Well, Bush and the GOP-controlled appropriations commitee are to blame for the current flooding in NO.
Just not for global warming aspect, which may or may not be causing an increase in tropical storms due to rising waters.
You can see why here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6530435&postcount=11
The typical ostrich approach, “We need more data, meanwhile let’s just keep doing what we feel like until it’s absolutely proven - and then we’ll find excuses for still doing what we feel like.”
You do not show awareness of the extent to which a President provides leadership to the members of his party in the Senate. If Bush or any other President had wanted it enough, he’d have found ways to twist enough arms or do enough other convincing to get it done.
You really think this is the last hurricane or flood or other environmental disaster that will ever happen? Come on now, you surely see that criticism of Bush’s do-nothing approach is based on what will foreseeably happen as a result of today’s inertia.
You must know better than that, even though it’s clearly fun for you to take potshots.
When is the time to do that, then? It wouldn’t appear that you think there is one at all.
What are you on about? I’m talking about the specific accusation that Bush’s policies contributed to this particular storm in any way. I wasn’t addressing the larger question about how much evidence we need before taking on climate change at all. You attacked a total straw man.
And you don’t seem to have any awareness about how hard it is for many of these senators to vote for policies that will immediately harm their constituents. Just how much, “this is going to hurt, but it’s for your own good” legislation have you seen make it through Congress?
Another variation of your first strawman. Since I wasn’t arguing that Bush could conceivably bear some blame for some unspecified storm in the future, your point is irrelevant. The point is that he isn’t responsible for this one in any way, shape or form.
Because I say it’s not good form to argue this issue while the tragedy is still unfolding, that means that I think there’s never a time to discuss this? Nice leap.
Out of curiousity, if I felt strongly that god will punish the sinful, do you think the best time for me to say that would be, oh, the week after 9/11? And to claim that the WTC attack was God’s wrath on a decadent people like Jerry Falwell did? He sure picked a good time to make his point.
I think it’s perfectly valid to use this disaster to make a point. I just don’t think it’s in good taste to do it right now, while the dead still float in the streets and hundreds of thousands of people are at this moment sitting dazed in some random rescue center or sports stadium, having lost their homes, their jobs, their pets, perhaps their friends.
And what makes it worse is that the charge against Bush is completely false in the first place. You don’t need to lie in order to be heard.
Could you provide the citation for a person in the news who has actually made that accusation?
That’s the strawman, I think. No one has said that this particular storm “is Bush’s fault” even if others are implying that they have.
They have said several other, appropriate, things:
The severity of this storm is something we may need to get used to if we do not address the global warming issue. Along with other severities of climate variability, hotter hots, colder colds, drier droughts, wetter floods, strains on ecosystems and on associated economies. It isn’t a theoretical construct. It is a real and very painful and very costly consequence of ignoring a problem. Prepare now.
The war in Iraq (which some of us felt was not wise to begin, even if we feel we are now obligated to see it out) has caused funds to be diverted from other worthy causes. Those diversions have consequences. A lack of adequate preparedness for this hurricane was one of them.
These statements are not the same as blaming Bush for this hurricane. They are not “obstructionist”. (?)
“Not good form”? I dunno about that. If it was preventing efforts to rescue those stranded or to provide for those displaced or impeded the recovery effort, then sure, bad form. If it uses the moment of the public’s actually giving a shit to help focus on how to minimize the effect of future catastrophic events, then it is excellent form.
I am no fan of Bush.
But there have been Force 5 hurricanes before. One destroyed Galveston, long before Global Warming was a problem.
What justifies the conclusion that they are connected?
No, the straw man in question is the allegation that this specific storm is specifically Bush’s fault. That isn’t the question - the question is Bush’s contribution to worsening the environment to the point where this storm did more damage than it needed to. The straw man is your own creation.
You do need to widen your reading about how things work down here. There are many examples of legislation making the country a better place overall at the expense of some vested interests.
Where has anyone but you mentioned such a claim?
Aparently that means you’re not going to answer the question about when *would * be a good time. Dodge.
If that’s what you believe, then you should say so at the time it will have the most effect. Why would it be otherwise?
Again, where the hell have you seen or heard this charge made? One of the tighty-righty blogs you endlessly parrot here? Your own imagination? Where? Or is your claim that there is such a charge simply a lie on your own part?
Cite or retract. Now.
Well, I suppose if you want to believe that when you have one person on the ground telling you what they think the actual situation is and another who is spouting pure “party line” propaganda then the truth is in the middle, you are the type of person for whom propaganda is a very effective tool.
Speaking of strawmen…You seem to assume that the only two options were Kyoto or Bush’s essentially nothing approach. Actually, there were approaches in between, for example, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act which managed to garner like 42 votes in the Senate despite being strongly opposed by the White House. If the White House had instead supported it, it probably could have passed rather easily.
Finally, why is it that so many of the people in this thread continue to respond to the strawman of whether Bush can be held responsible for this one particular hurricane when so many of us have already pointed out that this is not the argument that was being made by those cited in the article. Please read first and post second.
So, is it fair to criticize Bush for dismantling components of FEMA that would have helped to deliver services more rapidly and mitigate the effects of the disaster? Is it fair to criticize him for putting inept cronies (such as his 2000 campaign manager) in positions of power at the agency?
See
this thread that asks that very question for links providing that evidence.
In short, while there is no clear answer to whether or not more hurricanes will occur as a consequence of global warming, there is little doubt that more of them will be more severe. Surface water temperatures are the engine of hurriciane severity. Increase those temperatures and the “typical” hurricane is more severe.
Terrific cite, Hentor.
It’s also important to note that it was written in September of last year, so it is hardly Monday morning quarterbacking. It’s kind of like Bush claiming today that nobody anticipated the levees breaking. Bullshit. They painfully anticipated it when Bush cut the funding for it. Surely, he should be personally accountable for the effects of his policies and decisions, right?
Where does the buck stop?
Here’s another portion from the article:
Someone with actual experience fired for speaking honestly about the true costs of addressing a critical issue, replaced by a political stooge who’s main qualification is political loyalty, not professionalism or dedication to science and the public trust.
Where have we heard that before, like 80 times over and over again?
But of course, Rush Limbuagh says that looking at the political angle of something tragic is outrageous (as long as it isn’t a Republican doing it), so Bush needs to be let off the hook again, apparently.
“I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.” is a statement much like "“I don’t think anyone anticipated that terrorists would fly planes into buildings.” It’s either a lie, or demonstrates an unacceptable degree of ignorance from our leaders. This exact occurance was #3 on FEMA’s list of biggest potential disasters. Bush, or at least whomever actually “anticipates” things when they make policy, if anyone, quashed research into how to better solve the problem. They then repeatedly quashed funding for the solutions that were being implemented. Policy choices have consequences.
Josh Marshall is going to town on this one:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_08_28.php#006374
OK, then please provide complete details on when the next terror attack will occur in the US, what form it will take, who will be involved and how to prevent it. Please be specific, vague generalities are worthless.
Regards,
Shodan
Red herring. In both cases, the issue is that planes flown into buildings and levees breaking was something that was, in fact, discussed, and in the case of the levees, discussed pretty extensively not only when Katrina was still on the way, but for years. It was #3 on FEMA’s disaster scale: hardly a “vague generality.” In both cases, the statement that “no one” expected these things is simply false, especially after the fact when there is ample evidence that the situations were discussed and anticipated and the administration itself was instrumental in downplaying them but in firing people who complained that not enough attention was being given to them. If the statement was “I didn’t expect them” then maybe that might make some sense, but it still begs the question as to why not, when it’s your job to know these things and prepare for them.
But of course, you have a ready made excuse for everything. If terrorism funding is slashed and put on hold for other priorities, you can excuse it because, well terrorism is unpredictable. That’s a nonsensical retort.
If this is what President Bush needs to prepare for an emergency or disaster, we need to get him out immediately and replace him with someone who is more realistically able to prepare for disasters.
Is this why he has been spectacularly unprepared for major disasters on his watch? Because he didn’t have a specific roadmap or timetable to know when they would come?
At the very least, he could stop lying about nobody anticipating that certain things would happen.
Kevin Drum has put together a clear timeline of the Bush administration policy towards FEMA and towards preparedness for this particular disaster.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007023.php
Sorrt that this thread has jumped ahead of me, but it’s true, all right. WND only had the article up for a couple days before realizing that it wasn’t going to win them any popularity contests, but copies of it are still up at various places, including here. Excerpt of what they wrote two days after the attack:
I think that justifies my initial claim that WND did in fact blame the victims and praise the act of terrorism, and proves solidly that the people running the site are nuts.