Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Sep 16, 2005.
what was that about not playing the blame game?
That e-mail + this administrations reversal on wet lands conservation started by Bush Sr. = cute bit of irony.
Why am I not surprised?
How about an email that asks if your money for state and local first responders has been cut lately, and if so please provide details.
Now is not the time to point fingers.
How do we know that Bush even had anything to do with this?
it's been covered in the other katrina threads.
Going w/a less knee jerk reaction...
Where is the line between the blame game and the facts? Doesn't this course of action make logical sense if one is trying to answer the Q, "Why wasn't the city protected better?" If the answer is in part, "because a lawsuit stopped improvements to the levees" is that a smear or just a fact?
How do we know that Bush had anything to do w/the current Bush administration straying away from a wetlands protection program honored since it was started by the previous Bush administration? Is that the question you are asking?
I was just speculating the fact that this may have been done without Dubya's knowledge...
That I don't know. It's difficult at times to know when one is referring specifically about a Pres or generally about a President's administration since a President's last gets used for both.
A President is her administration.
Perhaps if he took his job more seriously and spent less time on holiday he'd be able to keep up to speed. Then again, perhaps not.
I think we're safer with him as far removed as possible.
Aren't we jumping the gun a little here?
Only in the states.
iow, did andrew card put together a dvd for him?
That's a new one. I am familiar with military intelligence and jumbo shrimp.
Did you forget "Western Civilization"?
And that's a comforting thought for you?
As they say, "any excuse in a storm."
Depends on why they're asking the question. Is this an issue, or are they trying to make it the issue? If they are trying to drum up an excuse to blame the environmentalists where none exists, I have a problem with it. If it's true, then I guess they'll have to look into that.
I'm just hoping this doesn't lead to environmentalists being taken less seriously for everything. They're not all eco-nuts. And perhaps if we had worked more with the environment instead of against it, this might not have happened.
I think the main point of these stories is to fuzz the edges enough such that those who cling to the idea that the Bush administration is faultless can find a reason to believe.
No, it goes beyond that; and this is something the conservative movement has down pat -- exploit these kinds of things for political gain. Not only can environmentalists (already a filthy word for many) be conveniently blamed for the devastation of Katrina anytime anyone points to Bush as deserving of blame, but the environmental movement as a whole can be further tarred as shortsighted and stupid.
See also the immediate lifting of environmental restrictions. Once things settle down, do you think the right will want to restore those regulations? Or will they say "Oh look how much better things go when we deregulate"?
And if you want any more proof just see here. Righties out trying to drum up a case where a victim of Katrina lost out due to the estate tax to try and bring that issue to an emotional head and get it back on the floor in Congress. They are playing politics with this, just as they used the Iraq war as a way to propel themselves into power in the last two election cycles.
They played politics with 9/11, they played politics with the Iraq war, and they're playing politics with Katrina. And the American people are finally, slowly, starting to catch on. We'll see if Rove can fix that for the GOP.
Someone mentioned that Rove had been in the hospital with kidney stones during the hurricane. Perhaps that goes a long way towards explaining the colossal federal screw up. Bush's brain was out of commission?
I agree, I'm saying only that these stories don't need to believed or even heard by most people to have their desired impact. They work mainly for the people who want their predispositions verified.
And see, that's what I'd tend to believe. Why the sudden interest in specifically calling for info on the environmentalists? If they've gotten something, well that's one thing... but if they're just trying to find someone to blame by drumming up false charges (which they tend to do, so it's not like we don't have a reason to be suspicious), then they should be called on it.
Off topic, I guess I should stop wishing for bad things to happen to Karl Rove. Look what happens when he's not around. Things get even worse!