If Bush had started to rebuild the levies in January 2001 rather then divert the money away from New Orleans, there may not have been ANY people to rescue. How about that for some SOUND reasoning! Failing to do that, if Bush had used the Active Military on Tuesday after the storm, there would have been a lot less suffering. As of TODAY there is still no commitment to rebuild the levies to withstand a cat 5 storm. How is that solving the problem? I guess Bush has not learned that the same thing can happen again if we have another Katrina. SOME LEADERSHIP!

If Bush had started to rebuild the levies in January 2001 rather then divert the money away from New Orleans, there may not have been ANY people to rescue.

If the crooked Louisiana politicians had forced a single levee board years ago the New Orleans levee board would not have been able to squander all of the federal money given to them throughout the years. Louisiana politicians actually thought levee improvement would be to add fiber optic cabling to them.

So we have gone back beyond 2001. Really much further than that, but let's stick to Bush and the levees. So exactly how was he supposed to force this state to stop lining it's pockets with federal money while not doing improvements?

I have a keen idea. Stop giving them money.


BTW - please clarify if we are talking about blue jeans or earthen dams meant to hold back water

The studies for the Corps of Engineers clearly showed the need to deal with the levies and surrounding low areas. There were cost estimates to develop a system to protect that area. The state could NOT have completed that project. The lead and funding could ONLY have come from the federal Government. Bush reduced the already inadequate funding to strengthen the levies. Again LEADERSHIP by Bush could have prevented the flooding but he went the opposite direction be taking resources needed to strengthen the levies away from the area.

Cat got your tongue. The truth hurts.

Again LEADERSHIP by Bush could have prevented the flooding but he went the opposite direction be taking resources needed to strengthen the levies away from the area.

Do you really have a clue about the greater picture here? Let me give you a history lesson.

The corp. of engineers has engineered and reengineered the Mississippi River so many times that Louisiana is sliding into the gulf. Our protection, the coastal wetlands, are going away. This is our natural protection from the storm. With no barrier to protect it, the city of New Orleans could never protect itself from anything above a cat 3 storm.

That all started long before GW was ever a twinkle in his daddy's eye.

Cat got your tongue. The truth hurts.

Actually, I stop reading your crap when I go home. Did I call you blathering crap? Ouch! That is a truth that hurts.

Again you refuse to accept the facts. There were studies on HOW to protect New Orleans and the entire region and the cost estimate was between $20-30 Billion. The problem did exist PRIOR to GWB. However, as little as Clinton and Bush 41 did to protect the Gulf. GWB did even less and transferred the little funding that did exist to Iraq. You can BS all you want, BUSH IS A TOTAL FAILURE. Those that support him and his policies are also failures!

just john

You're wasting your time with him. He doesn't care what you have to say cause nothing will make him believe that it's not Bush's fault. As you can see he actually believes that we can build something, short of it being underground, that can withstand a category 5 Hurricane. He thinks that every penny that the Federal Govt gives to Governors and Mayors is used 100% for what it was sent for. He actually believes that the only corrupt people are in the White House and that everyone else is innocent, just caught up in Bush's wrath.

Here's some history on Cols way of thinking.

He blames Bush for the war in Iraq when Congress approved and Britain was with us.

He blames Bush for faulty intelligence over WMD that everyone believed in.

He blames Bush for Katrina and ignores the Mayor and Govenor.

He blames Bush for airport security and ignores the securoty companies and their employees.

He blames Bush for the mining accidents and ignores the employees who did not properly secure the area.

He blames Bush for the "bad economy" when things were starting to get bad just before he took over.

He blames Bush for illegal mexicans when they have been entering the US for decades and ignores the employers who give them jobs.

There are more but I think you get the point. If you follow his logic, you can have the parent arrested for the crimes of the child. He would let everyone else involved get away with a crime so long as Bush gets in trouble. He's a waste of time and everytime we post on his article he gets points.

Cat got your tongue. The truth hurts.

Problem is oh clueless one is that you have not spoken the truth except maybe your own perverted one. Lets start with this one.

The studies for the Corps of Engineers clearly showed the need to deal with the levies and surrounding low areas. There were cost estimates to develop a system to protect that area. The state could NOT have completed that project. The lead and funding could ONLY have come from the federal Government. Bush reduced the already inadequate funding to strengthen the levies. Again LEADERSHIP by Bush could have prevented the flooding but he went the opposite direction be taking resources needed to strengthen the levies away from the area.

When were the studies done? Before 2000 I'll bet. They have known for a LOOOONG time that the levees needed to be worked on. Money was allocated for that many times. And that "is" before Bush took office. So why weren't they upgraded "before" the storm? Because the LA fatcats were too damn busy lining their own pockets.

Those that support him and his policies are also failures!

So I am a failure for believing in GW? Gene, when is your birthday? I want to get you a present. I'll tell you what it is though. I'm going to buy you a clue.

just john
Bush is the one that asked Congress to invade Iraq. He told us we were in danger from Saddam which was not true. Even if Saddam had the WMD he would never have attacked the U S for to do so would have ended his dictatorship.

Bush ignored ANY intelligence that did not support his intent to invade Iraq. There was plenty of Intel that said his conclusions were NOT correct. That is especially true about the Iraq Nuclear program.

The Flood damage could have been avoided if the plans to protect the Gulf area were not ignored. Some of those plans were completed prior to Bush and at least one after he took office. The bottom line is he DID NOTHING. In face he CUT the funding to strengthen the New Orleans Levies. After the storm hit he sat on his A*s for 6 days before sending the help that ONLY the Active Military could provide.

The economic and tax policies are NOT helping the poor or most of the middle income Americans. The only group who net worth increased since Jan 2001 is people in the TOP 10% of the income Americans. The debt he has created with what his father called Voodoo economics will add hundreds of Billions EACH year to the federal budget. When he took office the annual interest on the National Debt was $230 Billion. By 2010 it will be about $500 billion EVERY YEAR!

Bush is directly responsible for Homeland Security. It is his appointees and his responsibility. They failed to deal with Katrina and the most recent test at our Air Ports showed 21 out of 21 failed to STOP explosives from going through the Air Ports.

Bush has NOT protected our borders. He said it will take another 10,000 border guards and then asked Congress for the money to add only 200. Where are the other 9,800 coming from?

Bush is responsible for all these things and he has FAILED on every one. There is not a single MAJOR issue facing us that he and his policies have made better. EVERY ONE has gotten worse during the past 5 years.

Nice triple post Col.

Bush is the one that asked Congress to invade Iraq. He told us we were in danger from Saddam which was not true. Even if Saddam had the WMD he would never have attacked the U S for to do so would have ended his dictatorship.

Bush may have asked, but Congress appoved (both republican and democrats), making them more responsible than him for having the power to say no and not doing so. BTW, you cvould never know what Saddam was capable of since you are not Saddam, Kin Jon has threatened the US many times to attack, don't you think his position is also on the line? Does it look like he cares? Nut cases like him and Saddam don't, get a clue Col.

Bush ignored ANY intelligence that did not support his intent to invade Iraq. There was plenty of Intel that said his conclusions were NOT correct. That is especially true about the Iraq Nuclear program.

He did not ignore, he chose. He chose to believe the intel that said there were weapons which there were plenty as well. Funny though that Saddam "didn't" have a nuclear yet Greenpeace for evidence that contradicts this. Link
(Than you Lee1776 for the link)

The Flood damage could have been avoided if the plans to protect the Gulf area were not ignored. Some of those plans were completed prior to Bush and at least one after he took office. The bottom line is he DID NOTHING. In face he CUT the funding to strengthen the New Orleans Levies. After the storm hit he sat on his A*s for 6 days before sending the help that ONLY the Active Military could provide.

The Flood damage could have been avoided before Bush but that you won't say. And the Active Military may not have been needed had the people of New Orleans evacuated when they should have, you can thank the Local Gov't for that. No wait, that's Bush's fault as well right?

The economic and tax policies are NOT helping the poor or most of the middle income Americans. The only group who net worth increased since Jan 2001 is people in the TOP 10% of the income Americans. The debt he has created with what his father called Voodoo economics will add hundreds of Billions EACH year to the federal budget. When he took office the annual interest on the National Debt was $230 Billion. By 2010 it will be about $500 billion EVERY YEAR!

There is no such thing as poor people, only uneducated and lazy people. Say what you want, everyone has the same opportunity to survive and better themselves here in the US, including many handycap people. Those in the top 10% made it there thru hard work and anyone in the US can do the same (American citizen that is).

Bush is directly responsible for Homeland Security. It is his appointees and his responsibility. They failed to deal with Katrina and the most recent test at our Air Ports showed 21 out of 21 failed to STOP explosives from going through the Air Ports.

Bush created Homeland Security, he is not in charge of it. And Bush can not be blamed for the incompetence of individual people. The screeners in the airports are responsible for not doing their job. That you chose to ignore. That is a fact. Maybe I will put it in words only you can understand THE SCREENERS IN THE AIRPORTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOBS. THAT YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE. THAT IS A FACT.

Bush has NOT protected our borders. He said it will take another 10,000 border guards and then asked Congress for the money to add only 200. Where are the other 9,800 coming from?

How do you not try to protect our borders while putting another 200 guards there? Talk about a contradiction, you say he does nothing then admit he sent 200 more guards, make up your mind.

Bush is responsible for all these things and he has FAILED on every one. There is not a single MAJOR issue facing us that he and his policies have made better. EVERY ONE has gotten worse during the past 5 years.

Bla bla bla, that's all you do, rinse and repeat. Don't you get tired of repeating yourself so much?

You still didn't tell me when your birthday was.

Congress approved the war predicated on the Intel Bush feed them which was incomplete and WRONG.

No Dictator wants to lose control of the country they lord over. If Saddam had attacked the US, he would have lost his country. You should read the article I sight in my book which was written by Professor Record of the Army War College. The idea that Saddam would have attacked the U S is absurd. What do you think would have been our reaction to being attacked? You got it- Iraq would be gone. The very same thing would have resulted from Saddam supplying WMD to a terrorist group that would use it against the U S. It would most likely have been traced back to the source and the same thing would happen to the country giving the WMD to a third party. The notion that Saddam would have used WMD against our country either directly or indirectly is NUTS. The proof of that is that other countries that hate us like North Korea and Iran have WMD. Do they attack us? HELL NO.

Repeating the facts that EVERY major issue has gotten worse over the past 5 years DOES NOT CHANGE the results. Show me where ANY of the major issues facing America that has been improved under Bush and the policies he has gotten through Congress.

If Bush claims it takes 10,000 more guards to protect the border, how does he expect to do the job with only 200 more?

You sound just like Bush and his excuses for the PISS POOR performance of his administration. Bush tells us to JUDGE BY RESULTS. I agree. That is what I have done and the results show how poorly Bush has met his responsibilities!

Trade Deficit
Budget Deficit
Education
Border protection
Energy
Jobs
Homeland security
Abuse of our military
Iraq
Rebuilding of our infrastructure
Health care
Social Security

Show us how Bush has effectively dealt with the above! I know it is not his job. What a bunch of BS!

Show us how Bush has effectively dealt with the above!

What a bunch of BS!

You solicit responses by bumping your own threads back to the top of the Forum list and then you summarily ignore or refuse to believe everything everyone says in response to your mindless, incoherent blather.

As for the answer to your apparently rhetorical question: You wouldn't believe it even if it were given to you. Which it has, again and again.

"Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still."

The question is not rhetorical but very pragmatic. Show me where the major issues that face our nation have improved under the policies Bush and his supporters in Congress have enacted. Document how the following have improved since Jan 2001:

Loss of jobs to other countries
Reduction in the trade imbalance
Progress in allowing families to secure Health insurance coverage
Less dependence on foreign oil. Lower energy prices.
Solutions to solve the funding problems with Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.
Repair of the infrastructure - New Orleans, the levies in southern California, the dams in
Hawaii for example.
Balancing the nation’s income with our spending. We borrow money so we can give the
wealthy tax cuts.
How has the Iraq war made America safer?
Improved education for our children.
Improvement in the environment
Solutions to the Middle East issue.
Security of our borders and ports?
Creation of Living Wage Jobs.