Comments on: Bush Acknowledges He’s Not On Top of Katrina Situation

By: Livin N OC

Livin N OC — Sun, 04 Sep 2005 01:12:40 +0000

If a majority of people are gonna sit here and bash Bush about this and that, then why did people vote him into his second term?? Now wheather people like it or not he’s our leader for another 3 1/2 years. So maybe next time more people will educate themselves and VOTE! Vote for what they believe in and not vote by what other people tell to them or whatever reason they have.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:53:56 +0000

I hadn’t heard the term “first responders” prior to 9/11, but Bushie and friends promised to fund all first responders in every city of this country, that obviously never happened. We are no closer to handling major emergencies in this country today than we were almost 4 years to the day after 9/11. But you can hear the always present mantra now-the intelligence told us that there wasn’t a present danger to the survivors. Sounds like the “yellow cake” intelligence to me.

By: jamahl

jamahl — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 02:49:24 +0000

People, he was on vaction. HELLO!

By: Marie

Marie — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:07:08 +0000

#35 eeks! I meant the beginning of the end of the Bush reign!

By: Ryan Neat

Ryan Neat — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:34:59 +0000

Laz,

We can’t expect this government to execute anything effectively – as they never have! The only thing the continue to do expertly is undermine the economy and the american traditions and values that made this country great!

By: Marie

Marie — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:41:55 +0000

Bush has never been on “top” of anything except maybe his golf game. An utter failure. We must not let this issue fall from prominence. This is the beginning of the Bush reign.
Thomas Jefferson once said “…we will see this reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve…”

By: Mary Popsin

Mary Popsin — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:13:56 +0000

#32 I agree with what you are saying but we got a Republican congress. On less their is an outcry from the American people nothing will happen. There is alot of pork like the bridge that goes to nowhere in alaska.

By: Laz

Laz — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:11:42 +0000

If we cannot even respond to a natural disaster we saw coming, what makes us believe the administration could react to a terrorist attack without warning? Four years after September 11 and we cannot respond to a crisis? What is going on in Washington?

By: Linda

Linda — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:51:26 +0000

You bet I’m outraged over the handling of post-Katrina. But rather than give into ranting, I want some answers –
(1) Why aren’t we using airdrops of news flyers (laminated, of course) to spread information to Katrina’s e victims – you know, like we did in WWII?
(2) Why can’t we just airdrop plastic-wrapped newspapers?
(3) Why aren’t we using bullhorns to communicate?
(4) An old man in Mississippi was dehydrated and hungry. He could have gotten nourishment at a Red Cross station just one mile away. Unfortunately, he didn’t know it was there. Could a simple beach plane with a trailing message (Red Cross Help at **address**) have done the job?
(5) Why do I keep hearing that the priority is for choppers to drop 3000-pound bags of sand onto broken levees in an already flooded city? Why isn’t the priority to drop 3000-pound bags of food, water, medicine, batteries, radios, and cheap B&W TVs?
(6) Lastly, do Americans realize that Congress recently passed a $286-billion Highway Bill that includes $24 billion for 6,371 nonessential pork projects? How can I/we demand that this bill be repealed and rewritten so that its $24 billion ~ our tax dollars ~ can be spent on humanitarian aid instead? At least then we’d be channeling our outrage into something constructive!

By: cynical ex-hippie

cynical ex-hippie — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:49:20 +0000

The president is supposed to be for all american even if we do not agree with him.

Tell that to Karl Rove, he could use a good laugh.

By: Wills

Wills — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:09:58 +0000

Possibly it is because their religious beliefs tell them that it is not their place to help. Their kind of right wing religion is more suited to evolution (survival of the fittest)and individuralism (bootstrap theory) than to the New Testament message of Jesus. They like it that way because it is cheaper.

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:03:59 +0000

Love the title here,”He’s not on top of Katrina”. NO, better; ” Katrina’s behind him with a strap-on”.

By: Mary Popsin

Mary Popsin — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 16:55:53 +0000

#26 The hell with the dam refineries the people need to have their homes rebuild. Instead of giving our tax dollars to the Iraq war we should be taking care of our citizens in america. My point is we rebuild homes that are on the beach in Florida every year when they have hurricanes but we cann’t rebuild New Orleans.

I guess that Florida has a Republican Governor and he is Bushie brother and Louisiana has a Democrat governor that is how the Republican think. They are only for the Republicans that vote for them. The president is supposed to be for all american even if we do not agree with him. If the government would not vote on so much pork we would have money for real problems.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 16:38:18 +0000

As usual the response will be “it’s hardwork” and we’re making “progress”. Count the number of times that these phrases will be mentioned.

By: Government Insider

Government Insider — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 16:05:29 +0000

#21 – U.S. Congress decides how much Fed money will go into rebuilding. Fervent budget planning is underway. The business community and lobbyists are united in their preference to focus on rebuilding the refineries. General consensus is to build low income housing on higher ground, and encourage residents to permanently relocate.

If you have other ideas, I would encourage calling your Congressman now.

By: KJ Lovell

KJ Lovell — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 16:05:17 +0000

So dumbya is quoted as saying “help those that need help”

For him to put it that way, I don’t have much faith that the poor will be taken care of.

By: Athiest

Athiest — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:53:54 +0000

#22 I wouldn’t suggest actually bulldozing the city. You can save all the monuments and historical sites and protect those against future floods. That may cost less than protecting the whole thing. I can’t really say though, I’ve never been there so I have no idea of the locations of the historical sites.

I guess to me the idea of moving to higher ground (or safer in the case of other cities with other dangers) is certainly not practical for existing, unruined cities.

By: cynical ex-hippie

cynical ex-hippie — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:39:05 +0000

Tony, people are dying and you’re worried about the price of filling up your gas tank? There is still gas at your local station. There is no water where many refugees are. Now is not the time to parody right wing stupidity.

And Bush’s solution, drilling ANWAR, is to increase world supply by 1% over ten years? Yeah, brilliant thinking there.

By: WaltTheMan

WaltTheMan — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:30:15 +0000

New Orleans must be rebuilt. It is a part of our American heritage. It’s but a single city – Germany reconstructed hundreds of monuments and cities fragment by fragment after WWII, they were not about to allow two millenia of history disappear forever. Certainly we owe this pearl of history and tradition to our descendents.

By: Mary Popsin

Mary Popsin — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:23:41 +0000

#18 Explain yourself that they are not going to rebuild New Orleans. Who is making this decision?