In addition: I think that there were all kinds of messed up parts in Katrina. I think local government has at least as much to blame… the school busses?
But I think the crony system of King Andrew Jackson seems to have returned, in this administration, and possibly those before, and it looks like FEMA was chosen as a safe point to stick an incompetent and unqualified person. And that was a major screw up.
9/11. Bush has no instincts. The storybook thing, it’s not right. But he did decently enough, showing up, staying out of the way when needed.
Gulf II, now, pisses the heck out of me. I won’t go into why. I think the reasons are well enough known.
Basically, way I see it, we’re living in a faith-based presidency, where opinions and gut feelings are outweighing matters of fact and science.
Hm. Libya was a good thing. Korea’s being handled pretty well, too.
ElvisL1ves - As to FEMA’s past role in hurricanes, I believe I accurately described what we have all seen them do. They have come in after the fact and handed out money. Their mission statement says that the agency will manage the federal response to any national incident. My understanding of the agency is that it does not have what I’d call tactical resources: first responders, food distribution personnel and equipment, etc. What federal response there was was managed poorly by FEMA until the Coast Guard officer was put in charge. The OP was interested in opinions about Bush’s handling of the Katrina situation. I’m neutral about what he himself did. IMO, an extraordinary response on his part would have been wonderful, and it didn’t happen. The biggest problem I have with the whole affair is the revelation of the pure cronyism that led to there being an unqualified guy in charge of FEMA when the hurricane hit. That pissed me off.
As your second link, I’m not very impressed by those facts and opinions. I strongly believe that the primary responsibility for responding to Katrina was with the state and local officials. Their ineptitude in dealing with it does not change my philosophy regarding federalism. Had the president sought and received the consent of the mayor of NO and the governor of LA to take over coordination of the response, and had that been successful, I would have cheered the result with reservations about the means. That didn’t happen. I don’t consider it a defense of Bush to place most of the blame with the state and local officials. YMMV.
As I recall, it was Joan and some male singer whose name I can’t remember. I think he was obscure even then. And I believe, like you, that the song was dedicated to, not about, Ronald Reagan. The lyrics seem to be about a country DJ. The only version I’ve heard recently is on a Gram Parsons CD I have, who co-wrote it with Roger McGuin. I haven’t heard the Woodstock version since the 70’s.
I’m with you so far, albeit with some variation in emphasis.
They had a large role in it as well, no question. But they also lacked the resources the feds can bring to bear, and has as one of its functions to bring to bear.
Sorry, I’m not going to look through a 25 page copy of a faxed memo looking for your argument. If you sum it up, I’ll respond. But, to save you some time, and in keeping with the spirit of the OP, I think that bigger mistakes were made before Katrina hit than after. That’s a whole 'nother debate. The response to Katrina was pretty ugly. I think that most of the blame for that rests at the state and local level, and I would have cheered federal help even though I’m philosophically opposed to it. It didn’t come soon enough or sufficiently to do a lot of good.
I’m trying to stick to the OP’s interest in the degree to which supporters of Bush do or do not blindly support him, rather than diverge too much into a debate on the merits of Bush’s actions, if that makes any sense.
I thought invading Afghanistan and establishing an allied presence there was a good move. (I would have done this, myself. I have issues with Bush’s follow-through on this, of course, but it started out pretty well.)
I think he was right to contradict the mayor of New Orleans, who was saying that it was okay to return to the city.
I, too, find myself wishing that I could be riding my bike instead of sitting at my desk at work. This guy actually goes out and grabs that brass ring!
I’d like to add that as someone who evacuated lower Manhattan on the morning of September 11, Bush’s appearance on the World Trade Center site did not make me feel better. In fact, I found the whole spectacle nauseating. “I’m gonna go down to the World Trade Center site and hug a fireman,” Bush said. The he hugged a fireman. Then he said he hugged a fireman. Yecch. (In case anyone feels they’ve got a “gotcha” here, let me clarify: I was paraphrasing Bush. That’s probably not an exact quote about hugging a fireman, but I do remember him saying something to that effect, and the events playing out just like that afterward.)
Remember, Shodan, paleoconservative here. Isolationism, small-government type. Socially liberal mostly because I think what people do in their own house is their own darn business, and fiscally conservative.
Bush may be of my party, but he has violated most of my preferred opinions of government. I’m a bit ticked at the man. I remember when Teddy Roosevelt would open up the White House doors and everyone could walk past and shake the great man’s hand. That’s a President. That’s a First Citizen.
These free speech zones? (And yes, I know Clinton started 'em.) They’re for kings.
I apologize if my post came across that way. Yes, I was going for ridicule, but only because I find the idea that Bush’s foreign policy is “perfect” absolutely absurd. I think our worldwide diplomatic and military position is worse now than it was before 9/11. I think Iraq was a huge mistake with a near-infinite number of consequences that redound to our detriment internationally. I think Bush State Department diplomacy is ham-handed and amateurish.
I will throw a bone Shodan’s way: I agree with the invasion of Afghanistan. Unfortunately (yanking the bone back here), I think it was abandoned too early in favor of going after the Phantom Menace of Iraq.
Why? You and yours have made your opinion of Bush and his supporters crystal clear. Why be shy about it?
And I disagree with you on all counts. Comprende? I could have a long discussion (but I won’t, see above comments for why). But what would it prove? That we have a fundamentally distinct view of the world, our place in it, our real diplomatic power, etc? In the end, someone would start shouting.
I don’t know anybody who has no dissension with Bush, no matter how staunch a supporter they seem.
Why that is not perceived among the more assertive left is a problem that John attempted to address and I beleive Hentor misinterpreted.
It’s not really a matter of lacking the courage to say something, it’s more like a matter of prudence.
Typically I’m not willing to show my softer more sensitive side when somebody is coming after me with a baseball bat. It’s not that I’m afraid of showing my softer more sensitive side. It’s that I’m focussed on the baseball bat.
Sometimes that works the same way in debates. I show my softer side to people who are receptive and understanding.
When somebody writes something like “… and this typifies the hypocrisy and greed of conservatives” or some of the things that John quoted, than I know I am not dealing with a reasonable person who can be debated at a high level of mutual understanding. That person is just swinging a baseball bat.
So. To sum up. If you feel that all conservatives or Republicans are marching in lockstep, it may be a strong sign that you are not being particularly reasonable, respectable, or receptive to opposing points of view.
It may be your fault.
Now somebody will surely tell me what I really think.
Scylla, are you claiming that you have been afraid of being knee-capped by the mean old liberals here?
I understand feeling less than charitable towards the opposition, based on past acrimony. Believe me, as a liberal in this country, I wholeheartedly believe that you speak honestly on that point. I hope you are not claiming that the right, or even yourself, are free from frothy attacks on the other side.
My problem with this argument is that it seems a little like crying uncle because suddenly you don’t seem to have as many on your side anymore. It’ll take a little more than “liberals are mean and make me want to cry” for me to forget “liberals hate America, love dead servicemen and women, support terrorism, love Saddam, and fellate the queer commie French on a nightly basis.” The change in tune when the numbers start to fall below 40% is gratifying, surely, but hardly pricks my conscience.
No, I hope we liberals have learned our lesson well. To return to your metaphors of violence, when you get your boot to the other guy’s neck, a few tears of contrition shouldn’t make you forget how you got sucker punched.
To you I say: Suck it up and clean house, and then we can talk nice.
1 - the attacks were handled quite lightly IMHO. We should have taken the oil fileds away from islamic powers.
2 - the war in Iraq also is being done too lightly, lets create some glass out of all that sand.
3 - The Katrina issue was a failure at a local level, apparently school buses were not good enough for the people who live in NO, neither was Amtrak. I would have liked W to step in and override the lcal authority and do what needs to be done, but then again it really wasn’t his place to do so.
Also about Clinton, forget the blow job, the biggest beef I have w/ him is the tech he gave to China. Impeachment, nothing, even the death sentance doesn’t do this justice.
That would seem whiny and cowardly, wouldn’t it? No. I’m not doing that. In point of fact, I deliberately do not post on boards like the Free Republic because it’s no fun if it’s not an uphill battle.
There’s another reason, too. Please don’t be insulted, because I’m not being specific. I’ll just be honest about the following:
As I see it, there really are a lot of stupid and sophomoric left-wingers on this board. I mean, really incredibly stupid wingnuts. I don’t mind them here, because they’re not really on my side. I am fighting them. (There’s also some really smart liberal types, so I’m not trying to categorize anybody.)
On the freeper board though there are the dopplegangers to these nutjobs. They are the right wing nutjobs. To me, it’s really disquieting to have total morons on my side. It’s embarassing and it gives me an icky feeling. So, I stay away from them. The few times I did try to post and attempt to show that the extremist right views weren’t particularly intelligent, I got the labelled with some of the same names I get called here when I argue against an extreme liberal nutjob viewpoint.
So, I prefer my nuts to be in opposition to me, rather than on my side.
Nor do I particularly feel outnumbered. I’m only outnumbered on this particular board, and, I think I’m in good company. Most of the right wing nutjobs got driven off. The left wing nutjobs find a support group here.
You’re attacking an enemy that doesn’t exist on this board. Who here espouses such a viewpoint?
On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of liberals who extreme such extremism towards the right.
Who are you talking about? I don’t say or do those things. Who here does?
Personally, I know I’m guilty of being nasty sometimes, but I really do regret those occasions for the most part.
There’s just no good rationalization or excuse for being unreasonable and hateful.
And there is very little unreasonable and hateful conservative/Republican viewpoints being espoused on this board.
Anyway, I’ve answered this post of yours not combatively, just trying to show a viewpoint. Hopefully you won’t take offense.
The reaction of the Clinton administration was to treat a terrorist attack on American soil as a law-enforcement issue, not a foreign policy one. The attack was a big clue that Islamic fundamentalism was not going away. And yet, the big picture issue was not addressed. The CIA and the FBI were not beefed up nor was pressure publically put on state sponsors or supporters of terrorism. Instead, Clinton allowed the United States to be chased from Somalia in full view of Bin Laden supporters, the Cole was mined, and the embassies in Africa were bombed. A few cruise missiles was the most aggressive response.
It took 9/11 to make the sea change happen. But the water might not have ben so deep had Clinton been more aggressive in reigning in Bin Laden.
Likewise, I do not even visit Democratic Underground because it is an echo chamber.
If you really are seeking an honest evaluation of the nature of things here, I respectfully request that you back up and take a less partisan measure of things. If not, so be it, but you are only deluding yourself. Well, and duffer too, likely, but I digress.
Do you really need a cite for someone here alleging that liberals supported terrorism? I can guarantee you such could be found in a moment’s search, and it boggles the mind that you might have missed it. Hopefully you recognized the part about fellating the French as hyperbole, albeit only just.