How the Republicans washed out under Katrina

[Ivan Seeking]

...Iraq versus domestic concerns
After Katrina, 75 percent now believe the United States is not adequately prepared for a nuclear, biological or chemical attack. That’s an increase since June 2002, nine months after Sept. 11, when 66 percent believed this.

When asked to choose between rebuilding Iraq and establishing a democratic government there or rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, 60 percent of respondents said New Orleans is the greater priority, while just 5 percent mentioned Iraq. Thirty-four percent said both are equally important. [continued]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9332076/page/2/

From: Bush approval at lowest level of his presidency
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9332076/

 

[Mk]

Precisely how many deaths did Bush cause here? Anyone care to place an actual number on it? So far, I see 40. Does anyone want to go for 50?

I may not understand where you're coming from, but who did Bush kill? In the Middle East he killed, but not in Louisiana?

 

[kyleb]

That was just hyperbole in response to this potion of Ivan's original post:

Above all, any emergency worker will tell you that in an emergency, time is the most important factor in determining who lives and who dies. Time is what the 40 critical patients who drowned in their hospital beds didn't have. And they have the republicans and the Bush administration to thank for it.

 

[Skyhunter]

When you think about it, the political aftershock of Katrina is going to be a bit of a challenge for Bush and Republicans. Generally, Republicans like to promote the benefits of federalism, states rights and responsibilities, over a central government. This is one reason I think Blanco and Nagin will face a pretty strong campaign assigning blame to them. It's going to be important to show New Orleans and Louisiana should have been able to handle this disaster themselves and their failure to do so has to be due to Democrats wanting to push responsibility onto someone else.

The political effects of Katrina will still be with us in the 2006 and 2008 elections as Democrats blame Bush's federal government for the disaster and Republicans blame bad local Democrats for the disaster.

Actually I see this as more of a problem for republicans. The levees are the responsibility of the Army Corp of Engineers, a federal agency. Homeland Security is a federal agency charged with coordinating Federal, State, and Local response to disasters.

I totally disagree that the Cities and States could have handled this themselves. Katrina has exposed the flaws with in the Republican, Federalist, Ideology. Bush and Chertoff, through homeland security, have been given nearly unprecedented executive powers. Maybe the inept handling is a ploy so they can argue for more state autonomy.

I hope this makes sense I need sleep

 

[russ_watters]

Admittedly, 'safer' is an assumption.

I don't think so. It seems to me that you can conclude it directly from the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and no attacks on the US by al Qaeda outside of Iraq.

That was just hyperbole in response to this potion of Ivan's original post:

Yes!

Actually I see this as more of a problem for republicans. The levees are the responsibility of the Army Corp of Engineers, a federal agency.

That isn't quit true. While the Corps of Engineers administers the projects, the state has a pretty high level of control over them since they pay a fair percentage of the cost of the project. Had NO or LA chosen to, they could have funded a better levee system decades ago.

So far, the people of NO seem to be blaming the federal government, but the way I see it, the city and state take a fair bit of the blame as well. Contrast how they did with how New York did on/after 9/11: New York had a pretty good disaster relief infrastructure that they put in place after the first WTC attack in '93 and they seemed to handle the situation very well.

Whether the people of NO come to realize that the initial blame-game was somewhat mistargeted depends a lot on the investigations that will inevitably be done. Like with 9/11, the knee-jerk reaction is always against the guy in the big office in Washington, but like with 9/11, the investigation will show much deeper problems than just those in the scope of Bush's job.

 

[SOS2008]

I don't think so. It seems to me that you can conclude it directly from the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and no attacks on the US by al Qaeda outside of Iraq.

If P than Q? There are many reasons why there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. For example (and this is most likely) because it would not achieve their goals as well as opposition in Iraq, and attacking U.S. supporters such as Britain, etc.

So far, the people of NO seem to be blaming the federal government, but the way I see it, the city and state take a fair bit of the blame as well. Contrast how they did with how New York did on/after 9/11: New York had a pretty good disaster relief infrastructure that they put in place after the first WTC attack in '93 and they seemed to handle the situation very well.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Though the death toll was much higher in NY, the area was very confined so did not wipe out all infrastructure and emergency capability.

Whether the people of NO come to realize that the initial blame-game was somewhat mistargeted depends a lot on the investigations that will inevitably be done. Like with 9/11, the knee-jerk reaction is always against the guy in the big office in Washington, but like with 9/11, the investigation will show much deeper problems than just those in the scope of Bush's job.

The investigation? The one that people are fighting so hard to keep independent? I agree there are problems much deeper with the big office in Washington than we will ever know including 9-11 (at which time Bush was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford...).

 

[russ_watters]

If P than Q? There are many reasons why there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. For example (and this is most likely) because it would not achieve their goals as well as opposition in Iraq, and attacking U.S. supporters such as Britain, etc.

Why make idle speculations? Just ask him and he'll tell you: According to Bin Laden, he's been trying to attack us directly and continuously. That makes the line of reasoning quite direct.

[Oct 7, 2001] As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1585636.stm

[July 8, 2004] A plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members, senior intelligence officials said Thursday.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/08/ridge.alqaeda/

[Oct 30, 2004] "Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated," bin Laden said.

So clearly, Bin Laden has been trying to attack us on a continuous basis now for the past 12 years (since the first attack on the WTC). He is now failing at it.

edit: And by the way, even if your speculation is correct above, your conclusion is still wrong: If Bin Laden had made a conscious choice not to bomb the US directly, the net result is still the same - the US itself is safer. And so you just inadvertently argued that the war in Iraq is helping reduce domestic terror!

You are comparing apples and oranges. Though the death toll was much higher in NY, the area was very confined so did not wipe out all infrastructure and emergency capability.

Different circumstances, yes, but there is a lot that can be gained by analyzing the responses. Guiliani's command presence vs that of Mayor Nagen, for example. Guiliani was always in command of himself and his people. He always had the leaders of the various city departments (police, fire, ambulance) around him to coordinate their response and he never lost his cool.

Mayor Nagen displayed nowhere near the leadership that Guiliani did. And it could have cost lives - how many police would have chosen not to leave had Nagen been a better leader? How many people died because the police were unable to keep control of the city and how many could have been saved by a stronger police force? How much of Nagen's hysteria did he pass on to the citizens of NO (strong words from a good leader can stop a riot)? These are questions that will need investigating in the next few months.

The investigation? ... I agree there are problems much deeper with the big office in Washington than we will ever know including 9-11...

That isn't what I said. The 9/11 investigation resulted in a pretty clear picture of the failures leading up to 9/11. I fully expect there will be a similarly useful evaluation of the Katrina failures.

The entire reason I resisted early finger-pointing so strongly was that these situations are far more complicated than a one-liner soundbyte by a politician or columnist using the situation for political/personal gain.

 

[kyleb]

I don't think so. It seems to me that you can conclude it directly from the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and no attacks on the US by al Qaeda outside of Iraq.

That has been just over 4 years with no attacks on US soil, and in the 4 years before the WTC attack how many were there? It seems to me you have to overlook recent history to arive at your conclusion.

 

[SOS2008]

Why make idle speculations? Just ask him and he'll tell you: According to Bin Laden, he's been trying to attack us directly and continuously. That makes the line of reasoning quite direct.

[Oct 7, 2001] As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed...

"enjoy security" - have Americans enjoyed security? I do not see reference to a direct attack in this quote. Just as attacks can be achieved without WMD, security can be eroded via strain upon the economy, military, etc. Are you aware of new attacks in Iraq? I would not say Bin Laden is failing.

Different circumstances, yes, but there is a lot that can be gained by analyzing the responses. Guiliani's command presence vs that of Mayor Nagen, for example.

About this I agree, if for no other reason than the intense profanity for all Americans to hear.

The entire reason I resisted early finger-pointing so strongly was that these situations are far more complicated than a one-liner soundbyte by a politician or columnist using the situation for political/personal gain.

Gotcha.

 

[russ_watters]

That has been just over 4 years with no attacks on US soil, and in the 4 years before the WTC attack how many were there? It seems to me you have to overlook recent history to arive at your conclusion.

Two, though they occurred on the same day so they can be considered one coordinated attack. Feb 22, 1998, when two US embassies were bombed.

If we broaden the scope to Al Qadea attacks in general against US interests in general, you also have the USS Cole and at 5 years, the barracks bombing in Saudia Arabia. 9/11 was, however, the first terrorist bombing in the lower 48 since the first WTC bombing in '93.

SOS is right, though: Al Qaeda has done little outside of Iraq since we went there. Personally, I consider that a good thing.

The point remains the same, however - people's perceptions that we are less safe are just perceptions. They aren't based on facts that show we are less safe. The only way to really tell is to wait another 8 years or so and see if there are any more successful attacks in the US.

 

[russ_watters]

"enjoy security" - have Americans enjoyed security? I do not see reference to a direct attack in this quote. Just as attacks can be achieved without WMD, security can be eroded via strain upon the economy, military, etc. Are you aware of new attacks in Iraq? I would not say Bin Laden is failing.

Oh, jeez. The initial point by pattylou was about actual security. I'm arguing that terrorism is less of a real threat than it was 4 years ago. Opinion poll show people's perception that they are less safe. You're confusing perception with reality. Just because people are afraid to fly doesn't mean flying is unsafe.

Besides - you need a grammar lesson if you think that sentence means anything other than "Americans will not be secure".

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enjoy

1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health.

The usage of the word is clearly definition #2: to have security.

 

[Astronuc]

I would not say Bin Laden is failing.

Perhaps then one could say that bin Laden is not succeeding, at least in the matter of attacking the US within its borders.

bin Laden is largely isolated - but that is in Afghnistan or perhaps Pakistan, and that has little to do with US presence in Iraq. However, it is possible that the US invasion of Iraq has made countries which would otherwise support bin Laden less inclined to support or at least allow al Qaida to operate freely.

We seem to have been blown off course from the OT.

 

[kyleb]

Two, though they occurred on the same day so they can be considered one coordinated attack. Feb 22, 1998, when two US embassies were bombed.

If we broaden the scope to Al Qadea attacks in general against US interests in general, you also have the USS Cole and at 5 years, the barracks bombing in Saudia Arabia. 9/11 was, however, the first terrorist bombing in the lower 48 since the first WTC bombing in '93.

I suppose embassies are considered US soil, but I am gald to see from further down your post that understand that such a broad definition ignores the intent of my question.

SOS is right, though: Al Qaeda has done little outside of Iraq since we went there. Personally, I consider that a good thing.

The people in London, Madrid and Iraq probably look at things a bit differently.

The point remains the same, however - people's perceptions that we are less safe are just perceptions. They aren't based on facts that show we are less safe. The only way to really tell is to wait another 8 years or so and see if there are any more successful attacks in the US.

I'm actually more interested in focusing on eliminating any further motivation for people to resort to terrosim than sitting on my hands and waiting.

 

[loseyourname]

So far, the people of NO seem to be blaming the federal government, but the way I see it, the city and state take a fair bit of the blame as well. Contrast how they did with how New York did on/after 9/11: New York had a pretty good disaster relief infrastructure that they put in place after the first WTC attack in '93 and they seemed to handle the situation very well.

To be fair, Russ, New York has many times the resources that New Orleans does, and only a very small part of the city was actually affected by 9/11. A big part of the relief effort was conducted by the Port Authority, too, which is a joint operation of the states of New York and New Jersey.

That said, it's fairly inexcusable to not have seen this coming, though it would seem the city and state were both fairly strapped by just not being very prosperous, certainly not compared to New York. One thing to consider, though, which is probably attributable to both leadership and simply to the differences in local culture, is the disparity in civic pride shown between the two cities. New Yorkers banded together and did everything they could to help each other and get things taken care of. Historically speaking, it's always been a city that did what needs to be done to get the job finished. One thing I learned living there is that, even if there is class and race tension and all that, when it comes down to it, everybody there is a New Yorker. There's a love and a brotherhood there that I've never experienced in any other big city. I don't know that one could say the same about New Orleans.

Whether the people of NO come to realize that the initial blame-game was somewhat mistargeted depends a lot on the investigations that will inevitably be done. Like with 9/11, the knee-jerk reaction is always against the guy in the big office in Washington, but like with 9/11, the investigation will show much deeper problems than just those in the scope of Bush's job.

I just hope that legitimate restructuring and better planning takes place. The public always wants to see fall guys, but putting a different person into a failed system isn't going to help anything. We need good people at the top of system.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, one more point to make about the safety thing is the safety of US travellers abroad. The government is entrusted with the protection of all of its citizens, not just those who are currently on US soil.

 

[SOS2008]

That has been just over 4 years with no attacks on US soil, and in the 4 years before the WTC attack how many were there? It seems to me you have to overlook recent history to arive at your conclusion.

Precisely. Maybe I didn't notice before Bush, but it seems that faulty reasoning has become pervasive. The sidewalk is wet, therefore it rained. Or, come to find out it was the sprinkler system? If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops, and if you don't support the troops you are unpatriotic. The fallacy here is that being against a president's policies has nothing to do with supporting the troops, and certainly nothing to do with being patriotic. If terrorists have tried to attack, there have been no reports of a thwarted attempt--like Rove would pass that up.

Back to the topic...The failures of our Homeland Security have been made evident by Katrina. This is hurting the Republican party. Will it still be the case in 2006? In 2008? That's the question. Bush is in his last term, which tends to be a lame duck term anyway. Speculations are he does not have time to turn things around, even if he can find a way to do it. But it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, the republicans want this to be about anything but their miserable failure to ensure that American lives are protected by a strong and well equipped National Guard; that they should be here and not overseas fighting an illegal [no WMDs, no threat] war.

Did anyone notice that we are suddenly recalling troops from Afghanistan? Of course this has nothing to do with Katrina; just like Brown left La, but not to be fired.

The only way to make this war popular was to avoid the draft, so Bush sacrificed our national security for political gain.

Edit: Oh yes, we have not been attacked again by twenty guys with box knives; I give Bush that much.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...not to mention that a number of Governors, including ours here in Oregon, filed law suits again the Feds for trying to pull our defenses. Here in Oregon they tried to take away our fighter jets. That makes one heck of a lot of sense if you want to leave us vulnerable to attack, Rummy. It really makes one wonder what their real objectives may be.

The counter argument is that naval ships off the coast can protect us. In other words, according to Rummy, we don't need the guard. So is Rummy going to guarantee that he'll park carriers off the coast of Oregon? Of course not. So where does that leave us?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The real dichotomy: The republicans are allegedly the great supporters of the second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But it seems that rather than arising from due concern for constitutional law or the safety of U.S. citizens, this is only used as convenient leverage for the gun lobby. The undisputed purpose of this clause, which goes far beyond the hotly debated issue of private gun ownership, has been trashed at the deepest level by Bush and his shotgun PR clan. Many republicans, and in particular Rummy, are enemies of the second Amendment, thus the constitution, thus the nation, by any significant measure.

What follows, and in particular to aid in times of disaster, is how the guard has been used historically.

Under these provisions, the right of the states to maintain a militia, including what is now the National Guard, is always subordinate to the power of Congress. In 1795 Congress first gave the president authority to call out the militia to suppress insurrections. Presidents employed this power to enforce federal law during desegregation disputes during the 1950s, and later during the civil disturbances in various cities during the 1960s

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Edit: They are also our last line of defense against invasions.

One would think that they might also be helpful in patrolling the US Mexican border since this is the easiest portal through which terrorists can enter. The fact that this issue is not a first priority for Bush and Rummy speaks volumes.

 

[kyleb]

I quite enjoy seeing the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the Republicans pointed out here; but I feel it is important to point out that the Democratic minority in our congress had both the position and the responsibly to publicize these shortcomings long before they led to the current disaster. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shift the blame here; but rather I feel it is important to point out that swapping teams isn't going to change much as they are all still playing the same corrupt game.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the blame goes with everyone who supported Bush. The corruption of politics can only be kept in check by an informed citizenry.

As do so many that supported Bush, my uncle, for one, still thinks Saddam attacked New York. We also have an entire generation of people who think bs debate tactics matter.

 

[TRCSF]

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the blame goes with everyone who supported Bush. The corruption of politics can only be kept in check by an informed citizenry.

As do so many that supported Bush, my uncle, for one, still thinks Saddam attacked New York. We also have an entire generation of people who think bs debate tactics matter.

Agreed. It's not like they didn't know he was incompetent. Remember the old argument, "yeah, he's not that sharp, but he surrounds himself with intelligent, highly skilled people, and they'll do just fine."

Yeah, he surrounds himself with people like Mike Brown.

Reminds me of the story of the woman who brought the snake in out of the cold.

 

[kyleb]

We also have an entire generation of people who think bs debate tactics matter.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Furthermore, it seems relevant point in this conversation for me to point out my opinion that the underlying cause for the fall of the Greek empire was quite simply due to their overwhelming respect for the craft of sophistry. Granted, I can't rightly prove that theory with conclusive evidence; but all the same, it seems counterintuitive to believe that one can run a stable government without a stable foundation of principles to base it on.

 

[russ_watters]

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the blame goes with everyone who supported Bush. The corruption of politics can only be kept in check by an informed citizenry.

My daily Dilbert!

Corruption is unique to Republicans (or Bush)? People's biggest criticism of Bush over Katrina is that Brown was a political appointee who wasn't qualified for the job. You're saying Clinton didn't do the same thing? That's hilarious.

 

[pattylou]

People's biggest criticism of Bush over Katrina is that Brown was a political appointee who wasn't qualified for the job. You're saying Clinton didn't do the same thing?

I don't know why the Bush/Clinton comparison comes up so often. I don't see people defending the Democrats as a party, I certainly don't, there *is* enough corruption to go around. I bash bush; I don't say that Democrats are pure as the driven snow.

If you have two questionable parties, then you would do well to clean house, get a third non-corrupt party, and so on. (Of course, I'm an idealist, being a liberal.)

Barring the ability to do that (creating a viable third party would take enormous resources) you have to demand greater accountability among politicians overall, and you also have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Between Bush Jr. and Clinton, that would be Clinton, no contest.

Between McCain and H. Clinton, that would be McCain.

It makes perfect sense also, that personal philosophies will lead someone like myself to view the Democrats as BY AND LARGE being less corrupt than Republicans. The reverse might hold for you, Russ. On the other hand, I rarely see conservatives say anything positive for a Democratic politician, and perhaps conservatives really do look at their personal finances more than at the (lack of) integrity of the people in office that are benefiting their finances. I'm curious for any opinions on this.

 

[Yonoz]

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Furthermore, it seems relevant point in this conversation for me to point out my opinion that the underlying cause for the fall of the Greek empire was quite simply due to their overwhelming respect for the craft of sophistry. Granted, I can't rightly prove that theory with conclusive evidence; but all the same, it seems counterintuitive to believe that one can run a stable government without a stable foundation of principles to base it on.

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Quite a few forum members should have a look at that.

 

[Astronuc]

G.O.P. Split Over Big Plans for Storm Spending
By CARL HULSE (NY Times), Sep 16

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - The drive to pour tens of billions of federal dollars into rebuilding the hurricane-battered Gulf Coast is widening a fissure among Republicans over fiscal policy, with more of them expressing worry about unbridled spending.

On Thursday, even before President Bush promised that "federal funds will cover the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone," fiscal conservatives from the House and Senate joined budget watchdog groups in demanding that the administration be judicious in asking for taxpayer dollars.

One fiscal conservative, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said Thursday, "I don't believe that everything that should happen in Louisiana should be paid for by the rest of the country. I believe there are certain responsibilities that are due the people of Louisiana."

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, called for restoring "sanity" to the federal recovery effort. Congress has approved $62 billion, mostly to cover costs already incurred, and the price tag is rising. The House and Senate approved tax relief Thursday at an estimated cost of more than $5 billion on top of $3.5 billion in housing vouchers approved by the Senate on Wednesday.

"We know we need to help, but throwing more and more money without accountability at this is not going to solve the problem," Mr. DeMint said.

Their comments were in marked contrast to the sweeping administration approach outlined by Mr. Bush in his speech from New Orleans and a call by Senate Republican leaders for a rebuilding effort similar to the Marshall Plan after World War II. Congressional Democrats advocated their own comprehensive recovery program Thursday, promoting a combination of rebuilding programs coupled with housing, health care, agriculture and education initiatives. The president also emphasized the importance of private entrepreneurship to create jobs "and help break the cycle of poverty."

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said he believed that providing rapid and extensive help overrode the need to cut spending elsewhere. "I think we have to understand that we have a devastation that has to be taken care of," Mr. Reid said. "And I'm not into finding where we can cut yet."

That mindset is troubling to other lawmakers who fear that in addition to a reborn Gulf Coast, something else will rise from the storm: record federal deficits.

"We know this is a huge bill," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. "We don't want to lay it on future generations." Given the fierce political backlash to the stumbling relief effort in the days after the hurricane struck, House Republican leaders have been reluctant to stand in the way of any emergency legislation. After the speech, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert acknowledged that the price tag means that "for every dollar we spend on this, it is going to take a little bit longer to balance the budget." He said he was willing to listen to ideas to pay for the aid, but, "Quite frankly, we have to get this job done."

Despite those comments, many Republicans are increasingly edgy about the White House's push for a potentially open-ended recovery budget, worried that the president - in trying to regroup politically - was making expensive promises they would have to keep.

"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior House Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration.

The fears about the costs of the storm are building on widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives about spending in recent years by the Republican-controlled Congress. That unrest was already high after Congressional approval of a transportation measure that critics denounced as bloated with marginal home-state projects.

That sore spot was rubbed raw earlier this week when Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, suggested that the Republican Congress had already trimmed much of the fat from the federal budget, making it difficult to find ways to offset hurricane spending.

Mr. Coburn called such a claim ludicrous and other Republicans took exception as well. :033102luf_1_prv.gif:

"There has never been a time where there is more total spending and more wasteful spending in Washington than we have today," said Pat Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania and the head of the conservative Club for Growth. "There is ample opportunity to find the offsets we need so that this does not have to be a fiscal disaster as well as a natural disaster."

On another front, Republicans and Democrats continued their dispute over how to investigate government failures in the storm response. The House approved a select committee to oversee the inquiry despite Democratic objections that only a special commission outside of Congress could do a credible job.

The House voted 224 to 188 to establish a 20-member panel to work in concert with a similar Senate panel in studying the adequacy of local, state and federal preparations for the storm and why the relief effort was so troubled, stranding thousands in chaotic conditions without sufficient food, water or medical care.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said the special committee was an effort to "whitewash" the inquiry though she later said she would not stand in the way if Democrats want to sit on the panel. In another effort to reduce Democratic opposition, Mr. Hastert on Thursday named Representative Thomas M. Davis III, a sometimes Republican maverick from Virginia, to lead the panel.

As for paying for the recovery, Ms. Pelosi raised the possibility of 50-year bonds tied to the reconstruction.

The conservative Republicans worried about the outlays said the president and Congressional leaders need to ask the public to share in the sacrifice and suggested savings could be easily wrung from federal agencies or in Congress in ways like eliminating pet projects.

"Katrina breaks my heart," said Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana and chairman of a caucus of more than 100 House Republicans who advocate conservative spending policy. "Congress must do everything the American people expect us to do to meet the needs of families and communities affected by Katrina. But we must not let Katrina break the bank for our children and grandchildren."

If the Republicans are for less government - why to the federal budgets keep increasing. The Republicans control the Executive Branch and Congress. Where is all that money going? And on top of that, my combined state and local taxes (more local than state) have doubled because the federal government has reduced spending in my state! We have a Republican governor and most local officials are Republican.

 

[Yonoz]

my combined state and local taxes (more local than state) have doubled because the federal government has reduced spending in my state! We have a Republican governor and most local officials are Republican.

Funny, I always thought the Aborigines in Uluru to be democrats.
Guess that US-Australia trade agreement was quite influential.

 

[pattylou]

From page 2:

Originally Posted by BobG
We are safer against terrorist threats, but at a cost of being more vulnerable to natural disasters.

2 questions:

1. Can you give me a good reference that shows we are safer from terrorist threats under Bush?

2. Is domestic increase in safety worth increasing the risk of terrorism in other countries? At what point do we start to equate a foreign life with an American life?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5042601623.html

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

(incidentally, 2003 was higher than 2002, etc.)

I have seen several people address question #1. I have a recollection that in fact studies (rather than opinion polls) say that we are *not* safer than we were, but I have been unable to find them. I'll post them later if I track them down.

But! Question #2 is the more interesting question anyway.. Why is no one (particularly those people that are arguing that we are safer) answering this?

How many foreign lives equate to one American life? If you truly believe it is one to one, then the roughly quintupling in terrorist events over the last four years should present an ethical problem to any focus you might put on domestic terror.

If you believe one American life is worth 10 or 20 foreign lives, then please explain how you reach such a conclusion.

 

[pattylou]

Posted by Astronuc:

"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior House Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration.

This puts me in stitches.

 

[Astronuc]

Funny, I always thought the Aborigines in Uluru to be democrats.
Guess that US-Australia trade agreement was quite influential.

Uluru is a spiritual home. I live in the US, at least for now.

I actually prefer to be nomadic, but my wife and kids need stability. I

I consider the whole planet to be my home, and national borders are arbitrary. Unfortunately, too many people like to impose artificial boundaries against others.

 

[Astronuc]

The conservative Republicans worried about the outlays said the president and Congressional leaders need to ask the public to share in the sacrifice . . .

Well I was somewhat amused by the conservatives who want Bush to ask the public 'share in their pain'.

I can't imagine that too many millionaires, particularly Bush, will make much in the way of sacrifice. I could be wrong though.

"We are not sure he knows what he is getting into," said one senior House Republican official who requested anonymity because of the potential consequences of publicly criticizing the administration.

This puts me in stitches.

I had to chuckle at that one, too!

 

[BobG]

From page 2:

I have seen several people address question #1. I have a recollection that in fact studies (rather than opinion polls) say that we are *not* safer than we were, but I have been unable to find them. I'll post them later if I track them down.

But! Question #2 is the more interesting question anyway.. Why is no one (particularly those people that are arguing that we are safer) answering this?

How many foreign lives equate to one American life? If you truly believe it is one to one, then the roughly quintupling in terrorist events over the last four years should present an ethical problem to any focus you might put on domestic terror.

If you believe one American life is worth 10 or 20 foreign lives, then please explain how you reach such a conclusion.

I'm not sure how question 1 affects question 2. I guess you could say if a 3rd grade bully has a choice of picking on an unarmed 1st grader or a 1st grader carrying a baseball bat, he'll probably choose to pick on the weaker target, but you could hardly expect either 1st grader to intentionally make themselves the weakest, most appealling target.

Obviously, the best option would have been to continue focusing on eliminating international terrorism to the point that it's not a serious threat to any country - the way we did with the Afghanistan invasion to eliminate al-Qaeda's center. But I don't think it's very fair or realistic to expect the US to be able to pursue terrorists internationally at the same time we're fighting a war in Iraq. Maybe Russia could chase them down for awhile - after all, we lured a large number of Chechnyan 'insurgents' into Iraq where they're not bothering Russia anymore.

 

[kyleb]

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Quite a few forum members should have a look at that.

I'm sorry but is there any chance you could reiterate the intent of writing in something at least vaguely resembling formal English composition? I forced myself to read though it once and started a second time; but the collection of loosely related, mostly two sentence "paragraph" like things, failed miserably in communicating anything of value to me.

 

[pattylou]

I'm not sure how question 1 affects question 2. I guess you could say if a 3rd grade bully has a choice of picking on an unarmed 1st grader or a 1st grader carrying a baseball bat, he'll probably choose to pick on the weaker target, but you could hardly expect either 1st grader to intentionally make themselves the weakest, most appealling target.

I am trying to point out that our actions (aggression) increase terrorism.

If you are concerned *only* with American soil, this may not be a problem. (No one bothers the bully.) If you are concerned with the entire planet (or the entire 3rd grade classroom), then you try to eliminate the fighting all around - you don't allow the kid that is "right" (whatever that means) to continue to beat up the kid that is "wrong."

Obviously, the best option would have been to continue focusing on eliminating international terrorism to the point that it's not a serious threat to any country - the way we did with the Afghanistan invasion to eliminate al-Qaeda's center.

I disagree. To me it is obvious that the only way to "eliminate" an enemy is to increase communication with them --- I realize this is pollyannish but as I look at the results of our actions and see increased global terror, I tentatively conclude that terrorism does not respond to aggression the way we would like. Another clue here is that terrorists often claim past grievances as the basis for their actions.

This is somewhat distinct, in terms of basis of aggression, from the types of complaints that spur nations to war; historically they war over resources, or political ideologies.

But this is tangential. I would like to see conservatives place a number on what foreign lives are worth, compared to American lives. Barring that, I would like to see them *not* make the argument that we are safer because of our aggression, as the global incidents are escalating very rapidly.