It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Katrina Victims: More Human Sacrifice for Iraq War

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
I'm sick from the twisted cowardness I see in that.

Stand like a man and call a loser(Bush) "A Loser!"


If it means or requires blaming Bush for 'anything and everything,' especially for a natural castastrophic disaster, you, as with others, can continue to call Bush "a loser" while standing like men.
My seat is quite comfortable....





seekerof

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Oh wait, you mean like you and others are doing now in blaming this natural castastrophe on Bush, right?


I'm sorry my friend, do you read English? I didn't blame ANY natural phenonmenon on Bush, I blamed him for his lack of forsight, THEN his lack of response.



Just which administration are you refering to when you implied learning from someones elses mistakes? The Netherlands event happened in 1953. Did you miss that mention? It is currently 2005. As such, there have been how many administrations since 1953 that could have learned from someone elses mistakes? I thought so....


Buck passing 101. This didn't happen on anyone elses watch, it happened on Bush's. Maybe we could make a claim that Clinton farted in a north-easterly direction on May 4 2003, that could have begun the hurricane, but we will never know.





In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way--inundating much of the city--were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.


Really? I bet I could find info on Google that Goofy is really Luke's father, not Vader.


However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and couldn't handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis.


Passing the buck again. Are you a one trick pony?



Re-evaluate your blame cycle here, as well as re-evaluate your facts
.

That's the thing, I'm not part of this ridiculous cycle, I actually THINK.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

seekerof wrote:

If it means or requires blaming Bush for 'anything and everything,' especially for a natural castastrophic disaster, you, as with others, can continue to call Bush "a loser" while standing like men.
My seat is quite comfortable....


Oh I'm not blaming Bush for "anything and everything". I'm blaming him for not resigning and leaving the office to a more competent person.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I'm sorry my friend, do you read English? I didn't blame ANY natural phenonmenon on Bush, I blamed him for his lack of forsight, THEN his lack of response.

Same thing. You just used different wording and phrases. Laying blame mistakeningly is blame nonetheless.





Buck passing 101. This didn't happen on anyone elses watch, it happened on Bush's. Maybe we could make a claim that Clinton farted in a north-easterly direction on May 4 2003, that could have begun the hurricane, but we will never know.

Immaterial.
You lay blame were it rightly belongs.
If you blame Bush, be objective enough to carry that blame further back up the line, k? As indicated by the article I cited and linked, the funding would not have mattered. The levees were rated for Cat. 3, not a Cat. 4 or better. The results would have been the same.




Really? I bet I could find info on Google that Goofy is really Luke's father, not Vader.

Do it.



Passing the buck again. Are you a one trick pony?

I got your "one trick pony". Bet.
A little objective researching would do *you* wonders.
Again, re-evaluate your blame cycle here, as well as re-evaluate your facts.








seekerof



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
About the Dutch and the holes in the dykes...

Besides the '53 flood (which I just happened to be there for), there were 3 more major floods in '93, '95 and '98. I was just a glint in my dads eye for the one that happened when the Germans blew the dykes as a farewell gesture.

However...the point I'm making is the cost. The systems they co-ordinate cost 2.27 billion Euros yearly. (yes, yearly)

Holland really isn't much bigger than the MS Delta...so you can imagine the cost of a stable system for the area.

here's an info site I googled for you...

www.geoplace.com...

As far as the connection between the Bush administration and the failure of the levees are concerned, I don't believe only he could be held responsible any more than Clinton or Reagan or anyone going back to Hoover, since different administrations have ignored it for ages.

What's left now is to either rebuild it at an extreme cost or relocate. The relocation is not what I'd want either because my family and myself love NO. It would break my heart to lose it and that wonderful Acadian culture that has been there since the 'relocations'.

I haven't forgotten that connection to Canadian history nor the pain that the Acadians had to endure so long ago when the were forced off their lands




[edit on 2-9-2005 by masqua]

[edit on 2-9-2005 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
No one read the links I gave? Bush cut millions from the Levees and such, so Haliburton could have extra money in their pocket. No one?

Bush didn't make the storm, he made the effects worse. If I have the choice to either spend 50 dollars to fix a seat belt or steal it from you and give it to a billionaire, and later you die in a car accident because of the broken seat belt, it is my fault.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by intrepid
I'm sorry my friend, do you read English? I didn't blame ANY natural phenonmenon on Bush, I blamed him for his lack of forsight, THEN his lack of response.

Same thing. You just used different wording and phrases. Laying blame mistakeningly is blame nonetheless.


No, it isn't and a blind person could see it.





If you blame Bush, be objective enough to carry that blame further back up the line, k?


What line? Bush has been the president for 6 frickin years. Do weather forecasters predict weather longer than that?



Again, re-evaluate your blame cycle here, as well as re-evaluate your facts
.

My facts are fine, everyone else sees them, you don't. You're right, someone needs to re-evaluate. Is it going to happen?

I'm betting not a "snowballs chance in Hell".



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
It's fairly common knowledge that just last year, yep, you betcha, the 2004 US hurricane season was among the worst on record, frequently striking the southeast. I too wish I could wave a magic wand and make this congress and administration smart.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jestaman
No one read the links I gave? Bush cut millions from the Levees and such, so Haliburton could have extra money in their pocket. No one?


You mean this link?
Corps officials: Funding levels not to blame for flooding




seekerof



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by shots
what you would have done that the president did not?


Can I answer that, or rather, rephrase it? What should the President have done.


Sorry the question was not addressed to you


I want the Other person to answer the question and have already asked it two times and no answer.


Why? Was my comment not worthy? Let's revisit it:


Originally posted by intrepid
OK, I've heard this 2 day warning thing a lot. Facts, 2 days, Cat 5 hurricane, the hurricane is HUGE, NO resides below sea level, it's been said for years that eventually "the Big One", hurricane not earthquake, IS going to hit. What should he have done? SOMETHING! He's got the entire military at his disposal.





What are you talking about I did answer your post and made it very clear I wanted the other persons answer. Is that to hard to understand? I noticed you also snipped the important part of my reply why is that? I gave you examples that clearly show the blame should not go all in one place, yet for some odd reason you still want to lay the blame all on the administration. I see another black band coming on ATS real soon and I for one do not like it when that happens.

I have said it once perhaps twice heck maybe three times, you cannot lay all the blame on the administration, there are others who are equally to blame, the sad part is you and some others refuse to see it.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Well they could make part of the rebuilding cost to be, thirty feet of dirt to put under the new construction.

That would solve the problem.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
No These.....

www.pnionline.com...
www.alertnet.org...
www.editorandpublisher.com...
www.findarticles.com...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
mydd.com...
www.bushwatch.com...
www.salon.com...
www.commondreams.org...
www.craigslist.org...
www.swingstateproject.com...
homepage.mac.com...

Wow you found one site, government site from the looks of it since you need to login, IE pay for it, saying it wasn't Bush's fault, good job. I know Chicago Tribune isn't government, but paying to read a news article, sounds just like the government.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Jestaman]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
w0w...

ATS is falling apart because of all this...


No it's not. Please. Relax.


Our leadership plans for things and responds to them in a timely fashion.

This is the thing. This nation has been weened on nothing but red meat since 9/11. That's how you control people. Make them angry. (That's why trolls do what they do too.)

We have been told we NEED to be angry when bad things happen and the most convenient whipping boy for our agenda is to blame. That could be Bush or Iraq in the most prevalent examples following 9/11.

But you can't beat up a Hurricane. I'm not saying Bush does or doesn't deserve some flack (though I think some is appropriate), but people expressing natural outrage at a horrible situation on the only people there, those in charge, don't deserve abuse either. And that's no matter how much they'd like to kick that hurricane's butt too.

There's no excuses or whipping boys here (except those that volunteered for the job). The media isn't withholding the "good news" about hurricanes.
There's no "side" or patriotically correct response to grief.

But there's a wrong response. And that's taking it out on each other.

Bush can take it. His job is to be criticized. He spent good money to have that job and makes good money doing it.

But nobody here is getting paid to be abused.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Jestaman
No one read the links I gave? Bush cut millions from the Levees and such, so Haliburton could have extra money in their pocket. No one?


You mean this link?
Corps officials: Funding levels not to blame for flooding

seekerof


Not going to register to read the article, but assume it is similar to one I posted last night in response to one of margs posts to show her what you and I are trying to point out to others, which is you cannot lay all the blame on the administration.

Why Didn't the Mayor and Governor do more is what I want to know, they had the forsight to call a state of emergency before it hit, yet they did very little.

Why didn't they mobilize the state national guard immediately and start moving supplies to the super dome before the breach/breaches occured?

You get my drift and a way above vote enough said Seek.

Darn now I only have one left to give out and this is only day 2 of the month



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jestaman

No one read the links I gave? Bush cut millions from the Levees and such, so Haliburton could have extra money in their pocket. No one?



Not only have I read it here, I also hear it on CNN, like 70 times a day (sans Halliburton), but the thing is, it's not only the present Bush administration who has ignored it. He's just the guy holding the bag after the chips fell out of the soggy bottom.

NO and the levee system have been ignored for 50 years (imo) because of the costs involved and the everpresent need for funds for other things, like the Korean war, Viet Nam, etc, etc.

I'm no Bush apologist, but I think it's wrong to focus just on him in this...where was Bush Sr. when the Engineers were asking for the dough to fix the levees, or Clinton? Both were 'good old boys' who knew NO's situation and the risks, but failed to do anything substantial when their administrations were in power.

I can tell you this as a Dutchman...there might be storms pushing tidal surges onto the dykes of Holland, but never a cat 4-5 hurricane. I don't think Holland would survive it even with those billions spent yearly.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
What line? Bush has been the president for 6 frickin years.

Obviously, thats where the mention of objective research, on your part, comes into play. As has been mentioned, over and over, funding would not have mattered. The levees were only rated to handle a Cat-3 hurricane, not a Cat-4 or 5. Whether with funding or not, the inevitable result of the levee failure, which had been recently upgraded, would have been unchanged.

As such, this is all a blame-Bush game, but if such is to be played, then blame should rightly be given to Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton. Maybe that is why Clinton said what he did on CNN?

Anyhow, as correctly mentioned by Off_The_Street, since Congress allocates the money and the President has no line-item veto or modification power, the responsibility for funding these programs falls to those elected US representatives. Interestingly and off the wall, why did not Louisiana not fund their own improvements? Is this necessarily or solely a government responsibility?







seekerof

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Not going to register to read the article, but assume it is similar to one I posted last night in response to one of margs posts to show her what you and I are trying to point out to others, which is you cannot lay all the blame on the administration
.

Interesting!


Why Didn't the Mayor and Governor do more is what I want to know, they had the forsight to call a state of emergency before it hit, yet they did very little.


Why didn't the President do SOMETHING?

Sounds like they did SOMETHING. More than a certain person that has unlimited resourses. We'll leave him un-named though. Don't want to ruffle any feathers.


You get my drift and a way above vote enough said Seek
.

The CJ continues.

Sound uncannily like :





posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Hey, who else is in the Oval Office?

I say Bush gets the blame. He's the one with the "vision", the "Broad-shoulders". He "knowing full well" asked for the yob.

Or is he not only incompetent, but also incapable of handling responsibility?

'aw come on! Go easy on the nervously-covering not-all-there Pres.'







[edit on 9/2/2005 by bodebliss]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

As such, this is all a blame-Bush game, but if such is to be played, then blame should rightly be given to Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton. Maybe that is why Clinton said what he did on CNN?

Anyhow, as correctly mentioned by Off_The_Street, since Congress allocates the money and the President has no line-item veto or modification power, the responsibility for funding these programs falls to those elected US representatives. Interestingly and off the wall, why did not Louisiana not fund their own improvements? Is this necessarily or solely a government responsibility?


seekerof

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Seekerof]


Honestly I think this could really go back even further. NO has been prone to flooding for years perhaps even a century and nothing sufficient has been done by presidents before the ones even you mentioned.

The O'Reilly factor just had a very interesting clip that showed the Mayor of NO took people out of the W hotel and put them to the front of the line rather then his own residents to be evacuated first before his own residents. Why Is that?

You have to take my word for it or watch the rerun later tonite but it is a fact.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, this is all a blame-Bush game, but if such is to be played, then blame should rightly be given to Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton. Maybe that is why Clinton said what he did on CNN?


Why can't you NOT see it? It isn't Nixon, Clinton, Bush the 1st, Reagan. This catastrophe happened on Dubya's watch, nothing is going to change that, no matter how much you and Shots wishes it wouldn't.

Protest all you want that the administration did SOMETHING, it did NOTHING for the people of the area.

Protest all you want that this is a problem that dates back to any other president. The facts remain that HE is the man in charge, has been for 6+ years. Weather happens. DID HE PROVIDE? Hell, did he even give it consideration? 5 days later, OK. Pfft. I'd expect more from my contractor than than. BTW, a lot of these people voted for him.


Seekerof, you're NOT blaming Bush for ANYTHING is seriously affecting your credibillity. If he can do NO WRONG why isn't this guy walking on water? Seems like that's what you think.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join