sat in the Oval Office. But he died in the '60s. And I don't think even he could have done anything with Nagin and Blanco. And, as a pretty strong beliver in the federal system, I don't think that he would have thought it appropriate to just brush them aside. Long before my day, in any case. The overbearing Johnson might have "persuaded" both of them to stop clowning around. Maybe. No other president would have done much of anything so far as I can see.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
BD, we just disagree implicitly. I don't believe ANY pres who's been in office in my lifetiome would have just sat back and watched this happen. Not Nixon, not Reagan, not Ford, not Carter, not Clinton. You do? Well, it's not really something worth a good debate, because there's no way to prove either point. It's information for me though, because it's something I take as obvious, and apparently there are some who don't. Shocking, really.

I started bitching about corruption in this administration back in 2000. By 2003, I remember posting HERE that the right to say "I told you so" would be a grim reward for the deaths of many and the loss of our government as we've come to know it. Well guess what? It's still true. You can keep saying "no big deal" and "business as usual" while our country falls to shit and you don't lift a finger. You can keep pretending that republican still means conservative, and that conservativism really exists anywhere, and thousands of people dying to protect your right to remain ignorant really isn't a very big deal, is it? They're just brown ppl anyway.:rolleyes: Whether they're in Louisiana or Iraq, brown people dying just doesn't bother most [white] people very much. Obviously, MY point of view would be quite different.