PDA

View Full Version : GOP decides ‘It’s the economy’ for 2010



Roger Perry
07-17-2009, 09:25 AM
During the last 8 years the Bush administration took us from a surplus to trillions in debt. Can anyone tell me how a republician administration can find a solution to fix the economy? I would be willing to vote for anyone in 2010 (republican, democrat or independent) if they can come up with a way to bail us out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31370072/ns/politics-cq_politics/

honker88
07-17-2009, 09:42 AM
I think you meant billions in debt from the Bush years. The trillions came from Obama.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Roger Perry
07-17-2009, 09:58 AM
I think you meant billions in debt from the Bush years. The trillions came from Obama.



I believe I had it right the first time.

The Bush Debt: $7.7 Trillion (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/bush-debt/)Today, lawmakers took to the Senate floor and blasted President Bush’s wasteful spending. To fully illustrate the impact, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), brought up a chart showing the budget plans of President Clinton versus the budget formulated by Bush. He concluded that by squandering Clinton’s government surplus, Bush has cost the country $7.7 trillion:


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/bush-debt/ or

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/bush-debt/

But the government is taking no chances. Buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation is a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion. It’ll be the 7th time the debt limit has been raised during this administration. In fact it was just two months ago, on July 30, that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion.

subroc
07-17-2009, 10:54 AM
Roger, I find it highly unlikely you would consider a republican even if you were sure the economy would be fixed, world hunger would be solved and all your socialist programs were initiated and paid for.

Roger Perry
07-17-2009, 11:00 AM
Roger, I find it highly unlikely you would consider a republican even if you were sure the economy would be fixed, world hunger would be solved and all your socialist programs were initiated and paid for.

Why? I voted republican my entire voting life until GW Bush ran for office? The first President I voted for was Richard Nixon who I thought was a great President even though he screwed up and got himself impeached.

honker88
07-17-2009, 11:57 AM
I believe I had it right the first time.

The Bush Debt: $7.7 Trillion (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/bush-debt/)Today, lawmakers took to the Senate floor and blasted President Bush’s wasteful spending. To fully illustrate the impact, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), brought up a chart showing the budget plans of President Clinton versus the budget formulated by Bush. He concluded that by squandering Clinton’s government surplus, Bush has cost the country $7.7 trillion:


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/bush-debt/ or

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/bush-debt/

But the government is taking no chances. Buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation is a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion. It’ll be the 7th time the debt limit has been raised during this administration. In fact it was just two months ago, on July 30, that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion.


That was a projected surplus not an actual surplus. The quote from Sen. Whitehouse says "buget plans". I'm not sure how Mr. Whitehouse can really claim a projected surplus in that math. Obviously projected surplus isn't an actual surplus. Politicians talk as if we actually had a surplus. That just doesn't make sense. You can't actually have a surplus until you are out of debt.

I can honestly say that I have never really been too worried about the national debt until the last few months. Was that ignorance, I don't know. What I do know is that the Govt. is out of control and it needs to be reeled back in.

Roger Perry
07-17-2009, 12:11 PM
I can honestly say that I have never really been too worried about the national debt until the last few months. Was that ignorance, I don't know. What I do know is that the Govt. is out of control and it needs to be reeled back in.

We both agree on that.

honker88
07-17-2009, 12:14 PM
Agreed, regardless of the amount of Bush's deficit. I just had to jump in because you made no mention of the king of all deficits, Obama in your initial post.

Cody Covey
07-17-2009, 06:33 PM
it was a budget surplus not an actual surplus as I understand it. Another thing i don't understand is why Bush gets the blame when the congress makes the bugdet and taxes not the president...per the constitution that is.

YardleyLabs
07-17-2009, 07:25 PM
it was a budget surplus not an actual surplus as I understand it. Another thing i don't understand is why Bush gets the blame when the congress makes the bugdet and taxes not the president...per the constitution that is.
Accounting for all budget and non-budget expenses and revenues, the US was operating with a deficit of almost $300 million/year when Clinton took office. That deficit went down every year of his presidency, producing surpluses (actual, not budgeted) in each of the last three years he was in office. When GWB entered the White House, he inherited a surplus of $236 million in 2000. That surplus was estimated to continue to grow.

The estimates of a multi-trillion dollar surplus were the CBO estimates of what was expected to happen over the next ten years. Because of deterioration in the economy, the CBO argued for reductions in that estimated surplus over the objections of the White House which was counting on the surplus to finance its tax cut program. Ultimately, Republicans short circuited the debate by ending the Clinton era agreement on pay as you go so that there would be no need to justify tax cuts based on budgetary considerations.

The result was immediate. In 2001, the surplus shrank by half, and by 2002 we were once again operating with a major annual deficit that grew every year Bush was in office (that's based on actuals, not budgets), reaching an estimated $700+ billion in the last year of his administration.

Obama hasn't come close to Bush's performance so far. However, his ten year budget estimates do forecast massive deficits that, if he remains in office for eight years, would rival those accumulated by Bush in abosolute dollars and probably equal Bush in constant value dollars.

While you are correct that Congress is legally responsible for appropriating funds and passing tax bills, Bush aggressively supported and demanded the actions that produced those deificits. In fact, the only thing that slowed down the annual increases in deficits was the election victories which finally gave democrats control of Congress. At that point, deficits actually declined each year before skyrocketing in 2008 in response to the econimic collapse.

Personally, I believe that the deficits incurred carelessly by the Bush administration were the primary factors leading to the economic collapse in 2007-2008. I am not happy about the Obama plans for continuing Bush's outrageous profligacy. While deficits can help in the short term, they are not sustainable once the economy begins to recover. Once our economy is growing again, we need to balance the budget and in fact generate surpluses to begin paying down the debt incurred over the last eight years even if that requires tax increases and massive spending cuts. To date, no one in either party has shown the intestinal fortitude to do this. The Republicans are hampered by the fact that the single biggest factor leading to the deficits we now face were the tax cuts implemented by Bush and his then Republican controlled congress that were never funded then or for the future.

Franco
07-17-2009, 07:40 PM
There won't be an economy left in 2012! Maybe even none in 2010. It will all be government and nothing but the government!

Steve
07-18-2009, 12:44 AM
Can anyone tell me how a republician administration can find a solution to fix the economy? I would be willing to vote for anyone in 2010 (republican, democrat or independent) if they can come up with a way to bail us out.

Simple. Get the government to get the fudge out of the way and let those capable of running business do so and actually make money without being shaken down for every loose nickel.

The free market is the Carnot engine of economics.

HuntsmanTollers
07-18-2009, 04:56 AM
To date, no one in either party has shown the intestinal fortitude to do this. The Republicans are hampered by the fact that the single biggest factor leading to the deficits we now face were the tax cuts implemented by Bush and his then Republican controlled congress that were never funded then or for the future.

Do you take your posts directly from the DNC website. This propaganda wagon rolls again. Taxation is not the only way to grow the Federal government's income, Republicans believe that economic growth by less taxation is the way to go while Democrats think expanding benefits and taxation will work. This is a difference between the two parties belief system. As usual the truth is somewhere in between. However, neither party can dispute that the deficit is directly tied to SPENDING COMPARED TO INCOME just like it is in everyone's household. Spending went up for a number of reasons during the Bush administration and spending is going up substantially now. What is not increasing is income. Both sides need to adopt a pay as you go approach. Unfortunately both sides find reasons why it doesn't apply all the time, usually due to a perceived crisis, now it is economic stimulus and health care.

YardleyLabs
07-18-2009, 07:28 AM
Do you take your posts directly from the DNC website. This propaganda wagon rolls again. Taxation is not the only way to grow the Federal government's income, Republicans believe that economic growth by less taxation is the way to go while Democrats think expanding benefits and taxation will work. This is a difference between the two parties belief system. As usual the truth is somewhere in between. However, neither party can dispute that the deficit is directly tied to SPENDING COMPARED TO INCOME just like it is in everyone's household. Spending went up for a number of reasons during the Bush administration and spending is going up substantially now. What is not increasing is income. Both sides need to adopt a pay as you go approach. Unfortunately both sides find reasons why it doesn't apply all the time, usually due to a perceived crisis, now it is economic stimulus and health care.
Actually, I'm not sure that I have ever visited the DNC web site even though I make contributions to them every month automatically. Other than that, I do not take issue with your statement; it is the same one that I was making -- "Unfortunately both sides find reasons why it doesn't apply all the time, usually due to a perceived crisis, now it is economic stimulus and health care."

Pay as you go must apply to both expenses and revenues. Assuming the economy is growing, tax cuts must be financed with expense cuts or other tax increases just as expense increases must be financed with other spending cuts or tax increases. Those rules were followed under Clinton and the result was a surplus and a reduction in national debt. Those rules need to be brought back.

HuntsmanTollers
07-18-2009, 07:57 AM
And as you pointed out in another thread, Clinton had the help of a Republican congress.

dnf777
07-18-2009, 08:48 AM
Agreed, regardless of the amount of Bush's deficit. I just had to jump in because you made no mention of the king of all deficits, Obama in your initial post.

Obama has not had ONE budget pass yet. Therefore not one red cent of this 11 trillion is owed to him. (I'm certain there WILL be shortly!) But republicans cannot just gloss over Bush's HUGE record setting gov't spending!! At that was with 6 years of republican congress in both houses, then two years of do-nothing rubber stamp dem congress. (and YES, it was nearly 8 TRILLION added to the nat'l debt by Bush and his congress...so much in fact, they had to add another digit to the national debt ticker!)

Please don't think I'm saying democrats have the answer....but until republicans admit they have a problem, they don't either. You can't just keep pointing fingers to the other guy, and deny your own faults. "YOu can fool some people all the time, and all people some of the time"...but last november shows you couldn't fool 64% anymore.

road kill
07-18-2009, 09:22 AM
Obama has not had ONE budget pass yet. Therefore not one red cent of this 11 trillion is owed to him. (I'm certain there WILL be shortly!) But republicans cannot just gloss over Bush's HUGE record setting gov't spending!! At that was with 6 years of republican congress in both houses, then two years of do-nothing rubber stamp dem congress. (and YES, it was nearly 8 TRILLION added to the nat'l debt by Bush and his congress...so much in fact, they had to add another digit to the national debt ticker!)

Please don't think I'm saying democrats have the answer....but until republicans admit they have a problem, they don't either. You can't just keep pointing fingers to the other guy, and deny your own faults. "YOu can fool some people all the time, and all people some of the time"...but last november shows you can still fool 64% .


Fixed!!:shock:

Sundown49 aka Otey B
07-18-2009, 09:58 AM
To fix the economy 3 things need to happen
1) put all our congress in prison for government corruption.
2) have a straight across the board income tax with NO loop holes. Just takes one page to say EVERYONE PAYS 10 % straight across the board instead of a 4,600 pound printed out tax code.
3) JUST use some Common Sense.

dnf777
07-18-2009, 04:49 PM
Accounting for all budget and non-budget expenses and revenues, the US was operating with a deficit of almost $300 million/year when Clinton took office. That deficit went down every year of his presidency, producing surpluses (actual, not budgeted) in each of the last three years he was in office. When GWB entered the White House, he inherited a surplus of $236 million in 2000. That surplus was estimated to continue to grow.

The estimates of a multi-trillion dollar surplus were the CBO estimates of what was expected to happen over the next ten years. Because of deterioration in the economy, the CBO argued for reductions in that estimated surplus over the objections of the White House which was counting on the surplus to finance its tax cut program. Ultimately, Republicans short circuited the debate by ending the Clinton era agreement on pay as you go so that there would be no need to justify tax cuts based on budgetary considerations.

The result was immediate. In 2001, the surplus shrank by half, and by 2002 we were once again operating with a major annual deficit that grew every year Bush was in office (that's based on actuals, not budgets), reaching an estimated $700+ billion in the last year of his administration.

Obama hasn't come close to Bush's performance so far. However, his ten year budget estimates do forecast massive deficits that, if he remains in office for eight years, would rival those accumulated by Bush in abosolute dollars and probably equal Bush in constant value dollars.

While you are correct that Congress is legally responsible for appropriating funds and passing tax bills, Bush aggressively supported and demanded the actions that produced those deificits. In fact, the only thing that slowed down the annual increases in deficits was the election victories which finally gave democrats control of Congress. At that point, deficits actually declined each year before skyrocketing in 2008 in response to the econimic collapse.

Personally, I believe that the deficits incurred carelessly by the Bush administration were the primary factors leading to the economic collapse in 2007-2008. I am not happy about the Obama plans for continuing Bush's outrageous profligacy. While deficits can help in the short term, they are not sustainable once the economy begins to recover. Once our economy is growing again, we need to balance the budget and in fact generate surpluses to begin paying down the debt incurred over the last eight years even if that requires tax increases and massive spending cuts. To date, no one in either party has shown the intestinal fortitude to do this. The Republicans are hampered by the fact that the single biggest factor leading to the deficits we now face were the tax cuts implemented by Bush and his then Republican controlled congress that were never funded then or for the future.

There you go again!! Clouding the issue with facts!
Can't we just Obama-Bash with made-up truths and accusations?

road kill
07-18-2009, 05:01 PM
There you go again!! Clouding the issue with facts!
Can't we just Obama-Bash with made-up truths and accusations?

Yardley said;
"Personally, I believe ..."

How is that a truth??

Bush's biggest error (in my opinion) was allowing the "devalue" of the US dollar to help strengthen the Euro.
Won't go into lots of detail, doubt anyone would read it anyway.

YardleyLabs
07-18-2009, 05:12 PM
Yardley said;
"Personally, I believe ..."

How is that a truth??

Bush's biggest error (in my opinion) was allowing the "devalue" of the US dollar to help strengthen the Euro.
Won't go into lots of detail, doubt anyone would read it anyway.
You might say that the 40% devaluation of the dollar was the tax we all paid to finance the Bush deficits.

road kill
07-18-2009, 06:17 PM
You might say that the 40% devaluation of the dollar was the tax we all paid to finance the Bush deficits.
I'm impressed.
Most people argue that never occurred.

dnf777
07-18-2009, 07:32 PM
Yardley said;
"Personally, I believe ..."

How is that a truth??

Bush's biggest error (in my opinion) was allowing the "devalue" of the US dollar to help strengthen the Euro.
Won't go into lots of detail, doubt anyone would read it anyway.

Everything before that was facts....afterwards, well stated opinion!

Devaluing of the dollar occured by borrowing copious amounts of money, with no intention of paying it back. Sort of like California's IOUs. I don't like taxes anymore than anyone else, but when you launch a $80 billion/month war, and continue to spend like a drunk sailor in port, AND cut taxes (first war-time tax cut in history) you're basically telling your creditors, "good luck...we ain't payin!"

I *think* we can agree on that?

Art Geddes
07-18-2009, 10:49 PM
roger posted "The first President I voted for was Richard Nixon who I thought was a great President even though he screwed up and got himself impeached."

Roger,

Only 2 presidents have been impeached by congress, Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. Neither were convicted by the senate. Nixon resigned under pressure, the first president to do so. I hope our current president follows suit, maybe to run for some other office like savior of Kenya.

Art

dnf777
07-19-2009, 09:55 AM
roger posted "The first President I voted for was Richard Nixon who I thought was a great President even though he screwed up and got himself impeached."

Roger,

Only 2 presidents have been impeached by congress, Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. Neither were convicted by the senate. Nixon resigned under pressure, the first president to do so. I hope our current president follows suit, maybe to run for some other office like savior of Kenya.

Art

Why Kenya?

Gun_Dog2002
07-19-2009, 10:45 AM
It was easy for Clinton to make progress on a budget, he didn't do anything to keep this country safe and mostly focused on how to keep his @$$ out of hot water while continuing to get blow j... err indiscretions in the oval office. Of course Bush had to actually spend some money to fend off the worst direct attacks this country has ever had.

/Paul

YardleyLabs
07-19-2009, 12:33 PM
It was easy for Clinton to make progress on a budget, he didn't do anything to keep this country safe and mostly focused on how to keep his @$$ out of hot water while continuing to get blow j... err indiscretions in the oval office. Of course Bush had to actually spend some money to fend off the worst direct attacks this country has ever had.

/Paul
As HuntsmanToller noted, everyone has a good excuse for running a deficit. The fact is, that in times of economic growth we need to balance the budget. If there is an emergency that forces a deficit this year, pay it back next year in full. Also, Clinton actually fought and paid for a war in the Baltics.

Had Bush stuck with fighting the people who actually attacked us, the cost would have been less. Had he said that the cost of invading Iraq was to actually pay for the war, he never would have been permitted to attack. In fact, the administration decided that the deficit didn't matter because the bill wouldn't need to be paid until after Bush left the White House.

So he spent a trillion dollars on a war outside of the budget. He budgeted for another half trillion dollar per year deficit. And he played games with the tax cuts by writing the laws to have the cuts expire in 2010 (that is, he planned for taxes to increase back to their original levels) to conceal the actual cost of those cuts, which would be several hundred billion dollars per year that was never included in any of the budget forecasts prepared by the Bush administration. Bush bankrupted our country for short term political gain. At the time of his last budget, Bush estimate deficits of over $500 billion per year. If you added the war cost and the cost of continuing the tax cuts into that equation, the deficit would have been $1 trillion per year even before considering the cost of the $750 billion stimulus program implemented by Bush in 2008. The reality is that there is no way to reduce the deficit without allowing many, if not most, of the Bush tax cuts to expire as the Bush budget assumed.

subroc
07-19-2009, 12:38 PM
the economic crisis is almost over, at least obama stimulous is working. This is how the white house measures success these days...

google searches

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25083.html

a real crack economic team

dnf777
07-19-2009, 01:36 PM
As HuntsmanToller noted, everyone has a good excuse for running a deficit. The fact is, that in times of economic growth we need to balance the budget. If there is an emergency that forces a deficit this year, pay it back next year in full. Also, Clinton actually fought and paid for a war in the Baltics.

Had Bush stuck with fighting the people who actually attacked us, the cost would have been less. Had he said that the cost of invading Iraq was to actually pay for the war, he never would have been permitted to attack. In fact, the administration decided that the deficit didn't matter because the bill wouldn't need to be paid until after Bush left the White House.

So he spent a trillion dollars on a war outside of the budget. He budgeted for another half trillion dollar per year deficit. And he played games with the tax cuts by writing the laws to have the cuts expire in 2010 (that is, he planned for taxes to increase back to their original levels) to conceal the actual cost of those cuts, which would be several hundred billion dollars per year that was never included in any of the budget forecasts prepared by the Bush administration. Bush bankrupted our country for short term political gain. At the time of his last budget, Bush estimate deficits of over $500 billion per year. If you added the war cost and the cost of continuing the tax cuts into that equation, the deficit would have been $1 trillion per year even before considering the cost of the $750 billion stimulus program implemented by Bush in 2008. The reality is that there is no way to reduce the deficit without allowing many, if not most, of the Bush tax cuts to expire as the Bush budget assumed.

There is still peace in the baltics...there is still terrorism and al-qaeda in Iraq and Afghanastan, and the debt is still mounting.

What did Wolfowitz predict the war in Iraq would cost?? 2 billion total? Heck of a job, Wolfie! All of us, our kids, and grandkids will be paying that one off! Where was the outrage then?

HuntsmanTollers
07-19-2009, 04:35 PM
Don't start praising Clinton's success record in conflict. He ignored most threats and attacks. For example the USS Cole and the Embassy bombing. He was also in charge when operations in Somalia began (aka Blackhawk Down) and we are still there too. Nation building takes time, unfortunately we live in a 'I want it now' society. I hope I am wrong about Afghanistan. That land has been fought over for centuries. The Russians couldn't control the territory. How can you measure success if you can't hold the land? There are numerous stories of success in Iraq and many untold stories. Everyone still wants to use Cold War deterrence methods to measure success. That is not the world we live in today. The only deterrent we now have is our word that when we say we will act we actually carry through on our statement. It is very convenient to use hindsight when your decision is no longer popular, however when we stop carrying through on our promises then we will no longer be the standard bearer for freedom in the world. That will be a sad day even if it is "popular."

limiman12
07-19-2009, 04:41 PM
the economic crisis is almost over, at least obama stimulous is working. This is how the white house measures success these days...

google searches

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25083.html

a real crack economic team

Google searches down, perhaps it is because people no longer have a house, or at least internet, or just have the sights earmarked so they don't have to search....

Bottom line is that a government big enough to give all is big enough to take all. When party loyalty trumps common sense neither side is right.

Roger Perry
07-20-2009, 01:55 PM
Don't start praising Clinton's success record in conflict. He ignored most threats and attacks. For example the USS Cole and the Embassy bombing. He was also in charge when operations in Somalia began (aka Blackhawk Down) and we are still there too. "

Let’s see, where to start.
 
The USS Cole bombing took place in theYemeni port Of Aden. 17 sailors died and Clinton was President at that time. So if Clinton was President, he must have been responsible right?
On 14 March 2007, a federal judge in the United States (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/United_States), Robert Doumar (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Robert_G._Doumar) ruled that the Sudanese (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Sudan) government was liable for the bombing. The ruling was issued in response to a lawsuit filed against the Sudanese government by relatives of the victims, who claim that Al-Qaeda could not have carried out the attacks without the support of Sudanese officials. The judge stated "There is substantial evidence in this case presented by the expert testimony that the government of Sudan induced the particular bombing of the Cole by virtue of prior actions of the government of Sudan." On 25 July 2007, Doumar ordered the Sudanese government to pay $8 million to the families of the 17 sailors who died. He calculated the amount they should receive by multiplying the salary of the sailors by the number of years they would have continued to work. Sudan's Justice Minister Mohammed al-Mard has stated that Sudan intends to appeal the ruling.
If Clinton was “responsible” for the attack, he must have been responsible for the arrest and conviction of those who committed the attack on the USS Cole.
By May 2008, all defendants convicted in the attack had escaped from prison or been freed by Yemeni officials.
Hence, if all defendants convicted had escaped or been released by 2008, wouldn’t President Bush have to take responsibility for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing#Responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing)
In the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in 1998, you say that President Clinton was responsible. Again, he must have also been responsible for the capture and conviction of most of those responsible.
The indictment
The current indictment[17] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-indictment-16) charges the following twenty-one people for various alleged roles in this crime.
Muhammad Atef (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Muhammad_Atef)
killed in Afghanistan in 2001
Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Muhsin_Musa_Matwalli_Atwah)
killed in Pakistan in 2006
Wadih el Hage (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Wadih_el_Hage)
serving life without parole (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Life_without_parole) since 2001[18] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-cnnlife-17)
Mohamed Sadeek Odeh (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Mohammed_Odeh)
serving life without parole since 2001[18] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-cnnlife-17)
Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Mohamed_Rashed_Daoud_Al-Owhali)
serving life without parole since 2001[18] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-cnnlife-17)
Khalfan Khamis Mohamed (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Khalfan_Khamis_Mohamed)
serving life without parole since 2001[18] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-cnnlife-17)
Khalid al Fawwaz (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Khalid_al_Fawwaz)
held in the UK since 1998
Ibrahim Eidarous (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Ibrahim_Hussein_Abdel_Hadi_Eidarous)
held in the UK since 1999. Died in prison in 2008.
Adel Abdel Bary (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Adel_Abdel_Bary)
held in the UK since 1999
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Mamdouh_Mahmud_Salim)
arrested in 1998, held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp)[19] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-odni14-18)
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Ahmed_Khalfan_Ghailani)
arrested in 2004, held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp)[19] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-odni14-18)
Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Mustafa_Mohamed_Fadhil)
probably held, but may still be loose[citation needed (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Osama bin Laden (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden)
at large
Ayman al Zawahiri (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Ayman_al_Zawahiri)
at large
Saif al Adel (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Saif_al_Adel)
at large
Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Abdullah_Ahmed_Abdullah)
unknown since attack
Anas al Liby (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Anas_al-Liby)
at large
Fazul Abdullah Mohammed (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Fazul_Abdullah_Mohammed)
at large
Ahmed Mohamed Hamed Ali (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Ahmed_Mohammed_Hamed_Ali)
at large
Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Fahid_Mohammed_Ally_Msalam)
killed in Pakistan in 2009
Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Sheikh_Ahmed_Salim_Swedan)
killed in Pakistan in 2009

 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

At Black Hawk Down, One hundred-and-twenty-three U.S. troops were involved in the Mogadishu conflict. Nineteen were killed, and one thousand Somalis also perished.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265086/
 
If President Clinton was “responsible” for these attacks, then President Bush has to be held “responsible” for the 2001 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center killing over 3,000 people and the killing of over 4,000 soldiers in Iraq plus the 100,000 plus maimed and injured. Not to mention all the innocent Iraq citizens killed and wounded.
Our reason for invading Afghanistan was to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden who planned the attack on the WTC. I believe Osama is still running around loose and GWB said "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
Then, dear President said "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html)
If we invaded Afghanistan in October, 2001 for the sole purpose of killing or capturing bin Laden, why in 2002 did dear leader say he did not care where bin Laden was?

dnf777
07-20-2009, 02:01 PM
Let’s see, where to start.
 
The USS Cole bombing took place in theYemeni port Of Aden. 17 sailors died and Clinton was President at that time. So if Clinton was President, he must have been responsible right?
On 14 March 2007, a federal judge in the United States (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/United_States), Robert Doumar (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Robert_G._Doumar) ruled that the Sudanese (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Sudan) government was liable for the bombing. The ruling was issued in response to a lawsuit filed against the Sudanese government by relatives of the victims, who claim that Al-Qaeda could not have carried out the attacks without the support of Sudanese officials. The judge stated "There is substantial evidence in this case presented by the expert testimony that the government of Sudan induced the particular bombing of the Cole by virtue of prior actions of the government of Sudan." On 25 July 2007, Doumar ordered the Sudanese government to pay $8 million to the families of the 17 sailors who died. He calculated the amount they should receive by multiplying the salary of the sailors by the number of years they would have continued to work. Sudan's Justice Minister Mohammed al-Mard has stated that Sudan intends to appeal the ruling.
If Clinton was “responsible” for the attack, he must have been responsible for the arrest and conviction of those who committed the attack on the USS Cole.
By May 2008, all defendants convicted in the attack had escaped from prison or been freed by Yemeni officials.
Hence, if all defendants convicted had escaped or been released by 2008, wouldn’t President Bush have to take responsibility for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing#Responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing)
In the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in 1998, you say that President Clinton was responsible. Again, he must have also been responsible for the capture and conviction of most of those responsible.
The indictment
The current indictment[17] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-indictment-16) charges the following twenty-one people for various alleged roles in this crime.
Muhammad Atef (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Muhammad_Atef)
killed in Afghanistan in 2001
Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Muhsin_Musa_Matwalli_Atwah)
killed in Pakistan in 2006
Wadih el Hage (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Wadih_el_Hage)
serving life without parole (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Life_without_parole) since 2001[18] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-cnnlife-17)
Mohamed Sadeek Odeh (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Mohammed_Odeh)
serving life without parole since 2001[18] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-cnnlife-17)
Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Mohamed_Rashed_Daoud_Al-Owhali)
serving life without parole since 2001[18] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-cnnlife-17)
Khalfan Khamis Mohamed (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Khalfan_Khamis_Mohamed)
serving life without parole since 2001[18] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-cnnlife-17)
Khalid al Fawwaz (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Khalid_al_Fawwaz)
held in the UK since 1998
Ibrahim Eidarous (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Ibrahim_Hussein_Abdel_Hadi_Eidarous)
held in the UK since 1999. Died in prison in 2008.
Adel Abdel Bary (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Adel_Abdel_Bary)
held in the UK since 1999
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Mamdouh_Mahmud_Salim)
arrested in 1998, held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp)[19] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-odni14-18)
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Ahmed_Khalfan_Ghailani)
arrested in 2004, held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp)[19] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/%20cite_note-odni14-18)
Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Mustafa_Mohamed_Fadhil)
probably held, but may still be loose[citation needed (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Osama bin Laden (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden)
at large
Ayman al Zawahiri (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Ayman_al_Zawahiri)
at large
Saif al Adel (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Saif_al_Adel)
at large
Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Abdullah_Ahmed_Abdullah)
unknown since attack
Anas al Liby (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Anas_al-Liby)
at large
Fazul Abdullah Mohammed (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Fazul_Abdullah_Mohammed)
at large
Ahmed Mohamed Hamed Ali (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Ahmed_Mohammed_Hamed_Ali)
at large
Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Fahid_Mohammed_Ally_Msalam)
killed in Pakistan in 2009
Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Sheikh_Ahmed_Salim_Swedan)
killed in Pakistan in 2009

 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

At Black Hawk Down, One hundred-and-twenty-three U.S. troops were involved in the Mogadishu conflict. Nineteen were killed, and one thousand Somalis also perished.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265086/
 
If President Clinton was “responsible” for these attacks, then President Bush has to be held “responsible” for the 2001 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center killing over 3,000 people and the killing of over 4,000 soldiers in Iraq plus the 100,000 plus maimed and injured. Not to mention all the innocent Iraq citizens killed and wounded.
Our reason for invading Afghanistan was to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden who planned the attack on the WTC. I believe Osama is still running around loose and GWB said "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
Then, dear President said "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html)
If we invaded Afghanistan in October, 2001 for the sole purpose of killing or capturing bin Laden, why in 2002 did dear leader say he did not care where bin Laden was?

Details, details....I can't let those details cloud my perception of the world.

Just remember....Bush good. Clinton bad. ;)

HuntsmanTollers
07-20-2009, 02:50 PM
Did I state Clinton was responsible for any of the attacks? No I stated he ignored action in response to the attacks. There is a difference. Again, I recommend you all read "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll a editor for the Washington Post. I don't think the Post is often referred to for its conservative bias. I voted for Clinton and I think he did some good things, however I still believe that he shouldn't be praised for his success during crisis. It could be well argued that his inaction was responsible for allowing Bin Laden and others to continue to push the envelope to find the limit for what we would tolerate. We still haven't completely adapted from the end of the Cold War and changed our belief system to fit the current international dynamics.

YardleyLabs
07-20-2009, 04:02 PM
Did I state Clinton was responsible for any of the attacks? No I stated he ignored action in response to the attacks. There is a difference. Again, I recommend you all read "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll a editor for the Washington Post. I don't think the Post is often referred to for its conservative bias. I voted for Clinton and I think he did some good things, however I still believe that he shouldn't be praised for his success during crisis. It could be well argued that his inaction was responsible for allowing Bin Laden and others to continue to push the envelope to find the limit for what we would tolerate. We still haven't completely adapted from the end of the Cold War and changed our belief system to fit the current international dynamics.
I actually tend to agree with you on this, although I think one of the major factors was actually the impeachment activity. When Clinton, appropriately in my mind, involved us in Kosuvo, he was uniformly attacked by Republicans who said that he was attempting to manufacture conflicts to bolster his presidency. I think those attacks and the energy and attention that was diverted to defending against the impeachment efforts meant that the White House took its eyes off of terrorism when more attention was needed.

Roger Perry
07-20-2009, 04:21 PM
Did I state Clinton was responsible for any of the attacks? No I stated he ignored action in response to the attacks.

I voted for Clinton and I think he did some good things, however I still believe that he shouldn't be praised for his success during crisis. .

I did not vote for Clinton either time he ran for office. Clinton did respond to the attacks. The people responsible were caught and prosecuted. On Bush's watch, the people that killed the sailors on the USS Cole either escaped or were let go from prison.

The reason we invaded Afghanistan was to go after Osama bin Laden. A year later Bush said he did not know where bin Laden was and didn't care. Now, please tell me how Bush took action against the attack on 9/11 and completed the goal he was after.

dnf777
07-20-2009, 05:09 PM
I did not vote for Clinton either time he ran for office. Clinton did respond to the attacks. The people responsible were caught and prosecuted. On Bush's watch, the people that killed the sailors on the USS Cole either escaped or were let go from prison.

The reason we invaded Afghanistan was to go after Osama bin Laden. A year later Bush said he did not know where bin Laden was and didn't care. Now, please tell me how Bush took action against the attack on 9/11 and completed the goal he was after.

It made for a great comedy routine at the press roast. Remember Bush looking under sofa cushions asking "where are those WMDs?"...while at the same time real sons and daughters were putting their lives on the line, and at that time, about 2500 had died. As a veteran and father, I will never forgive him for that, nor forget what a betrayal of the trust our uniformed soldiers endured under his regime.

His first test came when our sub-chaser had to make an emergency landing in China-held territory. I remember the chest thumping attitude of "no apology", while our crewmen and women were held for what? 20 days? Finally, he had Colin Powell say, we're not apologizing, but we're sorry..or something like that to end the standoff. Very weak, and that, I believe laid the groundwork for how other countries viewed his presidency. Not many people remember that, as the news media let that one slide into history with little discussion.

Hew
07-20-2009, 06:04 PM
Finally, he had Colin Powell say, we're not apologizing, but we're sorry..or something like that to end the standoff. Very weak, and that, I believe laid the groundwork for how other countries viewed his presidency. Not many people remember that, as the news media let that one slide into history with little discussion.
Let me just see if I have this straight...

An event that "not many people remember" laid the groundwork for how Bush's presidency was perceived by other countries. And that perception was one of weakness. And because of that weakness, bin Laden was emboldened to send 20 hijackers back in time (in a time machine no doubt funded by the CIA and Bush Senior's Saudi contacts) a few years before the grounded Chinese surveillance flight in order to receive flight training in America so that they could then crash some jets around our east coast. And then, because Bush was so weak, after we were attacked (thanks to the weakness Bush projected), Bush thumbed his nose at the rest of world and we went into A-Stan and Iraq. Bush was perceived as so weak (HOW WEAK WAS HE???)....that the rest of world, so we're told, called his brand of foreign relations "Cowboy Diplomacy." You know, because cowboys are perceived as so weak. And, umm, yeah...that's why Bush was a weak president...because he negotiated the return of our naval personnel from China.

Is that about right?

dnf777
07-20-2009, 07:17 PM
Let me just see if I have this straight...

An event that "not many people remember" laid the groundwork for how Bush's presidency was perceived by other countries. And that perception was one of weakness. And because of that weakness, bin Laden was emboldened to send 20 hijackers back in time (in a time machine no doubt funded by the CIA and Bush Senior's Saudi contacts) a few years before the grounded Chinese surveillance flight in order to receive flight training in America so that they could then crash some jets around our east coast. And then, because Bush was so weak, after we were attacked (thanks to the weakness Bush projected), Bush thumbed his nose at the rest of world and we went into A-Stan and Iraq. Bush was perceived as so weak (HOW WEAK WAS HE???)....that the rest of world, so we're told, called his brand of foreign relations "Cowboy Diplomacy." You know, because cowboys are perceived as so weak. And, umm, yeah...that's why Bush was a weak president...because he negotiated the return of our naval personnel from China.

Is that about right?

Except for a little embellishment, you pretty much got it right.

I don't mind him "negotiating", and if we landed on their property, I don't even mind an apology (which is where we ended up)...but you can't go grandstanding, and laying down ultimatums, when you know you may eventually have to capitulate. That makes you look like a bully, who can't back up what he says. Who quoted Ron White...."can't fix stupid!"

He took a simple mishap, and through misguided bravado, made us look bad. Diplomacy at its WORST!

road kill
07-20-2009, 07:19 PM
Except for a little embellishment, you pretty much got it right.

I don't mind him "negotiating", and if we landed on their property, I don't even mind an apology (which is where we ended up)...but you can't go grandstanding, and laying down ultimatums, when you know you may eventually have to capitulate. That makes you look like a bully, who can't back up what he says. Who quoted Ron White...."can't fix stupid!"

He took a simple mishap, and through misguided bravado, made us look bad. Diplomacy at its WORST!

Unlike now, where we look real good!!
Especially after the apology tour!!:D

dnf777
07-20-2009, 07:41 PM
Unlike now, where we look real good!!
Especially after the apology tour!!:D

That's a matter of opinion, we can gracefully disagree upon.

I'm at least happy now, as are many other Americans, that we don't find ourselves 'cringing' every time our president travels abroad, wondering if he's going say something stupid, trash etiquette, or otherwise be a poor reflection on our good people. It got embarrassing to hear people laughing in the audience....when he wasn't telling jokes.

road kill
07-20-2009, 07:48 PM
That's a matter of opinion, we can gracefully disagree upon.

I'm at least happy now, as are many other Americans, that we don't find ourselves 'cringing' every time our president travels abroad, wondering if he's going say something stupid, trash etiquette, or otherwise be a poor reflection on our good people. It got embarrassing to hear people laughing in the audience....when he wasn't telling jokes.

UHHH....Graceful is a word scarcely used in defining me.
Thank you!!

I guess I should bow to you??
Or give you a CD set?
Or ..... never mind, if you are proud good for you.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-20-2009, 09:28 PM
UHHH....Graceful is a word scarcely used in defining me.
Thank you!!

I guess I should bow to you??
Or give you a CD set?
Or ..... never mind, if you are proud good for you.

Dont forget the, I'll see your CD set, and raise you a MP3 player....

or the Book signing episode with communists....


NCA

road kill
07-20-2009, 10:01 PM
Dont forget the, I'll see your CD set, and raise you a MP3 player....

or the Book signing episode with communists....


NCA
Yeah that Chavez moment made me proud all-right!!

HuntsmanTollers
07-20-2009, 11:36 PM
[QUOTE=dnf777;473893]That's a matter of opinion, we can gracefully disagree upon.

I'm at least happy now, as are many other Americans, that we don't find ourselves 'cringing' every time our president travels abroad, wondering if he's going say something stupid,

I'm sorry maybe you missed the comparison of Israel's occupation of the West Bank to the Holocaust along with the rest of the apology tour.

HuntsmanTollers
07-20-2009, 11:50 PM
I actually tend to agree with you on this, although I think one of the major factors was actually the impeachment activity. When Clinton, appropriately in my mind, involved us in Kosuvo, he was uniformly attacked by Republicans who said that he was attempting to manufacture conflicts to bolster his presidency. I think those attacks and the energy and attention that was diverted to defending against the impeachment efforts meant that the White House took its eyes off of terrorism when more attention was needed.

That's kind of the point made in "Ghost Wars". However it started before the impeachment with the coverup. Bush had to major crisis to deal with during his presidency, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina/Rita. While I agree that things could have been done better, I personally believe if Louisiana had evacuated when asked it wouldn't have been such a problem. That said people still overlook it was the Largest Disaster Evacuation ever. Considering that it was not something that had ever been planned the evacuation worked. Unfortunately it appears the main source of the problem, communication between the federal, state, and local governments hasn't improved yet. The point being it was a major distraction for the government and President Bush due to the disaster and then the 'governmental review'.

mjh345
07-21-2009, 11:04 AM
That's kind of the point made in "Ghost Wars". However it started before the impeachment with the coverup. Bush had to major crisis to deal with during his presidency, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina/Rita. While I agree that things could have been done better, I personally believe if Louisiana had evacuated when asked it wouldn't have been such a problem. That said people still overlook it was the Largest Disaster Evacuation ever. Considering that it was not something that had ever been planned the evacuation worked. Unfortunately it appears the main source of the problem, communication between the federal, state, and local governments hasn't improved yet. The point being it was a major distraction for the government and President Bush due to the disaster and then the 'governmental review'.

You aren't seriously trying to claim the Bush Administrations handling of Katrina as a success are you???
Talk about revisionist history!!!

HuntsmanTollers
07-21-2009, 12:07 PM
No I didn't say it was a success, I said it was a distraction for the rest of his presidency. There is no doubt the handling of Katrina could have been better. One of the major problems that still has yet to be resolved though is the rights of the state and local government. Under current law the Federal government can't act until the state requests aid. Louisiana delayed in asking for aid. You can focus on the negatives of Katrina or you can focus on what was done well. The news focused on the negative. I choose to focus on the positive. The positive is that the largest non-wartime evacuation in history occurred with no prior planning because no one imagined such a requirement. I think being able to do that in a relatively short time period is something to be proud of. No other country in the world could have done it.

Julie R.
07-21-2009, 12:23 PM
You aren't seriously trying to claim the Bush Administrations handling of Katrina as a success are you???
Talk about revisionist history!!!

Come on Marc, everyone knows the real story. Bush, the white devil, conjured up Katrina so he could get rid of some black people because we all know they vote democrat. Plus, they cost money to support. http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/1sharpton.jpg"OUTRAGE!"http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/racist.gif

Yessiree, that Katrina was all Bush's fault, not only did he cause it, but once it came ashore with NO notice, he did nothing as it was devouring the city of NOLA. Couldn't he have sent down Air Force One or something, so all those po folks in the projects who had NO warning, could've had a chance? And man, he really missed the boat on the Superdome, he single handedly starved those poor refugees and basically forced them to go out on looting sprees.

And of course Marc, I assume you have Ray Nagin up on the pedestal he deserves for his prompt action and masterful handling of the situation. As the mayor he certainly deserved to have Bush take care of things for him, perhaps that's why he waited so long to do anything. After all don't most mayors feel honored to have the Federal Govt. tell them what to do? Oh, right, it's just federal money they want.

And as for this happyness :p ray of sunshine from dnf


I'm at least happy now, as are many other Americans, that we don't find ourselves 'cringing' every time our president travels abroad, wondering if he's going say something stupid, trash etiquette, or otherwise be a poor reflection on our good people. It got embarrassing to hear people laughing in the audience....when he wasn't telling jokes.

I cringe every time I hear of the next planned Apology Tour. How could you NOT be embarrassed by Obongo gifting the Queen of England with an iPod filled with show tunes PLUS inauggeration scenes and Obongo speeches? Or him bowing down to the king of the muzzie world as he gratefully accepts a dookie chain that made him look like a drug dealing pimp? Or glad handing with good buddy Hugo Chavez? Or urging nuclear non proliferation by pledging the U.S. to give up all its nukes? I don't need to 'graciously disagree' with dnf; this president makes a mockery of the office and the nation every time he sets foot on foreign soil.

And Roger "dear"; before I forget...

Then, dear President said ...

"Dear Leader" and variations are widely known as descriptive of Obongo and Kim Jong-Il...not Bush. I'm sure with your research and vitriolic Bush-hate burning in your brain you can find plenty of descriptive adjectives rather than borrowing from the many more humorous ones Dear Leader has earned so far.

Roger Perry
07-21-2009, 01:33 PM
And Roger "dear"; before I forget...
[/size]

"Dear Leader" and variations are widely known as descriptive of Obongo and Kim Jong-Il...not Bush. I'm sure with your research and vitriolic Bush-hate burning in your brain you can find plenty of descriptive adjectives rather than borrowing from the many more humorous ones Dear Leader has earned so far.

You are so right. I should have not called Bush "Dear Leader". There is nothing dear about him.

http://templeofgwbush.blogspot.com/bush_aurora.jpg

dnf777
07-21-2009, 03:09 PM
UHHH....Graceful is a word scarcely used in defining me.
Thank you!!

I guess I should bow to you??
Or give you a CD set?
Or ..... never mind, if you are proud good for you.

I'm ALWAYS proud to be an American! No apologies for that! Not now, not ever!

duckheads
07-21-2009, 04:17 PM
thanks Julie! you always seem to sum things up very well!!

Henry V
07-21-2009, 04:54 PM
Back to economics. The dems may be able to also decide "its the economy".
http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/economics/bci/lateness.pdf

road kill
07-21-2009, 05:32 PM
I'm ALWAYS proud to be an American! No apologies for that! Not now, not ever!
OK, so you are not "EMBARRASSED" now!!

Play word games.

Franco
07-21-2009, 05:59 PM
You aren't seriously trying to claim the Bush Administrations handling of Katrina as a success are you???
Talk about revisionist history!!!

FEMA was not prepared for a natural disaster as much as they were prepared for acts of terrorism.

As someone that was living in New Orleans when Katrina hit, I can tell you that what folks saw on TV was a result of the Mayor of New Orleans and our then indecisive Gov.

Though the mayor called for a mandatory evacuation of the city, many ignored him. The mayor aslo had no plans for evacuating the folks that didn't own vehicles and had not preplanned a place to haul them to. Note that over 400 schools buses stood idel and were flooded instead of used to haul the poor.

Gov. Blanco also refused to let Federal help come to the rescue until it was so obvious to everyone that we need Federal help.

So, one can't blame Bush for the aftermath of Katrina.

Blame the Mayor, the Gov., the Corp Of Engineers and Mother Nature for what happened.

dnf777
07-21-2009, 09:27 PM
OK, so you are not "EMBARRASSED" now!!

Play word games.

No games. I am a proud American. History will dictate what type of leader George W. Bush was.

Yeah, I was a little embarrassed, but always proud to be an American.
No games.

Henry V
07-21-2009, 09:30 PM
FEMA was not prepared for a natural disaster as much as they were prepared for acts of terrorism.

As someone that was living in New Orleans when Katrina hit, I can tell you that what folks saw on TV was a result of the Mayor of New Orleans and our then indecisive Gov.

Though the mayor called for a mandatory evacuation of the city, many ignored him. The mayor aslo had no plans for evacuating the folks that didn't own vehicles and had not preplanned a place to haul them to. Note that over 400 schools buses stood idel and were flooded instead of used to haul the poor.

Gov. Blanco also refused to let Federal help come to the rescue until it was so obvious to everyone that we need Federal help.

So, one can't blame Bush for the aftermath of Katrina.

Blame the Mayor, the Gov., the Corp Of Engineers and Mother Nature for what happened.

Now there is accountability for you. There is no doubt that there is plenty of blame to go around, but to take the position that it is everyone's fault except FEMAs after years of leadership by W is a stretch. According to their website, the primary mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation.
Their primary history has been in dealing with natural disasters hasn't it?.

I suppose W should have left Brownie in there too. I understand he did one heckuva job. That equestrian society job sure did prepare him to handle little old FEMA.

Franco
07-22-2009, 09:51 AM
Now there is accountability for you. There is no doubt that there is plenty of blame to go around, but to take the position that it is everyone's fault except FEMAs after years of leadership by W is a stretch. According to their website, the primary mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation.
Their primary history has been in dealing with natural disasters hasn't it?.

I suppose W should have left Brownie in there too. I understand he did one heckuva job. That equestrian society job sure did prepare him to handle little old FEMA.

When was the last time over a half-million homes were flooded? Katrina was the largest natural disaster in our history. The Mayor and Gov. were warned of this kind of catistrophic event in 2001, yet they didn't heed the warning.

I'm sure FEMA is much better prepared today to handled a natural disaster of this type and scope.

On a side note; The Corp Of Engineers' MRGO Project is what allowed most of the water to approach the city. No telling how much it will cost to fill-in a ship channel that is 60 miles long and 200 yards wide!

Raymond Little
07-22-2009, 11:49 AM
When was the last time over a half-million homes were flooded? Katrina was the largest natural disaster in our history. The Mayor and Gov. were warned of this kind of catistrophic event in 2001, yet they didn't heed the warning.

I'm sure FEMA is much better prepared today to handled a natural disaster of this type and scope.

On a side note; The Corp Of Engineers' MRGO Project is what allowed most of the water to approach the city. No telling how much it will cost to fill-in a ship channel that is 60 miles long and 200 yards wide!

Franco, I do believe from what I am hearing online that the MRGO has been closed and work continues to finish the job.

I went down with the Cajun Navy from Lafayette to pull people out of harms way and this is my take on the catastrophe; Blanco/Nagin were clueless and knew that those left behind were expendable read (homeless,gangstas,chronic porch sitters) they were still going to get their votes no matter what happened. If their decision was wrong both of our fearless leaders knew the national media would also come the their rescue and blame "W" and FEMA which is exactley what happened.:shock:

Been There Done That Regards:2c:

mjh345
07-22-2009, 03:02 PM
Lets cut to the chase, Franco and R Little; what kind of grade would you give FEMA for their handling of Katrina?

mjh345
07-23-2009, 10:45 PM
Still waiting for you LA. fellows report card for FEMA