case1

I agree with you that he has had a pretty tough couple of terms in presidency, with 9/11, hurricane Katrina, etc.....and i'm on the liberal side of the argument.....wonder what it would have been like if Gore or Kerry had won......probably not much better.

1reguL8NSTi

My sentiments exactly, Kerry would have probably used his infamous "plan" that we were all so interested in hearing. Being totally honest, I think Gore would have eaten cyanide pills in the Oval office. He was even less competent than Bush and that's saying a lot.

case1

hahahahaha, he probably would've eaten cyanide pills and it still wouldn't have changed the expression on his face!

So Bush has had a rough go at it, and neither Gore or Kerry would have a done a better job, but I still believe that Bush deserves to be impeached if he knowingly waged war without evidence of wmd's. I believe he knew and was informed that it was unlikely that Iraq had wmd's, but I don't believe the evidence is there to support my beliefs, and even if the evidence is there they will find a way to spin it and blame it on someone else.

The blame will never get to the president, someone else or some other agency will be the "fall guy".

1reguL8NSTi

OMG You went there!!!!!!!! My day is complete.

SilverScoober02

:rotfl: Quite possibly the funniest thing I have heard evAr!!!

1reguL8NSTi

The whole report was misleading. Bush gets information from many organizations just as every President before him does. You could say that because Clinton didn't do enough reconaissance in Mogadishu 18 Rangers were killed. You could say that had Roosevelt developed a better plan more than 60% of the attacking force would have survived D-Day. All that is irrelevant though. It's a system of facilitation. The President makes decisions based of what he's given.

SBwrx5

I'm not a very political person, I don't even watch the news, but I have a hard time being "ok" with a puppet as a president. The guy doesn't even make his own decisions, it's like he's not running the country, his advisors are. And he also seems more concerned with making money than the well being of the country. The New Orleans disaster was actually predicted about 5 years ago but because of the money that comes in down there he didn't want to do anything about it. A butt-load of environmentalist told him fact after fact about how New Orleans is like a bowl and that a hurricane will just wipe it off the face of the earth. IGNORED!! I hate that bastard.

SBwrx5

Also, Family Guy had a pretty funny Bush reference this week.

1reguL8NSTi

Actually, what you just said is so far from the truth it's laughable. The gov't gave New Orleans millions in aid to restore both the wet lands (a storm surge buffer) and the levies. Instead, amoral politicans choose to use the money elsewhere. Like building a fountain on Lake Pontratrain and started contracts to build a new NFL stadium for the Saints. Those are the facts. The distaster was totally the fault of leaders local to the Katrina incident. The levies are NOT a federal program. They are in the state's control and subsidized by the countries tax payer dollars.

lojasmo

You are absolutely incorrect.


<snip>When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. (Much of the research here is from Nexis, which is why some articles aren't linked.)

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to this Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness:

The $750 million Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project is another major Corps project, which remains about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds, said Al Naomi, project manager. That project consists of building up levees and protection for pumping stations on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles and Jefferson parishes.

The Lake Pontchartrain project is slated to receive $3.9 million in the president's 2005 budget. Naomi said about $20 million is needed.<snip>

New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

Cyrus923

iTrader: (-2)

So you say he never lied? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? I think that counts. As much as I would love to see the man gone, who else would you want in there right now? No one I can think of even though Bush is a douche.

jvick125

iTrader: (2)

If you knew the police were coming to raid your house for the meht lab that's in your basement, what would you do with the stuff? Leave it there or hide it? Maybe at a friend's house or elsewhere.

lojasmo

Come on now....we had scads of satelite surveilance, and we knew that the WMDs were "in tikrit, and to the north, and the south, and the east, and the west" (that lying bastard, Rumsfeld) If Hussein had moved the weapons in the weeks leading up to the war, we would know where he moved them to.

1reguL8NSTi

First off, that is the most bias news article you could have possibly posted since the Times-Picayune would NEVER criticize local officials because they would lose their jobs the same day. You never hear criticism in New Orleans on anything governmental which is probably why things are the way they are. The gov't was giving N.O. funds even if they were less significant but either way that is not the fact of the matter. The fact of the matter is that New Orleans officials didn't use the money they already had into making the levies better. The used in on the Pontratrain Fountain, the River Walk and getting contracts for a new NFL stadium. If you're going to say that's not being irresponsible than I'll be hard pressed to convince you otherwise. It is a state's responsiblity to protect itself from these things, otherwise lets do away with 50 different quarters and state lines and just be one big happy federal family.

1reguL8NSTi

Perhaps I should reference the first Desert Storm to you when Saddam moved an entire Armor Regiment without our knowing about it by spacing his movements depending upon satellite coverage. Him doing this caused the largest Armor engagement since WWII and caused the most casualties in the war (even though it was a smaller number they are significant). If he wanted to hide those weapons he could have done it. Satellites are not the end-all confirmation. They help but the eyes in the sky do move.