On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:49:42 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...

The place was a disaster area and Bush didn't even land his ****ing
plane.


I accept his reason for this one.

People like Olbermann would have had a field day ripping him apart for
causing local police and resources to be distracted from more immediate
and
important jobs. (not that the local, corrupt police were doing their
jobs
... my comment, not Bush's)

Eisboch

It's a lame excuse. The President of the United States should make a
showing when one of our cities is nearly wiped off the map.

Convenient excuse that's inexusable.

Actually he should stay home and monitor the situation. Bringing in the
President and all the security required, just messes up things. About like
the traffic when the President comes to town. Freeways shutdown for short
times, streets blocked.

Eisboch made your point earlier. It's a lame excuse that allowed him
to remain at arm's length from a national crisis. One of our cities
was nearly wiped off the map. I'm not suggesting he go there for the
cameras but that he go there and survey the situation and talk to
people himself so that he could measure a proper response. Presidents
and Governors do this all the time. It wasn't worth his time.

Whatever wake he, his security and entourage would create would be
less than a pin drop in the hell that was New Orleans.

He later remarked about how he felt sad that the location of youthful
follies had succumbed to mother nature.

That was his point of reference.

You still claiming to be a Democrat or have you finally come out?

"jps" wrote in message
...

And you think the response to Katrina was appropriate? Want to blame
the mayor and the governor for "not askin" for help? What a crock of
****. Poor people and colored ain't **** to Bush or Cheney or half of
the Republican party. They don't care and you know it.



Your arguments would be much more credible if you had your facts straight.
That is not what happened. The governor was pleaded with to make the
official
request for federal assistance as required by law. Bush personally insisted
that the request
be made and even authorized the initial logistical preparations in
anticipation of the request before the governor finally conceded. If he had
acted unilaterally, many would be all over his case for ignoring the law
with regard to the use of federal resources and troops, being politically
motivated and illegally interfering with local (state) authority, and
properly so.

I don't understand the reluctance or delay on the governor's part, other
than pure politics, ego and stupidity. Many mistakes were made, FEMA and
it's director screwed up for sure, but the allegation that Bush was "slow"
in authorizing federal assistance just isn't the case.

The next argument becomes, "Well, it's been known for years that NO would be
wiped out in a major hurricane. Bush should have known that and have
initiated plans years before.

Give me a break. Is the POTUS also supposed to anticipate every major
natural catastrophe, be it a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, snowstorm or
flood? I really don't think that's his job. If you feel Bush is to blame
for the effects of Katrina, then you also have to share that blame on every
president going back to the Louisiana Purchase.

I am not suggesting that Bush and Co. have done a great job, but it irks me
when stories are fabricated, twisted and blown out of proportion. Another
good example is the famous "Mission Accomplished" banner which to many has
come to symbolize Bush's screw-ups and dishonesty.

With knowledge that Bush was going to come aboard for a photo op visit, a
request was made to him by the task force commander to fly the banner on the
carrier before arriving home signifying the completion of the carrier's (and
task force's) scheduled deployment of about 6 months. It's a naval
tradition, much like strapping a broom upside down on the mast signifies a
"clean sweep" of a ships mission or deployment purpose. It's symbolism is
unique to the ship's specific and current mission, not a war.

Bush's mistake was thinking of the crews of the ships of the task force and
not anticipating the mistaken interpretation of the banner by the media and
uninformed public.

Although it has been explained many times, the image has stuck that the
banner represented the end of the overall mission in Iraq, not simply the
end of the deployment or mission of the USS Lincoln and her task force.
Many who absolutely detest Bush just won't hear it any other way and much of
the media won't let it go or correct the misinterpretation. This form of
dishonesty is just as bad as the "lies" and fact twisting reported to
originate with Bush and his administration, so who is clean?

BTW .... if you are interested, there's also another side of the story
regarding the modified RV's and trailers bought and delivered by FEMA as
temporary shelters, but I won't get into that now.

Again, I am not a big admirer of Bush and his administration. In many ways
he was a disaster as POTUS. But some of the allegations made of him and
that continue to be perpetuated simply are not true.

Eisboch

wrote in message
...

Your responses are not based on true facts.. you are even worse.
Funny, with over 200 seperate investigations into the Bush
Administration in the last two years (when they should have been
investigating William Jefferson, and taking care of business) there
was no impeachment of Bush... hummmmm, wonder if any other president
was impeached recently?

--------------------------------------------

There's an interesting dilemma facing Obama when he takes office.
Here's his problem:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office
of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If Bush and/or Cheney are guilty (as many have alleged including some in
this NG) of actions that are in violation of the Constitution, then Obama,
by virtue of his oath, is obligated to seek indictments against Bush, Cheney
or both. To not do so means Obama himself is in violation of the oath he
is about to take.

This is not my legal opinion. I am not qualified. It's the legal opinion
of several qualified legal scholars.

He's been pressured for an answer as to his intentions in this regard and
has been evasive in his answers. He speaks of "looking forward" not
backward or passes the buck off to his future attorney general in an obtuse,
cloudy statement. Right.

Anyone care to make a wager as to whether he will actually try to go after
Bush/Cheney?

If he doesn't, isn't he guilty himself?

Eisboch

"jps" wrote in message
...


My father is an ex-marine. He'd never question another man's
virility.

Careful. There's no such thing as an "ex-Marine"

Eisboch

"hk" wrote in message
m...


SW Tom seems to be in a strange little mood these days...I
suspect...hormonal imbalance.

Doubtful.

I've been afflicted myself lately. There's a strange, uncomfortable and
sickening odor in the air.

I think it's called "Acute Liberalism".

Eisboch

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:11:48 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .


My father is an ex-marine. He'd never question another man's
virility.

Careful. There's no such thing as an "ex-Marine"

Damn straight. Which he would know if his father really was a former
Marine.

--

When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you

Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


My father is an ex-marine. He'd never question another man's
virility.

Careful. There's no such thing as an "ex-Marine"

Eisboch


snerk

Eisboch wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
m...


SW Tom seems to be in a strange little mood these days...I
suspect...hormonal imbalance.

Doubtful.

I've been afflicted myself lately. There's a strange, uncomfortable and
sickening odor in the air.

I think it's called "Acute Liberalism".

Eisboch



Awwwwwwww.

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:11:48 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...

My father is an ex-marine. He'd never question another man's
virility.
Careful. There's no such thing as an "ex-Marine"

Damn straight. Which he would know if his father really was a former
Marine.

--

When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you




"Every man wants to be a macho macho man
to have the kind of body, always in demand
Jogging in the mornings, go man go
works out in the health spa, muscles glow
You can best believe that, he's a macho man
ready to get down with, anyone he can

"Hey! Hey! Hey, hey, hey!
Macho, macho man (macho man)
I've got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
I've got to be a macho! Ow.... "

"hk" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


My father is an ex-marine. He'd never question another man's
virility.

Careful. There's no such thing as an "ex-Marine"

Eisboch


snerk


I would never expect you to understand.

Eisboch