Better change that to the entire country - actually, the entire world. Is there a place that he's actually viewed favorably? Serbia? What makes me wonder is how do people like this guy? I mean, I thought he was alright when he was first elected. But now I understand - this is a guy who just chooses to do things a certain way and ignores the sage advice given to him - throw wisdom out the window. In fact, if you suggest otherwise, you just get canned or marginalized like Powell or anyone else. His father wasn't like this...where did this it's his way or the highway attitude that leaves us vulnerable to massive risks. Maybe this is why Bush was a failed CEO. Now the smelly stuff has hit the fan once again for this country...and after enough times, you have to start wondering, when are the excuses going to stop, when is he going to stop saying "we never foresaw a civil war in Iraq, we never could concieve of 9/11, we never could imagine the levees breaking" Yes, there are others to blame. Like FEMA, which Bush pretty much castrated. And the mayor of New Orleans for not making more noise when budgets were cut if they were so important. But our President just cares about a few photo ops - and it really shows. I'm sick and tired of it. This guy's stubburness is not only bad - it's really dangerous - people are dying in New Orleans and Iraq for his decisions - Americans. The United States is now the laughing stock of the world. We have freakin Cuba trying to give us aid. We are taking aid from Bangledesh. What an embarrassment. Doesn't anyone else think we've lost our luster as a great nation? Bush has to take accountability for his short-sightedness, otherwise the precedent for future presidents will be that they can talk their way out of any mistake, unless it's lying about sex.
Cuba does have a lot of doctors. But the only way they could get them to NOLA would be by an overloaded fishing boat made out of a 57 Chevy and some innertubes. Thanks for the heartfelt offer though Fidel.
Why FEMA Was Missing in Action Most of the agency's preparedness budget and focus are related to terrorism, not disasters. http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes825.html By Peter G. Gosselin and Alan C. Miller Times Staff Writers September 5, 2005 WASHINGTON — While the federal government has spent much of the last quarter-century trimming the safety nets it provides Americans, it has dramatically expanded its promise of protection in one area — disaster. Since the 1970s, Washington has emerged as the insurer of last resort against floods, fires, earthquakes and — after 2001 — terrorist attacks. But the government's stumbling response to the storm that devastated the nation's Gulf Coast reveals that the federal agency singularly most responsible for making good on Washington's expanded promise has been hobbled by cutbacks and a bureaucratic downgrading. The Federal Emergency Management Agency once speedily delivered food, water, shelter and medical care to disaster areas, and paid to quickly rebuild damaged roads and schools and get businesses and people back on their feet. Like a commercial insurance firm setting safety standards to prevent future problems, it also underwrote efforts to get cities and states to reduce risks ahead of time and plan for what they would do if calamity struck. But in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, FEMA lost its Cabinet-level status as it was folded into the giant new Department of Homeland Security. And in recent years it has suffered budget cuts, the elimination or reduction of key programs and an exodus of experienced staffers. The agency's core budget, which includes disaster preparedness and mitigation, has been cut each year since it was absorbed by the Homeland Security Department in 2003. Depending on what the final numbers end up being for next fiscal year, the cuts will have been between about 2% and 18%. The agency's staff has been reduced by 500 positions to 4,735. Among the results, FEMA has had to cut one of its three emergency management teams, which are charged with overseeing relief efforts in a disaster. Where it once had "red," "white" and "blue" teams, it now has only red and white. [I find this interesting, do you?] Three out of every four dollars the agency provides in local preparedness and first-responder grants go to terrorism-related activities, even though a recent Government Accountability Office report quotes local officials as saying what they really need is money to prepare for natural disasters and accidents. "They've taken emergency management away from the emergency managers," complained Morrie Goodman, who was FEMA's chief spokesman during the Clinton administration. "These operations are being run by people who are amateurs at what they are doing." Richard W. Krimm, a former senior FEMA official for several administrations, agreed. "It was a terrible mistake to take disaster response and recovery … and disaster preparedness and mitigation, and put them in Homeland Security," he said. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff acknowledged in interviews Sunday that Washington was insufficiently prepared for the hurricane that laid waste to New Orleans and surrounding areas. But he defended its performance by arguing that the size of the storm was beyond anything his department could have anticipated and that primary responsibility for handling emergencies rested with state and local, not federal, officials. "Before this happened, I said … we need to build a preparedness capacity going forward," Chertoff told NBC's "Meet the Press." He added that that was something "we have not yet succeeded in doing." Under the law, Chertoff said, state and local officials must direct initial emergency operations. "The federal government comes in and supports those officials," he said. Chertoff's remarks, which echoed earlier statements by President Bush, prompted withering rebukes both from former senior FEMA staffers and outside experts. "They can't do that," former agency chief of staff Jane Bullock said of Bush administration efforts to shift responsibility away from Washington. "The moment the president declared a federal disaster, it became a federal responsibility…. The federal government took ownership over the response," she said. Bush declared a disaster in Louisiana and Mississippi when the storm hit a week ago. "What's awe-inspiring here is how many federal officials didn't issue any orders," said Paul C. Light, an authority on government operations at New York University. Evidence of confusion extended beyond FEMA and the Homeland Security Department on Sunday. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said that conditions in New Orleans and elsewhere could quickly escalate into a major public health crisis. But asked whether his agency had dispatched teams in advance of the storm and flooding, Leavitt answered, "No." "None of these teams were pre-positioned," he told CNN's "Late Edition." "We're having to organize them … as we go." Such an ad hoc approach might not have surprised Americans until recent decades because the federal government was thought to have few responsibilities for disaster relief, and what duties it did have were mostly delegated to the American Red Cross. "A century ago, no one would have expected a massive federal response. Most people viewed natural disasters mainly as things to be endured on their own or with the help of their neighbors and communities," said Harvard University economic historian David A. Moss, whose recent book, "When All Else Fails: Government as the Ultimate Risk Manager," traces Washington's expanding duties in protecting Americans from all sorts of risks. In 1927, President Coolidge described the federal role in aiding victims of a devastating flood of the lower Mississippi River this way: "To direct the sympathy of our people to the sad plight of thousands of their fellow citizens, and to urge that generous contributions be promptly forthcoming." But starting with the New Deal of the 1930s and with increasing vigor in recent decades, Washington sought to prevent disasters, both natural and man-made, and to partially compensate state and local governments, companies and even individuals when calamities did strike. The government reacted to Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972 by providing victims with grants and low-cost loans. It responded to a flood of the upper Mississippi in 1993 by approving $6.3 billion in aid. Comparing the federal government's response in 1927 to its efforts in 1993, Moss concluded that Washington made up less than 4% of the estimated losses in the earlier flood, but more than 50% in the later one. Within 10 days of the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress and Bush had OKd $40 billion in aid, including $15 billion in grants and loans for the staggering airline industry and $4.3 billion to compensate the families of victims. "The federal government has dramatically increased its role in absorbing disaster losses after the fact," Moss said. "Until recently, many may have assumed we'd made similar strides in disaster prevention." FEMA was created in 1979 in response to criticism about Washington's fragmented reaction to a series of disasters, including Hurricane Camille, which devastated the Mississippi coast 10 years earlier. The agency was rocked by scandal in the 1980s and turned in such a poor performance after Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida in 1992 that President George H.W. Bush is thought to have lost votes as a result. But according to a variety of former officials and outside experts, the agency experienced a renaissance under President Clinton's director, James Lee Witt, speedily responding to the 1993 Mississippi flood, the 1994 Northridge earthquake and other disasters. Witt's biggest change was to get FEMA to focus on reducing risks ahead of disasters and funding local prevention programs. After the 1993 flood, for instance, Witt's agency bought homes and businesses nearest the water and moved their occupants to safer locations. The result in one Illinois town was that although more than 400 people applied for disaster aid after the flood, only 11 needed to apply two years later when the river again jumped its banks. "He got communities to take practical steps like encouraging homeowners to bolt buildings to foundations in earthquake-prone areas and elevate living space in flood-prone ones," said Howard Kunreuther, co-director of the Wharton Risk Center at the University of Pennsylvania. But with the change of administration in 2001, many of Witt's prevention programs were reduced or cut entirely. After Sept. 11, former FEMA officials and outside authorities said, Washington's attention turned to terrorism to the exclusion of almost anything else.
Quote: Originally Posted by krosfyah In America, we are allowed to freely discuss topics. Had Mr. "I'm a uniter not a divider" not polarized the country, then perhaps many Amiercan's wouldn't take every opportunity to take shots at him. Bush built this house and now he needs to live in it. I stand by my comment. Had Bush made any effort to be "a uniter," then he would not have amassed so many dissenters. And for that, you blame the BBS? Leadership comes from the top. When you build strategies designed to force people to chose sides, it can come back to bite you when your strategy doesn't go as planned.
there's nothing sad going on here. I just get pissed reading hate in this bbs when there is so much strife going on. hate at Bush, hate at fellow posters, hate at "the system", just too much hate in general. It's cyclical in here. And about your "witness" jab...um...ok.
"hate at fellow posters": <I>Spending too much time in the BBS makes me despise some of you. Seriously. You are an American embarassment.</I> hmm.
It is reported Bush would lead an investigation "to find out what went right and what went wrong" with Katrina. Isn't it like tobacco company CEOs leading an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong with cigarette smoking?
Three Duke Students Make New Orleans in a Hyundai This is ridiculous. A few college students make it to the convention center in New Orleans in a 2 wheel drive Hyundai, but our government cant get there? Unbelievable.
I know. I should not have said that. I apologize. Sincerely. I do not despise anyone in here nor is anyone an embarrassment. My bad.
If the War in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina would have happened during 1992-2000, Bill Clinton's head would be rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue right now. Why does George W. Bush always get a free ride? More Americans have died on American soil on Bush's watch than any other President since Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War.
The federal govt. certainly has there share of the blame for the SLOW response, however, I think the majority of the blame should go to the Louisiana governors office and New Orleans city officials. They knew this would happen, but failed to properly prepare. The governor should have had the national guard mobilized and on alert BEFORE the storm hit. Like many have said, this scenario has been played out over and over again with the same ending, New Orleans under water. They knew it would happen, but basically gambled their entire city that the hurricane would not have the impact it is having now. Wrong bet, local and state officials. The governor and mayor should resign.
Everything you said was true. And it was truly an oversimplification the likes of which I have never seen. Look I served in Bill Clinton's army. And time has wisened me to respect a lot of what he did as president. I was harsh on President Clinton and have softened since then. I am not giving W a pass. I am being patient. Knowing the facts I know I think most of the people on this board are overreacting in blaming him. Facts are coming out now that he pushed for federal aid sooner and the governor wanted to wait 24 hours. during those 24 hours the levees broke and all hell broke loose.
There is a ton of blame to be passed around, from GWB and the slow Federal Response, through the Governor and Mayor for state/local preparedness. I thought this stuff was all supposed to be well coordinated, with the Department of Homeland Security as the "umbrella". What happened?
