"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