Who is going to lead the Katrina effort?

[jay_too]

Yep, decisions will be made by Dumbya's bud, Turd Blossom! Yea, something gotta smell. Ewww!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5091501098.html

For a few days, I was hopeful that the recovery effort would focus upon rebuilding lives and a new coastal area, NOLA, Mississippi and Alabama. This was a time for bipartisanism. As usual, I was wrong about the motivations of the Bush White House. I should know that it is always about politics and never about doing what is right for either the people or the nation.

jay

 

[madame_zora]

This is exaclty why bipartisanism isn't practical with THIS administration. They grant Rove a position of responsibility WHILE he is under investigation rather than keeping him out of the way until the situation is resolved. Now he has a chance to garner some good spin for himself as well as for bush, when clearly they were both playing golf during the whole affair.

Dirty politicians are dirty nomatter what political party they belong to. I was never a Republican hater before this administration, I voted for Reagan once! Now, I have a tough time seeing anything Republican about many of the men in power, or conservative- just dirty and greedy. It's not a party issue, it's how THIS ADMINISTRATION has conducted itself from day one, and it's revolting. None of the stupid non-issues they have brought to the foreground should ever have been enough to draw our attention away from their underhanded agendas. I am ashamed of my fellow Americans on the whole and I am devoutly fearful of our future.

Rove is a dirty, disgusting spin doctor, but he is very good at what he does. Stupid people everywhere will believe him, despite his own criminality.

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

There are plenty of ways for conservatives to put their stamp on how the upwards of $200 B (who knows if that is the ultimate figure but it's a popular one bouncing around) in reconstruction money will ultimately be used without it being supervised out of the White House by the President's political director. That much anyone can agree with.

A title of "reconstruction czar" has been thrown about quite a bit. While having comptrollers general on site overseeing the finances is an excellent check-and-balance idea, there needs to be a person with the political pull and nation-wide backing to make sure anything these individuals might have to say gets heard. Colin Powell's name come up often. While I do not know his financial background, being a retired 4-star general and former Sec of State gives him the credibility in many people's eyes to do the job, should the "title" become available.

Zora, I messed my shorts, spit up my Diet Rite cola, and saw the fabric of space tear briefly when I read that you once voted for Reagan.

 

[KinkGuy]

Just give all the reconstruction contracts to Halliburton, without a bidding process, and everything will just be perfect. Kind of like how well they have managed our 1 billion dollars a week being "spent" in Iraq.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by brainzz_n_dong@Sep 16 2005, 10:25 PM
There are plenty of ways for conservatives to put their stamp on how the upwards of $200 B (who knows if that is the ultimate figure but it's a popular one bouncing around) in reconstruction money will ultimately be used without it being supervised out of the White House by the President's political director. That much anyone can agree with.

A title of "reconstruction czar" has been thrown about quite a bit. While having comptrollers general on site overseeing the finances is an excellent check-and-balance idea, there needs to be a person with the political pull and nation-wide backing to make sure anything these individuals might have to say gets heard. Colin Powell's name come up often. While I do not know his financial background, being a retired 4-star general and former Sec of State gives him the credibility in many people's eyes to do the job, should the "title" become available.

Zora, I messed my shorts, spit up my Diet Rite cola, and saw the fabric of space tear briefly when I read that you once voted for Reagan.

[post=343884]Quoted post[/post]​

I know, I wanted you to know because you have assumed I'm a dyed in the wool Democrat, which I'm not. Just because I despise THIS group of disgusting pigs for what they ARE does not make me a blind follower of ANY particular doctrine. I also appreciated some of Nixon's work in foreign relations. I love Jimmy Carter's heart for the people, but would have to call him an ineffectual leader. bush is a piece of shit and that's not because he's a republican, although he and his appointees and cohorts have dirtied that word for me. I look forward to a time when two party system is again possible, but I just don't feel that's what we have now. We have one party of wimps and another party of dirty aggressive criminals.

No, the democrats are far from flawless, they are just less harmful, as things stand right now.

 

[Pecker]

To head this one up I nominate Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, Commander of the 1st Army at Fort Gillem, GA, and a native of Louisiana.

We've seen him in action.

 

[madame_zora]

Or why not Colin Powell? I've heard his name bantered around a bit, I think he'd actually care enough and be organised enough to get things done.

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Sep 16 2005, 05:55 PM
Or why not Colin Powell? I've heard his name bantered around a bit, I think he'd actually care enough and be organised enough to get things done.

[post=343916]Quoted post[/post]​

I think you answered your own question.

 

[jonb]

Well, it was hard to hate Republicans until this administration. Just tolerate them. It was easy to hate particular Republican policies (HMOs instead of universal healthcare, welfare deform, globalization, creationism, missile defense, their obsession with gay marriage, and let's never forget the term "activist judge" originally referred to the Brown decision). And it was easy to hate Democrats who just rolled over. But now that they have the whole government, and even these things seem moderate by comparison to what Bush has done.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Why not Powell? Because his most recent performance on behalf of the Bush administration was not that great.

Remind us

SG

 

[KinkGuy]

As has been verified, Colin Powell argued against the entire Iraq invasion, from the beginning. His statements to the U.N. were entirely and completely provided by the administration, along with the bogus facts, claims and assertions. Mr. Powell has said so, on the record. His words were more or less, "I was misled, lied to and manipulated" to make those statements. Shortly thereafter, he "retired."

 

[Dr Rock]

5 Feb 2003 - During his U.N. presentation, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."

4 May 2003 - Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."

19 Oct 2003 - Secretary of State Colin Powell tells Face the Nation: "I think Dr. Kay's report certainly suggests that there are programs for the development of weapons of mass destruction. We're looking to see what stocks may be there."

26 Oct 2003 - Secretary of State Colin Powell tells Meet the Press: "I am absolutely convinced that the assessments we were given by the intelligence community reflected their best judgment based on the information they had available to them."

2 Apr 2004 - Secretary of State Colin Powell concedes that the two mobile biological weapon labs he identified at his UN presentation might not have been WMD-related. "Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid... But at the time I was preparing that presentation it was presented to me as being solid."

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Sep 17 2005, 01:53 PM
"Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid... But at the time I was preparing that presentation it was presented to me as being solid."

[post=344142]Quoted post[/post]​

The key words.

 

[madame_zora]

Well, at least he resigned when he found out it was a bunch of crap. I found it hard to believe that someone so far up could have been kept in the dark, but considering the volumes of bullshit being fed to US, I have to at least consider it a possibility.

 

[KinkGuy]

If we, the citizens of this country actually knew what was really going on behind the curtain...

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Sep 18 2005, 08:54 AM
Well, at least he resigned when he found out it was a bunch of crap.

[post=344307]Quoted post[/post]​

do you honestly suppose that he believed it WASN'T a bunch of crap as soon as bush & blair first regurgitated it? I mean, everyone ELSE did.

 

[Michael18m]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+Sep 18 2005, 07:52 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Sep 18 2005, 07:52 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Sep 18 2005, 08:54 AM
Well, at least he resigned when he found out it was a bunch of crap.

[post=344307]Quoted post[/post]​

do you honestly suppose that he believed it WASN&#39;T a bunch of crap as soon as bush & blair first regurgitated it? I mean, everyone ELSE did.

[post=344401]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Blair refused to have another cabinet meeting about it after 2 ministers quit after the first meeting and likes of Brown refused to back it publically, that says it all.

 

[Dr Rock]

well, it certainly should have dropped a few clues on those who hadn&#39;t been expecting the bullshit train to pull into the station right around then to begin with. when even a gutless, lying, thieving shitheel like robin cook quits his job in disgust, you gotta start wondering what the fuck is going on.

 

[madame_zora]

I think Colin Powell is a miltary man with that mindset. In his world, things have to make sense and follow order. He was as unprepared for bush as many Americans were. That doesn&#39;t mean he didn&#39;t have the opportunity to know better, but may explain why he didn&#39;t look very hard when presented with "facts" by people he trusted. He has come out publicly and apologised several times, I think his heart was in the right place, just not his eyes.

 

[jay_too]

My quibble with the Powell presentation at the U.N. is that he ignored the intelligence and analyses of experts in the State Department who said that there was not credible evidence of WMDs. I might have been more questioning of the disconnect between the DOD-CIA assessment and that of State. But then, I am not a good soldier.