Is McCain as shallow as George W. Bush?

[olivier in france]

A man who shares my values

 

 

LOL i was about to make the same post when i saw yours!

[olivier in france]

Actually, they couldn't. There's significant limitations on what federal government can do in those situations without state or local authority. For example: the National Guard are state resources, not federal. If federalized, they are no longer available for domestic employment, as that would violate posse comitatus. Under certain conditions such an effort can be federalized; the president can request the federalization of state resources under the Insurrection Act...and such a request was made to and denied by Blanco.

 

People forget, too, the utter devestation in the area. New Orleans was cut off, literally. Not one reliable route into the city existed until that Thursday. The last six miles from the airport (where FEMA had some 70% of their entire stock of field hospitals stationed on Wednesday) to the Superdome was untraversable. It was not a matter of loading up trucks and driving in. It was the equivalent of trying to rescue 30000 people from the deep Everglades. The only comparable disaster I can think of would be in Bander Aceh after the tsunami.

 

Fundamentally, this blaming it on individuals is faintly ridiculous. If you read the reports on the response, the consistent theme isn't individual failures, but a lack of planning and complete breakdown in coordination and communication at ALL levels. You basically had local, state, and federal, and volunteer running their own response plans, uncoordinated and often at cross-purposes. That that mess got sorted out by Thursday (and by a direct order by Bush federalizing New Orleans under Northcom command - probably the only thing anyone in power did right the whole week, and it was completely illegal) was frankly miraculous.

 

 

Actually any person who lived in the NO area before Katrina knows nobody is to blame more than any anybody else as they ALL KNEW. When i passed a week in NO two years before Katrina i've heard several times locals explaining me the town would be completly flooded if the "right" hurricane came and that there was nothing really planned to avoid/ face it. It was in fact the way a lot of locals were explaining the special atmosphere of the town to visitors "we party like that because we know there may be no tomorrow for this town!"

[SilverNRed]

Again, you continue to ignore the overall success of the response to just keep repeating the same incomplete information you want to list over and over. The consensus on Katrina in the first 24 hours after it happened was that we had been lucky (it was not as powerful a hurricane as initially feared when it hit) and the concern that the levees would be topped proved unfounded. All hell broke loose later after the levees were breached due to a design flaw. That's the type of information you trim right out to help your "Bush was on vacation and did nothing during Katrina!" narrative.

 

Here's more -- Link

 

Bush has been accused of showing poor leadership after the disaster, and for indicating, along with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, that no one could have anticipated that the flood protection system for New Orleans, Louisiana, would be breached.

 

However, transcripts from video conferences on August 28 and 29 show that National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield expressed concern that Katrina might push its storm surge over the city's levees and flood walls.

 

"I don't think anyone can tell you with confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not, but that's obviously a very, very great concern," Mayfield says in one.

 

In a September 1 television interview, Bush said, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," a statement Chertoff agreed with three days later.

So the supposed "smoking gun" is Bush being warned about the possibility that the levees would be "topped." Unfortunately, "topped" and "breached" are not the same thing (despite the fact that that is what the author of the article wants you to believe). The levees were never topped, they were breached and that wasn't anticipated.

[DC Tom]

So the supposed "smoking gun" is Bush being warned about the possibility that the levees would be "topped." Unfortunately, "topped" and "breached" are not the same thing (despite the fact that that is what the author of the article wants you to believe). The levees were never topped, they were breached and that wasn't anticipated.

 

Actually, I think they are. When an earthen levee is topped, the flow erodes it, and it quickly becomes a breach.

 

And it wasn't a design flaw, it was a maintenance failure, as I recall. Forty years of USACE under-funding.

[SilverNRed]

Actually, I think they are. When an earthen levee is topped, the flow erodes it, and it quickly becomes a breach.

 

And it wasn't a design flaw, it was a maintenance failure, as I recall. Forty years of USACE under-funding.

Topping can lead to breaching but they aren't the same thing. There wasn't anticipation that the levees would simply crumble around the city, especially after it initially appeared that the city and its levees had weathered the storm and were through the worst of it unscathed.

 

Maintainence may be a better culprit for their failure as there is some speculation that development too near the levees compromised their strength.

[DC Tom]

Topping can lead to breaching but they aren't the same thing. There wasn't anticipation that the levees would simply crumble around the city, especially after it initially appeared that the city and its levees had weathered the storm and were through the worst of it unscathed.

 

Maintainence may be a better culprit for their failure as there is some speculation that development too near the levees compromised their strength.

 

Based on your extensive hydro-engineering experience?

 

 

I actually posted that hoping to draw EII into the discussion, since he'd know better than either of us. Since it's a semantic point (really, if you're on the ground and the water's rising, do you care all that much if the failure's a "top" or "breach"?), I thought having the correct semantics might help.

[SilverNRed]

Based on your extensive hydro-engineering experience?

 

I actually posted that hoping to draw EII into the discussion, since he'd know better than either of us. Since it's a semantic point (really, if you're on the ground and the water's rising, do you care all that much if the failure's a "top" or "breach"?), I thought having the correct semantics might help.

I only point out that they are different in that I think they can be topped without necessarily being breached. I think that's what they initially thought had happened in the hours after the storm had passed. Also, I think the levees were designed to withstand a category 3 storm (which Katrina was) but still failed which makes me wonder about their design and maintainence.

 

And you're right that I wouldn't want to be there if they're being breached *or* topped. Hence the mandatory evacuation. In any event, the point still stands that there is a ton of Katrina information to consider before trying to pin blame on one or two people.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I only point out that they are different in that I think they can be topped without necessarily being breached. I think that's what they initially thought had happened in the hours after the storm had passed. Also, I think the levees were designed to withstand a category 3 storm (which Katrina was) but still failed which makes me wonder about their design and maintainence.

 

And you're right that I wouldn't want to be there if they're being breached *or* topped. Hence the mandatory evacuation. In any event, the point still stands that there is a ton of Katrina information to consider before trying to pin blame on one or two people.

 

 

Agreed, but it was the WHs reaction that pissed folks off. If Bush had devoted more time, not come off as an out of touch imbecile and fired his FEMA guy right away or even before it happened this might have been okay. His sending that General in with the guards was a great thing, but then the FEMA crap kept happening and Bush appeared to be disengaged, hence as leader, why he became such a lightening rod for criticism.

[SilverNRed]

Agreed, but it was the WHs reaction that pissed folks off. If Bush had devoted more time, not come off as an out of touch imbecile and fired his FEMA guy right away or even before it happened this might have been okay. His sending that General in with the guards was a great thing, but then the FEMA crap kept happening and Bush appeared to be disengaged, hence as leader, why he became such a lightening rod for criticism.

Bush has had an image problem since before he even became POTUS. His administration is a disaster when it comes to communicating their ideas. It doesn't surprise me that they dropped the ball on assuring America that they were taking appropriate steps in response to Katrina. That, coupled with some of the ridiculous reporting that was happening at the time, led to a ton of the myths that still persist today.

 

Mistakes were made at all levels and our government is now so convoluted that the recovery continues to be a mess years later. Our government is large, unwieldy, and unaccountable. It's not surprising when things don't get done or done correctly.

[DC Tom]

Agreed, but it was the WHs reaction that pissed folks off. If Bush had devoted more time, not come off as an out of touch imbecile and fired his FEMA guy right away or even before it happened this might have been okay. His sending that General in with the guards was a great thing, but then the FEMA crap kept happening and Bush appeared to be disengaged, hence as leader, why he became such a lightening rod for criticism.

 

All true, that...but are we now talking about the actual reasons for failure, or the perceived reasons for failure? The whole "issue" about the DVD of news storied on the storm, for example...yeah, it makes him look out-of-touch...but out of touch with what, precisely? Hell, I could make the argument that the president would be more "in touch" with events by ignoring the media coverage in that case (seeing as how he's going to get briefings on the situation, but the media itself sensationalized about 20 square miles of a 60k square mile disaster area.

 

If there were any failure in executive leadership, it occured at all levels and well before 2005. Look to FEMA's absorption into DHS, for example, or New Orleans' complete inability to come up with a remotely rational emergency plan. Things like this fail because of decisions made well before the event itself. They don't fail because Bush was in Crawford the day before the hurricane.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Bush has had an image problem since before he even became POTUS. His administration is a disaster when it comes to communicating their ideas. It doesn't surprise me that they dropped the ball on assuring America that they were taking appropriate steps in response to Katrina. That, coupled with some of the ridiculous reporting that was happening at the time, led to a ton of the myths that still persist today.

 

Mistakes were made at all levels and our government is now so convoluted that the recovery continues to be a mess years later. Our government is large, unwieldy, and unaccountable. It's not surprising when things don't get done or done correctly.

 

It is more than an image problem, he doesn't appear to be engaged unless the heat rises and he has to respond. Now I know he is a smart guy, so it isn't one of brain power. It comes across as not caring, but I am not sure that is correct. Even when he does respond verbally, and I am not talking about what he is or is not doing, but his verbal responses make matters worse for him even when I believe he is doing the right thing. I am to the point that I can't even listen to him anymore and soon I won't have to, but that is what happened with Katrina, his responses reinforced every attack ever written about him. He comes across as defensive and not caring, which I am sure is not the case, but like Gore's wood like appearance in front of a TV camera, Bush's deer in the headlights look and pathetic resentful lecture when asked for more details is his downfall.

[Alaska Darin]

Yep, another AD "Pearl of Libertard Wisdom."

 

Except for the fact that I'm not the poster who asked the initial question.

Ooh, you'll have to accept my apology for confusing your ridiculousness with another poster of similar brain power. Most of you run together over time.

I just asked why you were inferring that the DNC is the only Political Machine which provides it's brainwashed masses with their daily talking points when the number of RNC "Talking Heads" on this board is triple or quadruple the number of DNC "Lemmings."

I didn't "infer" that the DNC is the ONLY anything, retard. Where the hell do you get this crap? The post you responded to was a direct slam at that dude's politics. No one else's. He should take that sh-- personally because that's exactly how it was meant.

But don't let me get in the way of another of your patented "Bad! Liberal's Bad!" rants. I wouldn't want to interrupt you with facts or anything like that, if you start thinking instead of ranting, your head might overheat and melt your igloo...

Liberals are bad. Very bad. Hard core anything is generally bad. Whether you agree with that or not means nothing to me.

 

Oh, and the igloo jokes are much funnier now than they were 10 years ago. Your sense of humor is as refreshing as your politics.

P.S. Wake me the next time you jump on Wacka, SilverNRed, SDJarhead, or any of their ilk for parroting party lines, I don't want to miss it when the board crashes.

You know, it took me all of one search to find over 10 posts in succession where I blast Wacka. Here's a sample:

 

One

 

Two

 

Three

 

Four

 

Five

 

Six

 

Seven

 

Eight

 

Nine

 

Ten

 

Eleven

 

Now find something else to whine about - as that seems to be your main contribution here.

 

And SnR ain't a Republican, nor is his disagreement with liberals based on belonging to a party. It's because he (correctly) thinks most of you are pinheads and is nice enough to go out of his way to consistently abuse you for it. You see, that's the beauty of you partisans. You assclowns always think the attacks are based on your affiliation, when it's really because you're utter morons who can't think for themselves.

[Alaska Darin]

First time in a while, I think you have AD dead to rights. Heck I am not sure I ever remember him making such a statement about one of the RNC parrots. Maybe once a couple of years ago.... but rarely.

Does he throw you fish when you clap on command? I've really missed your "me too" posts. Maybe we should have a poll on where you've been?

 

Yeah, I'm not an equal opportunity hater. That crap never gets old. I can't wait for the election when I get called a fence sitter because I refuse to vote for either of the shills you blockheads jump up and down for.

[DC Tom]

Ooh, you'll have to accept my apology for confusing your ridiculousness with another poster of similar brain power. Most of you run together over time.

 

I didn't "infer" that the DNC is the ONLY anything, retard. Where the hell do you get this crap? The post you responded to was a direct slam at that dude's politics. No one else's. He should take that sh-- personally because that's exactly how it was meant.

 

Liberals are bad. Very bad. Hard core anything is generally bad. Whether you agree with that or not means nothing to me.

 

Oh, and the igloo jokes are much funner now than they were 10 years ago. Your sense of humor is as refreshing as your politics.

 

You know, it took me all of one search to find over 10 posts in succession where I blast Wacka. Here's a sample:

 

One

 

Two

 

Three

 

Four

 

Five

 

Six

 

Seven

 

Eight

 

Nine

 

Ten

 

Eleven

 

Now find something else to whine about - as that seems to be your main contribution here.

 

And SnR ain't a Republican, nor is his disagreement with liberals based on belonging to a party. It's because he (correctly) thinks most of you are pinheads and is nice enough to go out of his way to consistently abuse you for it. You see, that's the beauty of you partisans. You assclowns always think the attacks are based on your affiliation, when it's really because you're utter morons who can't think for themselves.

 

Man, the igloo's going to need serious renovation now...

[VABills]

It is more than an image problem, he doesn't appear to be engaged unless the heat rises and he has to respond. Now I know he is a smart guy, so it isn't one of brain power. It comes across as not caring, but I am not sure that is correct. Even when he does respond verbally, and I am not talking about what he is or is not doing, but his verbal responses make matters worse for him even when I believe he is doing the right thing. I am to the point that I can't even listen to him anymore and soon I won't have to, but that is what happened with Katrina, his responses reinforced every attack ever written about him. He comes across as defensive and not caring, which I am sure is not the case, but like Gore's wood like appearance in front of a TV camera, Bush's deer in the headlights look and pathetic resentful lecture when asked for more details is his downfall.

Do a little research:

 

http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?ar...=1920&id=72

 

According to Mr. Bernardi’s oral testimony, HUD has identified 42,000 vacant units of multifamily housing, 34,000 vacant public housing units, 16,000 available Section 8 vouchers, and 2,000 single family homes available nationwide. In addition, 1,000 families have already been placed in “subsidized units” and requests to mayors to identify vacant units in their cities have served to house an additional 1,000 evacuees.

 

HUD actually identified a large quantity of avilable units within a few days of Katrina to move displaced people from that region into homes. It was stopped because of protests and huge liberal media backlash about HUD moving these diabled folks to the front of the list to get federal assistance, over folks who were only in state and local assitance programs which are not nearly as generous. In fact the those available units discussed were actually in cities where there was noone eligible on waiting lists, so in fact none was being moved down a waiting list or anything else. But of course this was not what the public was told and once one message gets out from the press it overrides everything, including the truth. So if you'll go through that sight several other attempts were made, but twarted by the left to make the admin look bad, even if it hurt the displaced folks in the hurricanes path.

 

In fact that sight has a whole lot of documentation from Frist and crew on bills and funding overrides that they wanted passed to help FEMA and HUD as well as other agencies quickly respond, but alas, nothing or little was passed by congress.

[JK2000]

I only point out that they are different in that I think they can be topped without necessarily being breached. I think that's what they initially thought had happened in the hours after the storm had passed. Also, I think the levees were designed to withstand a category 3 storm (which Katrina was) but still failed which makes me wonder about their design and maintainence.

 

And you're right that I wouldn't want to be there if they're being breached *or* topped. Hence the mandatory evacuation. In any event, the point still stands that there is a ton of Katrina information to consider before trying to pin blame on one or two people.

 

Would you like to come clean about how the "topped" vs "breached" argument is a widely circulated talking point or am I going to have to expose you again? I really don't want to.

[DC Tom]

Would you like to come clean about how the "topped" vs "breached" argument is a widely circulated talking point or am I going to have to expose you again? I really don't want to.

 

I'm starting to get the sense that "talking point" is some little JK2000 retard code-word for sh-- you make up.

[Wacka]

Ooh, you'll have to accept my apology for confusing your ridiculousness with another poster of similar brain power. Most of you run together over time.

 

I didn't "infer" that the DNC is the ONLY anything, retard. Where the hell do you get this crap? The post you responded to was a direct slam at that dude's politics. No one else's. He should take that sh-- personally because that's exactly how it was meant.

 

Liberals are bad. Very bad. Hard core anything is generally bad. Whether you agree with that or not means nothing to me.

 

Oh, and the igloo jokes are much funner now than they were 10 years ago. Your sense of humor is as refreshing as your politics.

 

You know, it took me all of one search to find over 10 posts in succession where I blast Wacka. Here's a sample:

... (deleted to save electrons)

 

Now find something else to whine about - as that seems to be your main contribution here.

 

And SnR ain't a Republican, nor is his disagreement with liberals based on belonging to a party. It's because he (correctly) thinks most of you are pinheads and is nice enough to go out of his way to consistently abuse you for it. You see, that's the beauty of you partisans. You assclowns always think the attacks are based on your affiliation, when it's really because you're utter morons who can't think for themselves.

 

Go ahead and keep bashing me

I don't really give a F about what someone located 100s to 1000s of miles away thinks of me.

[Alaska Darin]

Would you like to come clean about how the "topped" vs "breached" argument is a widely circulated talking point or am I going to have to expose you again? I really don't want to.

Yeah, you should argue about that stuff with an engineer.

 

This is gonna be a hoot.

[RI Bills Fan]

Ooh, you'll have to accept my apology for confusing your ridiculousness with another poster of similar brain power. Most of you run together over time.

 

I didn't "infer" that the DNC is the ONLY anything, retard. Where the hell do you get this crap? The post you responded to was a direct slam at that dude's politics. No one else's. He should take that sh-- personally because that's exactly how it was meant.

 

Liberals are bad. Very bad. Hard core anything is generally bad. Whether you agree with that or not means nothing to me.

 

Oh, and the igloo jokes are much funner now than they were 10 years ago. Your sense of humor is as refreshing as your politics.

 

You know, it took me all of one search to find over 10 posts in succession where I blast Wacka. Here's a sample:

 

One

 

Two

 

Three

 

Four

 

Five

 

Six

 

Seven

 

Eight

 

Nine

 

Ten

 

Eleven

 

Now find something else to whine about - as that seems to be your main contribution here.

 

And SnR ain't a Republican, nor is his disagreement with liberals based on belonging to a party. It's because he (correctly) thinks most of you are pinheads and is nice enough to go out of his way to consistently abuse you for it. You see, that's the beauty of you partisans. You assclowns always think the attacks are based on your affiliation, when it's really because you're utter morons who can't think for themselves.

 

Nice try Brain Freeze, you can't even figure out who you're talking to when you start ranting, When did Wacka start posting under names like Bishop Hedd and Joey Balls? And even at that you had to go back over two years to come up with less than 10 times that you said anything to Wacka. And Wacka posts more stupidly partisan crap by himself in a single day than 90% of the board does in a year.

 

Yeah, yeah, SnR ain't a registered Republican, big deal. If he's had an original thought that somehow managed to percolate to the surface of his brain, he didn't bother posting it here. When he manages to come up with any idea that wasn't spoon fed to him by talk radio, I'll apologize for thinking he's Wacka's dumber brother, but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

 

So take your "I hate all partisans equally" nonsense and stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

So now let's go back to the original premise that you couldn't acccept, there are easily three times as many partisan RNC "Talking Heads" on this board as there are partisan DNC "Lemmings." That is the only comment I made until you started ranting at me about something someone else posted. You want to try to debunk that? Or would you rather continue making yourself look stupid by ranting like an idiot and making asinine claims that anyone who's been on this board for more than ten minutes can see right through?