Rock steady leadership - reminds me of his forceful positive reaction he had on 9/11 reading My Pet Goat . . . last time he told a "truth" was when he said he "didn't read newspapers . . ." Isn't it time we remove this pox from the WH? Can anyone say "IMPEACH"? It seems Shrub has taken Reagan "Trust, but verify" into "thrust and deny" - sticking it to 200 Years of Democracy and not taking any responsibility.

Listen up Democrats! I will completely give up on you as my party of choice if you don't listen to me now and listen good.

You keep ganging up on the puppet in the white house but rarely do I see you putting the good work into action! Quit your yapping and finger pointing and get into the ghettos and slums and rural backwoods and listen to people. Find out what isn't working for them and help them get it. Get out of you fancy cars and homes and see what people are really going through and fight with every last bit of energy that you have to ensure the equality and peace you keep suggesting that you can only bring us. We all know the Republicans don't care about the people, but what have you done for me lately?!

I am a school principal and I work hard for my money and my staff all works hard for their money but are we getting ahead? Are we able to have energy efficient homes and nice hybrid automobiles and eat organic food and send our kids to Montessori schools?

It would be great if we could but America pays teachers less than McDonalds pays it's McManagers. America pays some actors, musicians, and athletes enough dough to buy small tropical islands for pretending to be someone else or for putting a ball in a hoop. This is outrageous and something has to be done about it.

Are the Democrats going to quit their yapping and bring me some peace? Are you going to bring the alternative energy and clean air, water and soil? Are you going to ensure the my children get a quality education and that they will be able to live without fear of being abused or killed?

These are the things the Democrats need to do for me to believe in them and trust in America. Put your money where you mouth is and do something real for Americans. QUIT SPENDING ALL YOUR TIME POINTING FINGERS AT THE IDIOTS IN CONTROL AND BECOME THE HEROES AMERICA SO DESPERATELY NEEDS! This is what your forefathers and we Americans all demand of you. It is your job and your duty!

That is all. You know where to find me if you have some ideas and are ready to talk business.

Peace
James@jamesbauckman.com

You know that is very true this adminastration is very subversive. That is why I found it extremely interesting when Bush quickly back lashed against his party members when they started to entertain the idea of investigating the NSA spying program. I certainly raised an eyebrow when he said that anyone who went against him on it wouldn't get any support in their re-election efforts. I think it's common human nature to have the most emphatic reaction to those which you look to censure the most. I suspect that if he really wasn't using the NSA and his unauthorized spying program on outragieously illegal targets that his reaction wouldn't have been as fierce when people started talking about investigating it. It's like a little kid trying to cover up a big screw up and lie.... "huh Georgy what's ya hidin back there??" I'm a believer in where there's smoke their's usually fire. This adminastration has lied about everything else it seems, but it seems the NSA program is the one that he backlashed the most about towards HIS OWN PARTY. Coincidence??? I doubt it....

It's like the ports deal. He knows he's blatantly wrong in what he's doing, so he quickly tries to quell the Rebublican party by threating to veto any legislation blocking the deal. Maybe he has the tendency to backlash the most when he feels the most insecure about what he's doing. If that's the case I really hope the Democrats force an independent investigation of the NSA program! Nobody needs that lunatic spying on whomever he wants and trying to control what the American people think and believe. I mean, if memory serves me correctly, the man said that he believed God wanted him to be president. He's a freakin lunatic with delusions of grandeur. I wouldn't be suprised to see the guy try and take over the USA as the emporer at the end of his term or preferable impeachment. SERIOUSLY!!!

"Ready. Shoot. Aim." -- No three words better sum up the policy and performance of the Bush administration. The American public has witnessed painfully as Bush and his Keystone Cops move from one botched crisis to another. The response to Hurricane Katrina is but one example. Let's consider others: 1) weapons of mass destruction; 2) a victory with no plan for peace; 3) no Bin Laden; 4) stem cell research policy; 5) the Dubai port deal; 6) the cost of the war; 7) the deficit; 8) prescription drug program; 9) domestic spy program; 10 tax cuts for the wealthy; 11) Harriett Meirs nomination; 12) no body armor for troops sent to Iraq; 13) torture; 14) disrespect for allies; 15) lip service to energy independence; 16) environmental policy; 17) genocide in Sudan; 18) policy in Iran and North Korea; 19) Terry Shivo; and 20) outing of CIA agent.

Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans in Congress are to no more be trusted than an old dog that just won't hunt.

Posted by PaulClere on March 1, 2006 at 10:31 PM

Let's not forget the no bid contracts that have been handed out to Haliburton by the DOD.

And, the no bid contracts by FEMA for:
1) Trailers in time of disaster. Which hundreds of them are sitting in Arkabsas for a storage fee of 25,000/month
2) Bottle water. Maybe this is why Walmart's free water was turned away.

The last time I checked it was a Federal Law that ALL contractsa must go out for BIDS.

And the Kicker - the missing 8 BILLIONS Dollars from Iraq.

The corruption within the Bush Administration can longer be hidden. He must answer for this.

"You're doing a heckofa job there, Georgie".

In a sorta related way, this news release just showed up on www.PRWeb.com, showing what our friends in the "other side" of the blog universe are up to:

"Blogging Man 2007" - Organizing A Revolution

So much for smoke filled back rooms. Organizers for a national conference of conservative bloggers and other "new media" participants have announced "Blogging Man 2007," considered to be the first time ever that bloggers, ezine publishers, radio talk show hosts, activists and writers have come together on such a scale to develop and coordinate their efforts.

(PRWEB) March 1, 2006 -- So much for smoke filled back rooms. Organizers for a national conference of conservative bloggers and other "new media" participants have announced "Blogging Man 2007," considered to be the first time ever that bloggers, ezine publishers, radio talk show hosts, activists and writers have come together on such a scale to develop and coordinate their efforts.

According to a spokesman for the event, "Blogging Man 2007" is expected to attract over 4000 participants from across the country and will include speakers, such as Hugh Hewitt, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and well known conservative political pundit.

Chairman of the conference, Eric Odom, says that "Blogging Man 2007" promises to be a significant milestone in the evolution of the new media"; Further stating that: "the interest expressed to date has already far exceeded our initial expectations."

Other figures that will be playing a key role in "Blogging Man 2007" include the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org ). The New Media Alliance, Inc. is a recently formed national coalition of writers, journalists and new media outlets that produce and publish daily news and commentary.

Gary Schneider, President of the New Media Alliance, Inc. says that "initiatives such as 'Blogging Man 2007' represent a larger trend of coordination and consolidation within the new media and we are extremely excited and proud to be involved in this effort."

Whether or not the "new media" truly begins to challenge traditional media outlets as the predominant source of information remains to be seen. Nevertheless, studies do indicate that there has been a dramatic decline in the readership/viewership of print newspapers and major network news in recent years. Conversely, nearly 70% of Americans now claim to obtain all of some of their news via the internet.

"Blogging Man 2007" is scheduled for October 11th, 12th and 13th, 2007 in Reno, Nevada. For more information, go to: www.bloggingman.org

###

Press Contact: Eric Odom
Company Name: Quicksilver Strategies, LLC
Email: email protected from spam bots
Phone: 775-376-2751
Website: http://www.bloggingman.org

More Information: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb352310.htm

The Bush Administration has been one fabrication after another. I can't believe people sit back and believe it. Its like watching a cartoon and waiting for the comic relief to take over. You say to yourself this isn't true is it? In reality it is and we are stuck. I think the most horrific idea is to have our ports secured by Sheiks. How can these people possibly care about us as Americans. The Republicans have control and its all spiraling downward. Sometime I wonder if this isn't what Bush wanted in the first place. It seems when you think its the worst; one more thing comes up in its place. Speaking of Cheney. Harry Whittington made one of the fastest recoveries I know of. One day they were saying he was in the worst critical condition and the next he's performing a speech. Just goes to show you. When the Republicans want and need something bad enough, whoop, pretty fast, huh? I think American people have suffered. From the war in Iraq. Young men with their whole lives ahead of them sent off to a war with no purpose. Some never having an opportunity to live a life. Then in the aftermath of Katrina. To see pictures of dead bodies floating for days. It looks like a third world country. Ever since 9ll, what has happened is that we became afraid of one another. Our own Americans. With the fear grew hate. The problem now is when will it stop. Spying is going to be enforced next. Why are we spying on our own people. We're not the ones at fault. We didn't fly that plane into the towers. We as Americans are being stripped of our rights. Rights that were fought for many years ago. Blood shed on the battle ground. Why? Because men felt that freedom was so important. Important enough to die for. They did. So to give way to spying, is giving away something very precious. Freedom. It's not that we have something to hide. Its just that our private lives are just that, private. If things continue the way they have been they will be irreparable. So what do we need to do as Americans?

Do you feel helpless and overwhelmed by the latest political events? Help us win the 2006 election!!

To actually win an election it is necessary to attract votes from voters on the other side, and to do so it is necessary to speak their same language and address issues that will capture their interest, not just our interest. To make a difference each voter needs to attract just one single vote from the other side. I have written a book on Faith and Politics which can bring both sides together in the next election. You can now download it for free at: http://www.geocities.com/independent_america/.
Read page 6 and you will understand.

If you enjoy it, pass on the link to your friends, in particular those on the other side, and ask them to do the same. Remember: each of us only needs to convert one more voter!

Thank you

WHY hasn't ANYONE picked up on THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't GET IT! Bush is an IDIOT and so are the media pundints! Look at the MAP! Then read the next press release!

http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/637/1/

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 27, 2005

Statement on Federal Emergency Assistance for Louisiana

The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing.

The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the parishes of Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Caldwell, Claiborne, Catahoula, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carroll, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Jackson, LaSalle, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Pointe Coupee, Ouachita, Rapides, Red River, Richland, Sabine, St. Helena, St. Landry, Tensas, Union, Vernon, Webster, West Carroll, West Feliciana, and Winn.

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent Federal funding.

Representing FEMA, Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, named William Lokey as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FEMA (202) 646-4600.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html

Here you will find a map! Bushco declared an emergency for all L.A. Parishes EXCEPT the ones Katrina Nailed!!!!!

http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/637/1/

Picking up on a thought bouncing around back at TMW after a Chris Floyd post, I thought I'd find out for myself exactly which Louisiana parishes were and were not included in George W. Bush's declaration of emergency effective August 26th, which you can also reach by clicking the map itself.

I checked the parish map against the White House's own press release, posted on their own site. I have tried to figure out how this is my own mistake, but I can't find it. And the results are frankly so bizarre I had to make the graphic in order to properly show you.

Welcome to upside-down-land: the areas at risk for Katrina were quite remarkably the areas not included in Bush's declaration of emergency.

What the hell?

Compare and contrast with the full and specific statewide list of parishes and the services they will receive issued after the storm hit.

Is this really what Bush authorized before the storm hit? Are they really that incompetent?

PS: Putting to rest any nightmares, the map doesn't correlate in any way I can find with demographics, income, voting patterns, campaign contributions, or the like. If I haven't made an obvious mistake, I'm just hoping now that the press release simply got the list of "emergency" and "non-emergency" parishes mixed up.

In other words, more galling incompetence in the White House, albeit trivial, is really the best-case scenario.

Otherwise, we're looking at more galling incompetence of a frighteningly non-trivial kind.

UPDATE: I've received numerous emails explaining that all of the coastal parishes were already declared disaster areas because of Tropical Storm Cindy, which struck in June. Checking with FEMA's own website... nope. Only five coastal parishes -- Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and St. Charles -- seem to be covered here, and only on a limited basis at that.

This is explicitly confirmed by the presidential authorization of August 23, as posted on the White House website.

I'm still hoping and half-expecting to find I've overlooked something. I hope so. Honestly. I do not exactly enjoy this, and I hope this is my own mistake in some way. But I've looked and looked on the White House and FEMA websites and Googled my fingers half off, and while I do find several parishes coming in line for various types of aid piecemeal at various times over the last several years, I cannot yet find anything which even comes close to accounting for the diagram above. It still appears that while northern Louisiana was covered, much of Louisiana directly in the storm's path was simply not covered by the president's declaration at the time the storm hit.

UPDATE 2: I've tried calling FEMA general number repeatedly, but the phone is ringing endlessly with no answer. Not even a machine or voicemail. They seem a bit overwhelmed. I'm reluctant to take anyone's time there anyway right now anyway. Instead, I've sent polite emails to the public FEMA email addresses that seems relevant, asking for a brief explanation of the above once things have calmed down.

UPDATE 3: My inbox has received many dozens of emails from people pointing to August 29th (post-storm) documents, which supposedly fill in the blanks but are entirely off the point. We're looking for a pre-storm explanation. Please check your dates carefully.

UPDATE 4: I've updated the graphic slightly. Since I used a map downloaded from the Louisiana website, the parishes not covered in red were still shown with a decorative blue-green color gradient from the original. I had no idea so many people would try to find significance in those colors. My mistake, and I apologize.

When I get a minute -- and I'm still trying to finish a book on a tightening deadline, remember -- I'd like to whip up a composite map showing Louisiana side-by-side with the pre-storm declarations for Mississippi and Alabama, where the coastal counties were declared as you'd expect. This will be even stranger-looking.

Incidentally, a number of angry Bush defenders have emailed me detailed explanations of the meanings of these colors in terms of staged relief deployment and such, when it was obvious they had absolutely no idea where they came from. Sigh. Not exactly reality-based.

On the other hand, I'd also like to distance myself from anyone trying to read this as proof of anything partisan beyond possible -- possible -- further evidence of incompetence. (As if we could possibly need more.) I have not claimed and do not claim there is any direct correlation between the parishes declared here and any conceivable underlying partisan cause.

I'm not sure how I can be clearer about that.

I'm still quite open to the possibility that the mistake is mine, or there's a simple explanation I don't understand, or that it was a clerical error corrected in any case by the 29th, or what have you. I don't actually have a pet theory. I have asked a simple question and am still seeking and awaiting a simple answer, sourced to actual official policies, an explanatory news report, an official statement, etc. That's all.

Ugh!
I tend to be a person that likes to give the benefit of the doubt. I look for facts before I jump down the throat of someone, even public administration officals. The truth is that I have come on this blog before and commented on the fact that we as democrats seem to be either blowing political advantages, or continuing to shout at the Bush administration with little more than opinion and words.
Well that ends today.
The administration needs to realize that killing Americans through inaction and stupidity is as much the responsiblity of National Security as protecting us from terrorism. They didn't/don't.
We as American's lost citizens/friends/family in that disaster. Our tax dollars were wasted. Our trained staff looked like a third world support staff, instead of the extremely well trained individuals that they are.(that comes from management, coaching, and directions given those folks from Public officals. First responders should draw the same level of respect as our soliders do. Their bosses are another story.)
Our President is accountable. He dropped the ball. Not his staff. Not his VP. Not his friends and not even his party. HIM, PERSONALLY.
That video showed something, it shows simply a President that WAS informed.
I am personally saddened that the country that put men like FDR, JFK, TR, Lincoln, Reagan, and Jefferson in office, now has to contend with the likes of Bush.
I hate to say it but this isn't going to be the worst of it. The worst part is 2008. See since 9/11 we have only had one President. Many people were scared of change in 04, I can understand that. But change is coming. The problem is that we don't have any FDR's, JFK's, or Lincoln's in the political arena to pick up and help fix the country.
Our best shot right now is Hillary. She doesn't exactly conjure thoughts of Lincoln, or FDR. She doesn't even come close to her husband in regards to charisma.(and Bush proves daily that charisma may not be one of those tangible skills you look for in evaluating a President, but it is high on the intagible list.) She is hard nosed. She is intelligent. She has a laundry list of credentials.(including being a Senator from NY after 9/11.)
What she doesn't have is a clean slate. It is going to be an ugly election if she runs. It will divide the country, because the republicans are going to pull out every stop to make sure she doesn't win.
What we need is something new. Someone that understands the country. Doesn't matter to me about socio-economics(rich or poor), can the person think well under pressure.(can they document that they have with good results.) Do they have ideas.(even old one's that worked.) Are they willing to listen to the view points of all involved, and then make the decision and take the responsibility their office was invisioned to uphold?
I sure hope someone smarter than me knows someone like that, because I don't. We can talk about Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, or any of our other major party players, but none of them look like serious threats, and none of them are the optimal candidate.
So we must do the same thing that the Republicans are going to have to do in 08, run a non-optimal candidate. We are going to have to trust that person with securing the nation, establishing foreign policy that is both tough and fair from our perspective, rebuilding the faith in average people that their government can accomplish many things............and the list could go on. But really where is super-President when you need her or him?

This is an example and a very good example of how the Bush Administration handles the job of governance. They are flying as they say, "by the aeat of their pants". decisions are made hours and days late because noone in the administration seems to ever be prepared. Perhaps mr. bush was never a boy scout. From 9/11, to Katrina, there is never any responsibility. Government to work needs to be responsible and looking towards the future. It is fine to point out mistakes but we must also offer alternatives. There must be real and legal intelligence gathering. When we declare a war, it should be on a particular foe with a plan for success. When disasters loom, we need to prepare and execute plans that are already set. We cannot simply pass the blame around while people die, saying silly things like, "We couldn't go in until the Governor asked us in." That is like saying we relied on the best intelligence that Iraq had WMD's. Okay they didn't but we thought they did and we drove out a bad guy. In the realm of Federal Government, we do not need a quarterback who does his leading from a couch on Monday Night.

Back in 2001 I was still fuming about the election when I visited California. An artificial energy crisis, rigged by Enron et al., triggered a lot of finger pointing. Blame for a season of "rolling blackouts" fell on Gray Davis, the Democratic governor. I noted the timing. A Texan tied to the oil industry was about to be inaugurated. The 2002 gubernatorial elections were up next. Suspicious of the Republican and their recently demonstrated capacity for underhandedness, I wondered if this sudden energy shortage was the first volley in a dirty tricks campaign against the soon-to-be former governor.
I set aside my doubts and "rallied round the flag" when we were attacked in September. But my patriotic outrage turned to deep concern when the term "War on Terror" became more than just a catchphrase. It was a blank check on a bottomless account. No one ever signs a peace treaty in a war with an invisible enemy.
Since then we have traveled a long and troubling path marked by the shame of torture, the corruption of government contractors and the violation of human rights. Our president has claimed that as a wartime president he has the right to violate the law. (Even so, in the midst this "war", high officials in the Administration admit to having intentionally blown the cover of an intelligence operative in a petty attack on her husband. Isn't this tantamount to treason?)
Now comes Katrina. Scientists tell us that increased intensity in weather events (hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, droughts) will increase with global warming.
Certainly we cannot interdict the weather. And maybe we cannot stop every assault on our country from her enemies. Maybe we will never be totally immune to attack but if it comes, we should be able TO RESPOND TO CATASTROPHE!
The bureaucratic two left feet demonstrated by this government in reacting to actual domestic crises must give enormous confidence to our enemies. If we cannot help our own people when attacked by man or Nature, it should be very easy to destroy us.
While we meddle with the world, our own house is clearly vulnerable. So if one or two or three of our ports suddenly goes out of commission, we have little hope for effective response from our unimaginative and inadequate leaders.
We must have the capacity to respond to domestic emergency with coordination and expertise to minimize the effects of whatever befalls us. If we cannot do so, than we will be forced to admit that the complex and sophisticated systems of our great country are beyond our ability to manage or protect.

Someone above said,"Bush knows he is wrong about allowing a Nation that has produced and supported Terrorist to run our Borders?"

Let us all think and be honest; Bush is running our Nation on 1.Politics of fear,2.War profiteering! As long as he can keep us afraid, he can have his way with us. Don't you feel the rape, he is exercising over you?
The Republicans will keep the war going as long as they have the power because they are profiting by it. Come On,Can't you See That?

The Republicans have so much Corruption happening
that the people don't know what to do.
Someone in here called it "Helter Scelter," or whatever Manson called it? Don't you feel defeated? That is what the Republicans want!

Here's the evidence in living color.
Negligent homicide is a felony.
Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors is an investigation.
A thorough investigation of the Bush administration will bring to light not only his failures during Katrina, but the corruption in the dealings with contractors and quite possibly uncover the real reasons for the fiasco in Iraq.
I would bet dollars to donuts that the investigations stemming from an impeachment would bring down not only Bush, but Cheney, a myriad of political appointees, and a number of Republican legislators.
Bring on the special prosecutors!!!
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!
LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS, THE NEW WEST WING!!!
WE NEED TO GET OUR DEMOCRACY BACK!!!!

Give us(Democrats) the majority and watch us get a lot done for America! You know we don't have this confusion when we are in power.

I am with James Bauckman and his comments about the Democratic party. If the democrats were in office and running our Country into the ground like this admin. is, the republicans would have had all of them impeached and jailed by now for their crimes and corruption! I am very disappointed in the party for not being able to rally the US into impeachment for this thoroughly incompetent, corrupt, lying, criminal administration! Hell, the republicans were able to impeach one of the best Presidents our Country has ever had over a blow job! That doesn't make the us democrats feel secure with our party when there is just so much going on in the White House and the Dems doing nothing! Yes, the dems rant and rave over everything and then just drop it! Stop dropping it, join together, rally together and show this Country we are truly united and tired of the current incompetence in our Government and do something about it!!! As of right now, a third party not owned by big business is looking better all the time. You want us to continue handing the dems money but we get no results for it. Money is very tight to the average person and therefore when we give, we expect to see results! Can the Democrats do that? Now, this president has now publicly lied to us again, what are you going to do about it??? Because of his lack of leadership and compassion for the American people, scores of people were killed because of it. Are the Democrats going to see to it he's held accountable for this one?

Use this video as part of the Democratic Party's 2006 Campaign-!!

I am tired of seeing wimpy, ineffectual Democratic Party ads and slogans -- while the Republicans swift-boat away the truth and beat the Democrats over the head with pure fiction.

Why can't the DNC play some Hardball here?
Use this video as part of your 2006 Campaign.

Tie together the whole pattern of behavior:

1) Katrina warnings - GOP leadership screws up
2) Sept 11 warnings - GOP leadership screws up
3) WMDs not found in Iraq - GOP leadership screws up

Meanwhile:

1) Osama Bin Laden is alive & well
2) Bush wants to give 9-11 terrorists (UAE) money and have them manage our ports

More people have needlessly DIED on this President's watch and under GOP leadership then any other period (since Vietnam).

This is not the "national security" Party-!

Yup. I'm with James. I am tired of the DNC running to me for money when it won't demonstrate the moral fiber, the leadership and the leadership this nation needs. With the exception of Feingold, the DNC has become the lackeys of the RNC, not demanding accountability from the Administration that we the people insist on. Give the DNC more money to send more emails to sign a petition for this and a petition for that. To hell with the petitions. The RATpublicans MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE EACH AND EVERY TIME THEY OPEN THEIR MOUTHS and our DNC leaders won't do it. I want leadership. I want a party I can identify with. I want a party that represents me and my beliefs. Where was the opposition to the SC Nominees? Where was the outrage at each and every lie Shrub has articulated? Where was the oppositon to the "war" and where was the opposition to granting the Ass in Chief unprecidented powers. There has been stunning silence from the DNC for the last 6 years. I WANT MY PARTY BACK and I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK.

I think that President Bush, has failed to realize that the Media gives 100% focus on top Political figures. He failed to remember that the nation is watching, and now it has caught up with him. Kerry made the same mistake and he lost the Presidency because of it.

Having a bad day? Anything at all go wrong in your life? The Democrats give Bush way too much credit. Bush is not actually responsible for everything in the world. Sometimes, we are.

Having a bad day? Anything at all go wrong in your life? The Democrats give Bush way too much credit. Bush is not actually responsible for everything in the world. Sometimes, we are.

It doesn't suprise me that President Bush knew about the danger of hurricane Katrina and what could happen. This is just another example of racism for two reasons because most in New Orleans are black and poor. Now some of you reading this might be thinking to yourself that this is nonsense and not true but if you really stop and think about it you'll know that it was racism on the part of the Republican party. Consider this, if that hurricane went to Palm Beach, Florida instead of New Orleans I think most of you know very well that the response wouldn't have been slow to help.

The folks at ColorofChange.org are demanding that Bush be censured and impeached - what's the DNC doing? How much more are you willing to tolerate? We see the Democrats voting for the Patriot Act, refusing to call for withdrawal from Iraq, caving on the illegal spying, silent on Katrina 0 the list goes on and on - but I'll bet you'll still want our money to to pay your bills and run more republican lite candidates - forget it! When I make my political donations, I'm only giving to those who stand up and speak against the Bush Crime Family - you should be ashamed at your collaboration in the destruction of democracy and freedom by this administration - ashamed.

I am an African American woman who has been very angry with the Democratic Party since Bush was appointed President.

I am not a registered Democrat, I am an Independent, and although there are some issues with which I agree with the Republicans I could never bring myself to vote for them - well, I'll just be honest; as an African American I have what some call a built in bullshit detector; and with Republicans it's on tilt!

But, the Dems are losing us because they have lost their way. All my life the Dems stood for progressive inclusive ideals - even though many fall short at this - I do believe that most believe in these ideals, people are people.

Recent history has shown African Americans that although we are upset at the impotence of the Democrats; the Republicans are just evil; and I don't use that word lightly at all; but there is no getting around it.

This Katrina Debacle has landed in their laps, and it is time to stand up and fight.

If you want to keep your African American constituency you can keep them with this fight, if you do it in the right way:

1. Tell the country that there is a plethora of jobs in New Orleans and that every evacuee who wants to return; irregardless of race or ethnicity; and want to take advantage of said jobs are the first in line; and that "we" will see to it that you have somewhere to stay.

2. Say that an error was made and that the government, although warned ahead of time, failed; as did the state and local governments in Louisiana and Mississippi. Present cognizant legislation, and if the Republican run congress defeats the legislation; tell the people.

3. Do not offer people handouts; say to the American people that those who want to return and participate in the resurrection of New Orleans and the whole Gulf Coasts can and should; for to them these places are their homes.

4. Castigate members of the Democratic party for their failures; Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco, and Mary Landrieu... for their failures and wrong-headed decisions.

5. Don't let them continue to make excuses and continue their landgrabbinghalliburtonesque schemes.

This is right in your lap!

I just hope that you wake-up and fight!

Our nation is not perfect by no means; but it can get back on the path that it was before Bush and his cronies started to destroy it.

Another thing that should be hammered in over and over is that 3/4 of the troops want out of Iraq.

If the Dems don't start fighting, and stop worrying about being called unpatriotic and these false claims of how the Republicans did this and that back in the day (which is bull); they are going to be erased.

This is the perfect timing. Let's Use It.

Oh and one more thing. The Dems have to start calling out Black Republicans for the shuffling neophytes that they are: We in the Black community refer to them as the Klu Klux Klueless or Klu Klux Koons... use it; and let them call you racist! Who cares.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

More than six months after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA has finally released funds to enable the search for remaining bodies among the ruins of New Orleans. Whether the delay was caused by the Bush administration's indecision, inability, or total disregard for the victims and their loved ones, the nation can only grieve.

If the Dems cannot effectively counter the Repub agenda now, what do you think the American people are going to do at the polls in 08? Let us assume a Dem is elected President in 08; if the Repubs continue to control Congress how effective against the Repubs do the Dems expect to be? The Dems must show NOW that they can reign in the Repubs. After this video, if the Dems do not impeach Bush you can forget winning the 08 elections.

This is just another example of racism for two reasons because most in New Orleans are black and poor.

The black community needs to learn a lesson Cornel West has been trying to teach them since his book Race Matters published in 1992: The Repubs do not care about them because they are poor not because they are black. More caucasians are on welfare than blacks. Our tax laws punish the poor--economic classes--not blacks--ethnic classes:

A minimum-wage worker today must pay the FICA payroll tax of 15 percent on the very first dollar she earns. Look at the fellow who has a few millions or billions. He probably has paid no income tax on most of that pile, since investment profits are taxed only when they are "realized", cashed in. Any investment profits that he hasn't cashed in when he cashes in himself escape the income tax forever. Under the American tax system as designed by the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans, the most a person of vast wealth is expected to contribute to the common good (see Preamble to the U.S. Constitution) from his or her last dollar of investment profits is the same 15 cents or so that a minimum-wage worker is expected to pay on his or her first dollar.
(Taken from "The Return of Class War: Bush and the new tyranny of the rich."
By Michael Kinsley)

The Repubs are doing a better job of demonstrating to minorities that they have a voice, look at their converts in the past two elections. The Repubs know that as long as they can create and foster an image of promoting minorities the Repubs can gain their support in the 08 elections. As long as we continue to think in terms of race and not in terms of economic classes, we all will suffer. The middle class is shrinking and the lower class is growing under Repub economics.

kerberose wrote:

> I am personally saddened that the country that put men like FDR, JFK,
> TR, Lincoln, Reagan, and Jefferson in office, now has to contend with
> the likes of Bush.

How did the name of Reagan get in there? It's because of him that Bush was able to continue the wholesale selloff of America tp private enterprise!

Keep in mind :

Stupid,incompetant people are still capeable of being a RACIST.I still feel that is the root of the lack of eagerness to proveide assistance.Also,after seeing the tape and the "people" around that tables in the meeting,it's clearer to me that race played a role....a major role.All the people were of one race and one gender.It was also the same group of people most predisposed to being racists bigots.Coincidence? I think not! LOL

JamesBauckman, DrXM, pclgrand, kent1915, siun, ReadyForTheRevolution, and Krampus have all made excellent points about what the Democratic Party should be about. DrXM is, like me, an optimist who sees what the party has done at its best and could represent once again. Most of the rest are, also like me, angry with what the party has become. The examples of this that stand out for me are welfare "reform," NAFTA, the Traitor Act, and especailly, Moral Bankruptcy, where a sufficient number of Democrats put MBNA and its bribes above their constituents.

The word "liberal" that has been demonized by the right-wing smear machine and the clueless (such as brian111) had almost the opposite meaning for me in the 60's and is tending the same way today. Too many of those who are being called "liberal" are centrist at best, something like Hannity's so-called "liberal" sidekick. True liberals (George McGovern comes to mind) weren't quite far enough left to suir me, because they advocated working within the capitalist system to make it fairer to us, but in my less radical moments, I found them to be the best compromise in practical terms.

The problem is that the Democratic Party has too few liberals of even the caliber of the somewhat liberal Lyndon Johnson (if you ignore his part in a war for the preservation of capitalism)--or as Clinton noted in his book, Richard Nixon, of all people! (Although part of the reason Nixon, in his end days, appeared liberal was in contrast to the new breed of Republican, a more fundamental reason may have been his similarity to the new breed of Democrat, such as the mostly illiberal Clinton himself!)

Howard Dean has been declared a "liberal," but the only really liberal-seeming points about his campaign that impressed me were his opposition to the war in Iraq and his grassroots funding. He is, after all, a proponent of NAFTA, and he has put down those in the party who take positions to the left of his own. I will grant that he is more liberal than Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, Lyndon LaRouche, and the once-conjectured running mate for John Kerry, the disingenuous (his favorite word) John McCain.

Until the Democratic Party rediscovers its liberal roots, which strike a happy medium between the poles of rational Americans (moderate, or even moderately "conservative," to radical), it will continue to be seen as Republican Lite or "Republicrats" and be of little political consequence. If you still can't comprehend why this is so, let me refresh your memory with a quote that revealed what was up with Watergate: "Follow the money"!

ReadyForTheRevolution said this earlier,

"Oh and one more thing. The Dems have to start calling out Black Republicans for the shuffling neophytes that they are: We in the Black community refer to them as the Klu Klux Klueless or Klu Klux Koons... use it; and let them call you racist! Who cares."

to which Brian111 responed,

"Just when I thought the left could not go any lower, Klu Kluk Koons. How proud we must feel to be a Democrat and the party of inclusion."

I would like to say, as an African American as well,"DITTO!" to everything that My sista! ReadyForTheRevolution posted.I agree completly and utterly.I would also like to urge Democratic Leadership to stop listening to White people tell you what Black people want from you.If you continue to do so,I guarantee you will be sorry come election time as well as the next time you check you Contribution Account.We are not some monkeys that some scientist has to teach you about so knock the sh** off and I mean it.I don't want to see any of your white reps out there telling everyone what "WE" blackies need from you.We have our owm voice and you need to listen to it.That's if you want our vote.If you don't want our vote then stop sending us e-mails asking for sh**.PERIOD!

Now,to Brian111.I know your a stupid Republican so I don't even know why you were here to begin with but you need to take your Krazy Ku Ku self on back to your White Supremist website and don't EVER try to include yourself in a converstaion abut blacks.There is NOTHING Republicans can do to get our vote.We would rather tell ya'll ALL to go to hell before switching parties.

Back to Democrats.Actually,there's something else.We can pull a Black version of a Nadar vote and lauch a campaign to write in Obama.Yeah,I am going to start urging all Blacks to write in Obama in 2008.Better yet,I'll take it a step further and teach both parties a real good lesson.Get all NON-Whites to write in a candidate of their race.Hey,since the crap ain't counted anyway.All Hispanics can write in their favorite,Blacks get Obama/Ford,Jews go for Feingold,since ya'll want to leave us out,we can leave you out.

So,in conclusion,unless your too cocky and you don't think my crazy as* won't carry this out and spend the money needed to do so,you'll wake up and start to RECOGNIZE that I am very serious.

Thank You,that's all.

FreedomofSpeech... Obama. Yes. I would love it if the DNC fielded a great, viable candidate. Someone who has shown their ability to think, to lead, to standup and not be beholden to special interests. Or Feingold too. There. Obama/Feingold 2008!

John Kerry? What the hell was the DNC thinking? Oh, yea! Lets play to the safe middle. There is/was no real difference between Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Clinton, Hillary; you get my point. Obama would have my vote in a New York minute.

Bush's comment "I don't think anyone could have anticipated the breach of the levees" turns out, from the tapes released by the AP, to be absolutely TRUE. Look at what was said, that the "topping" of leveees was a very very grave concern, not a breach of the levees. There is a huge difference between the two. A topping of the leveees would have resulted in minor flooding, a breach would result (and did) in major flooding.

I hope the DNC will correct their statements here. The fact is that no one anticipated a breach in the levees. At least no one in that conference call. I do not want to accuse the DNCof lying here; it is highly possible they didn't know the difference between topping and a breach. Now that they do, however, if they continue wih their statement above, then the DNC is clearly lying.

Ronald Reagan spoke these words during his farewell speech to the nation in 1989. I long for these days.

"An informed patriotism is what we want....teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world. Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family, you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed, you could get a sense of patriotism from popular culture, The movies clebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special."

To those so eager to bash our president and our country I ask you. How did this happen? When did America loose its luster in your eyes? Who made it acceptable for you to behave this way? What does America mean to you today?

What would you do?

You find yourself face to face with a terrorist that wants you dead. He wants you dead for no other reason than the fact that you are an American. Would you stand there and curse America right along with him or would you chose then to be an American?

johninvandergrift wrote:
"What would you do?
You find yourself face to face with a terrorist that wants you dead. He wants you dead for no other reason than the fact that you are an American. Would you stand there and curse America right along with him or would you choose then to be an American?"

Your rhetorical questions bare your ignorance. Hiding within your questions is the false equivocation that Bush has touted since 9/11: Bush criticism equals terrorist sympathy and/or anti-Americanism. This is McCarthy red scare all over. (I wrote an article on this 5 years ago.) Your repetition of the fallacy shows how you, in the Platonic sense, are a slave.

johninvandergrift wrote:
"To those so eager to bash our president and our country I ask you. How did this happen? When did America loose its luster in your eyes? Who made it acceptable for you to behave this way? What does America mean to you today?"

Maybe what happened to us, what caused us to loose the luster in our eyes was the Neocon Republicans, the Christian Zionists, who are running our country. We criticize our government because we know America has been, could be, and should be a better place. In my opinion, almost everything the Repubs do is anti-constitutional. The Preamble to the Constitution states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Very little, if anything, the Repubs do promotes the general welfare. They promote specific interests of corporations who are out to make profits. What is the first thing that a company does when its profits drop, lay off workers. Ford laid off 30,000 employees claiming "we all must make sacrifices" but William Clay Ford, Chairman and CEO, did not take a pay cut, forfeit any bonuses. (Bonuses for what; running the company into the ground?)

We have seen, with Dems’ help by acts of omission, Liberty and Propserity erode in the past 5 years. The Dems fail to realize that they are just as guilty as the Repubs. The Repubs are guilty by acts of commission and the Dems are guilty by acts of omission. This is why we, the Dem base and supporters, are so frustrated and pissed with them.

johninvandergrift wrote:
"To those so eager to bash our president and our country I ask you. How did this happen? When did America loose its luster in your eyes? Who made it acceptable for you to behave this way? What does America mean to you today?"

Maybe what happened to us, what caused us to loose the luster in our eyes was the Neocon Republicans, the Christian Zionists, who are running our country. We criticize our government because we know America has been, could be, and should be a better place. In my opinion, almost everything the Repubs do is anti-constitutional. The Preamble to the Constitution states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Very little, if anything, the Repubs do promotes the general welfare. They promote specific interests of corporations who are out to make profits. What is the first thing that a company does when its profits drop, lay off workers. Ford laid off 30,000 employees claiming "we all must make sacrifices" but William Clay Ford, Chairman and CEO, did not take a pay cut, forfeit any bonuses. (Bonuses for what; running the company into the ground?)

We have seen, with Dems’ help by acts of omission, Liberty and Propserity erode in the past 5 years. The Dems fail to realize that they are just as guilty as the Repubs. The Repubs are guilty by acts of commission and the Dems are guilty by acts of omission. This is why we, the Dem base and supporters, are so frustrated and pissed with them.

(Sorry for the double post)

Incredible/ And this guy,BUSH, calls himself a Christian?

johninvandergrift wrote:
"What would you do?
You find yourself face to face with a terrorist that wants you dead. He wants you dead for no other reason than the fact that you are an American. Would you stand there and curse America right along with him or would you choose then to be an American?"

and then Krampus replied:
Your rhetorical questions bare your ignorance. Hiding within your questions is the false equivocation that Bush has touted since 9/11: Bush criticism equals terrorist sympathy and/or anti-Americanism. This is McCarthy red scare all over. (I wrote an article on this 5 years ago.) Your repetition of the fallacy shows how you, in the Platonic sense, are a slave.

Your reply speaks volumes about everything that is wrong with today's democratic party. Asked what you'd do when faced with a terrorist, and you reply by just griping about the president.

Why couldn't you just say:

"I'd beat that terrorist until he died, and anyone who wouldn't is either a terrorist themselves, or French."

...instead of the same old anti-bush lines?

I'm not saying that you're a terrorist for not having the spine to say you don't like terrorists...I'm saying that Democrats cannot win elections until they learn to take a stand rather than just gripe about Bush. Griping about bush is easy, my 8 year old can do that. Taking a stand is not as easy, but it's the only way to convincingly win elections.

Look, I can pick out flaws in Bush too (for one, he's not near agressive enough in his use of military force...for another, he needs to veto all entitlement spending), but this incessant griping about Bush doesn't help the Dems and it doesn't help the country.

Neither does this blog, now that I think about it...

frok wrote:
"Your reply speaks volumes about everything that is wrong with today's democratic party. Asked what you'd do when faced with a terrorist, and you reply by just griping about the president."

You misunderstood my reply. I was pointing out a logical fallacy in the question supported by a real life example of the fallacy. The fallacy is called false equivocation. Look it up at www.fallacyfiles.org
When such a fallacy is committed in the question form, no proper response can be given with accepting the false equivocation.

Midwest Moderate, the AP has issued a "correction" to its initial story. Their correction says exactly what you did, that Bush was warned that the New Orleans levee might be overtopped and not that it was in danger of being breached.

It reminds me of the myths the media spread about ten thousand potential deaths in New Orleans alone, about dozens of deaths and murders and rape of children in the Superdome, about people shooting at rescue helicopters. They publicized Louis Farrakhan's claim that the levee was deliberately destroyed and Randall Robinson's claim of cannibalism in New Orleans. That all turned out to be rubbish.

At least the AP had the honesty to admit their mistake, which puts them ahead of Dan Rather. Now, will the posters on this website who claimed that this episode exposes Bush as a liar be equally honest and admit their accusations were wrong?

What difference does it make that the water would go over the levees verses through them? Yes there may be a differnce in amount of water as an earlier poster noted. However, water still would have been flooding into the city and the administration and FEMA was unprepared after being briefed. So, the only apology necessary is a semantic one.

I have read the comments thus far under this subject! The one that makes the most sense is "DRXM," when he said: If the public will help us win the majority, we will change everything that is bad for the USA and uphold, or put in place everything good?

If everyone that writes in this Blog would ask the public to help our Democrats to gain the majority, it would happen! And change would be a reality.

Sorry about that! Drxm

I have read the comments thus far under this subject! The one that makes the most sense is "DRXM," when he said: If the public will help us win the majority, we will change everything that is bad for the USA and uphold, or put in place everything good?

If everyone that writes in this Blog would ask the public to help our Democrats to gain the majority, it would happen! And change would be a reality.

Let us not forget the corps of engineers report of several years previous also telling of the need to fix those ageing levys , oh bush thought it was levis the jeans? -- keep it up , watched FL REPS with the what we owe chart , get it on tv more too

Breached, overtopped, there's not much difference. Having grown up next to the Mississippi and living in that area during the flood of 1993, I'll tell you that the effects are the same.
It's basically the difference between a sand boil showing up at the base of the levee and breaching it it from the bottom, or the water coming over the top and eroding the levee from the top down.
Either way there's a lot of people loosing their homes and possibly their lives.
It boils down to a bunch of lawyerly nit-picking to take people's minds off the facts.

Three words for all of you idiots:

Blanco and Nagin. I think it is Dems who have been in charge of LA for the past oh, say, forever. Where is the money for fixing the levees?

You are a the party of racists and cowards. In 3 years when another Republican is in the White House, you'll have to become ??? haters. You are truly scum, in that you tear down the nation and pit white against black. Mr "freedom of speech" who is too cowardly to print his name (as I note are just about all of you), is a fine example of the Dems. He's black, and basically says that if you disagree with him, and are black, then you are a sell out. Yep, the party of inclusion rides again.

Stand by for mid terms my friends. How does 61 in the senate sound? You guys are really pathetic.

Oh, back to the topic, I note that nobody has mentioned that AP has printed a "ooops" on the story, and admitted that they had the video since last August. Yep, you guys are honest as Abe Lincoln.....

Butte, the difference it makes is whether or not Bush lied about how he was briefed on the risk to the levee. That is why the AP felt the need to amend and correct its story. Apparently, though, the posters on this website who accepted the AP's initial story aren't willing to accept the AP's correction. They hate Bush too much for that.

This unreasoning hatred of Bush cost us the White House in 2004. It repelled the moderates we needed to win.

Our extremists spent 2000-2004 trying to convince the voters that Bush stole the 2000 election. How successful was that effort? They spent 2003-2004 trying to convince the voters that Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq. That was equally successful, wasn't it? Now the same people are claiming that Bush lied about a smaller matter, whether or not he was warned that the levee might be breached, even though the AP has changed its story and admitted Bush hadn't lied after all. As long as we perpetuate the self-defeating folly which has cost us past elections, it will cost us future ones and I for one am tired of losing.

Please have pitty of dubya. He is not playing with a full deck. He screwed up on Iraq, right, he screwed up on medicare and medicade, right? He screwed up on port security, right? He has failed to provide picture identy for port workers as promised to the Coast Guard, right? Don't blame it all on bush after all, he had a lot of idiots that helped him steal two elections at the detriment of the working people of this nation,right? I hope it will all work our before or after the election in November.

factfinder, I like your comments! Keep up the good work!

Since we are in the primarys in some States, now is the time to rally around our Democrats. Point out only, the good activities and good qualities of all our Democrats?

When we get in the majority then we can give them hell to make the changes we want.

If you can't think of anything to say because you don't know the Democrats well enough, just read the comments? I counted them one day and in all these comments, I found about 1500 good comments.

Both breaching and overtopping are terms that mean that the levees are gonna fail.
I'm sorry, I gues Bush didn't have his special ed tutor with him to explain levees failing to him. Funny how Bush doesn't understand failing, he does it so much.
Why is the maintenance of levees, which is a job that has been the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers since the inception of this country, suddenly the responsibility of the govenor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans?
Oh, yes, that's right! It's because the Bush administration is shrinking the Federal government so it drowns in it's own incompetency and cronyism, and they are following Bush's rule of the buck stops anywhere but here.

Here is another question. One that will help everyone determine whether they are a Democrat or a Republican at heart.
You are the Mayor of New Orleans. A category 4 hurricane is on its way. Do you do everything in your power to get everyone out or do you assume the federal government will take care of it?
I don't care if the state is red or blue. It was the responsibility of the local and state authorities to get those people out!

Here's a question. Why isn't the Bush administration more forth coming about the emails and other correspondence between FEMA and the New Orleans and Louisiana government officials?
Since an impeachment is an inquiry into whether or not high crimes and misdemeanors occurred, why aren't there Republicans pushing for impeachment. If Bush is all shiny clean in this it would clear him.
If Bush was so concerned, why didn't he cut his vacation short, and why did he go to California and prance around infront of his cheering supporters instead of doint his job?
Why did FEMA wait until after the hurricane hit, and why did they ignore the warnings that were talked about in the video? They obviously knew, they obviously had the power to step in. Why did they wait to respond only after the destruction had hit the media and their procrastination was so appearant that it created a public back-lash?
Why did the Federal government have to be kick-started by public opinion?
Let's get these questions answered one wway or another.
IMPEACH BUSH, FIND OUT THE TRUTH!!!

butte said
Why did FEMA wait until after the hurricane hit, and why did they ignore the warnings that were talked about in the video? They obviously knew, they obviously had the power to step in.

butte should have said
Why did (insert your local democratic gov. official's name here) wait until after the hurricane hit, and why did (insert your local democratic gov. official's name here) ignore the warnings that were talked about in the video? They obviously knew, they obviously had the power to step in.

Place the blame where it belongs you buttehead.

For all those Repubs with short-term memory...

The Fed government took responsibility for evacuation and relief efforts during hurricane Andrew. But now under Bush it only is the local officials' responsibility? During Andrew, Clinton was President. I wonder what difference that made?

Posted by brian111
"I wonder as well. What do you think Clinton would have done? Please educate me."

That was not my point you ignorant a$$. The point is the difference in who perceives themselves responsible for prevention as well as post relief efforts. Clinton believed it is/was the federal government's responsibility and it is/was FEMA's role specifically--Federal Emergence Management. Bush believes it was local official's responsibility only, and/or he is scapegoat-ing his portion of his culpability.

Incidentally the local officials did take responsibility but refused to take all the blame for the mismanagement. The mayor and governor took personal responsibility in an article published September 4 (I think) of the Washington Post. I know it was a Sunday issue as that is the only issue I have delivered to my home.

I just found this embarrassing Fox news link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166876,00.html

A quick observation and the Repubs infesting this thread. Notice NONE of them support any of their claims with facts or refernces. Of course, they cannot find evidence to support their claims which is why they never offer any evidence. How far do you think that would get them in a court of law--"Your honor my client is innocent of all allegations; the defense rests."

A quick observation about the Repubs inhabiting this thread: Notice NONE of them supports any of their claims with facts or references. How far do you think that would get them in a court of law--"Your honor my client is innocent of all allegations; the defense rests."

The "and" should be "about". Sorry

You stepped into my trap. I was testing to see if you would address the ad hominem or the facts. You ignored the facts that followed offering an ad hominem of your own rather than offering supporting evidence for your own view, likewise proving my next point.

I will admit that my tactic was distasteful, but I wanted to make a point. The traps are always in place; I was trying to point out the traps that you were imposing upon yourself: It is one thing to exchange ideas and another to support them with valid reasoning and evidence. You and the other Repubs in this group have failed to do the latter.

An earlier poster noted that the White House had been given a report by the Army Corp of Engineers concerneing the potential breech of the levees. The levees had not been maintained and repaired since the Iraq War began because Bush diverted all of those funds to the war effort. That places responsibility squarely on the Bush admin and the report does constitute a briefing about the potential for the levees to break.

Additionally, Bush's first action as President was to repeal every EPA law passed by the Clinton/Gore administration. Clinton/Gore protected the wetlands and flood plains around New Orleans. Bush repealed those and opened them to commercial development aganist warnings from environmental groups, et. al. Yet another example of the Repub interests favoring corporations above anything else.

Actually I am not an angry liberal. I am an angry former middle-of-the-road swing voter who feels that this country has been betrayed by this administration.
I am also not a he. Guess what, there are a lot of us female veterans out there, and the number is growing. I have seen the Bush adnimistration's mistreatment of military personell first hand and that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
If Republicans don't like people's reactions to getting crapped on they shouldn't do it.

brian111 wrote:
"would it be a good thing to have the President impeached during a war?"

War negates responsibility and culpability? That is the underlying implication of your question.

You seem to assume Butte's call for impeachment is related to the war only. What about her comments regarding Bush's handling of Katrina?

You probably have said the following, "Criticism of the war is harmful to the troops' morale." You probably have a yellow ribbon on your car in belief that supports the troops.

Let me preemptively negate one of your replies to me. I know what it means to support the troops; my father was in the Army for over 30 years serving in Vietnam and the Gulf War.

I am dismayed when I see the talking points going from BOTH sides, the level of imcompetence being exposed each day and not pointed out is amazing!

Is it only obvious to me that President Bush has no idea what is going on under his nose. The White House was told the levees were breached at midnight the night of the storm, the Army Corps of Engineers wanted more money to prevent a breach. The New Orleans Times-Picayune concluded the day after the storm that 'No one can say they didn't see it coming.' and yet there he sits saying just that Can someone please point out to the President that being out of the loop is not a good way to lead. Does he know anything that goes on under HIS watch?

Media Matters is doing one hell of a job keeping people informed, with verifiable FACTS. That is what we need to be about, because HONOR and INTEGRITY is not a side of the GOP that they can bank on.

In response to brian111

Here is a short list:

1. June 24, 2003 Donald Rumsfeld said, "I don't know anyone in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqi's had nuclear weapons. That's fact number one." Well I guess he forgot what Bush had claimed on October 7, 2002, "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists. A group he calls his "Nuclear Mujahideen"--his nuclear holy warriors."
So, based upon these quotes alone either Rumsfeld or Bush is lying. Either way the public was lied to. The evidence for Bush’s claim is linked with the Valerie Plame incident. The Nigerian documents Bush constantly refers to are forged. The signatories on the documents were not in power at the time of the documents’ dates. Powell refused to give those documents to the UN. Without a doubt, the basis for this war is a lie.

2. Bush knew in advance that New Orleans was in serious threat of major flooding either via the levees breaching (as advised by the Army Corp of Engineers—see more information in my above post) or via overflow from the briefing in the AP video. Either way the end result is the same. Yet Bush remained on vacation for three more days after Katrina made landfall while people in 5 states were dying.

3. Bush has repeatedly admitted on public television to authorizing unwarranted wiretaps on American citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment. Even if they are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, the U.S. Constitution is not a conditional document where rights and protections can be forfeited/suspend/restricted even for the briefest time. Keep in mind that the special warrants he requires can be obtained retroactively. Yet he cannot even obtain those warrants retroactively because his reasons for those wiretaps are so suspect. Since the courts will not act as an unconditional rubber stamp of approval, his administration violates the Constitution. Nothing, not even the (Un)Patriot(ic) Act trumps the Constitution.

Number 3 is the only one with potential debate. 1 and 2 are clear and firm.

You stepped into my trap. I was testing to see if you would address the ad hominem or the facts. You ignored the facts that followed offering an ad hominem of your own rather than offering supporting evidence for your own view, likewise proving my next point.

(Now that was weird)

Are you really that obtuse brian111? Are you seriously suggesting that a President can be impeached for lying to Congress about a personal private matter (a blowjob) but cannot be impeached for lying to Congress and the American people and the UN for the grounds to start a war, and/or violating the Constitution in a similar matter as Nixon, and/or sitting on your butt while thousands die in a natural disaster in several states?

I am the one that has supported my claims with facts. You still have yet to supply a single piece of evidence. So you tell me oh enlightened one, what are the grounds for impeaching a President?

I will help you out a bit:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html
The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Bribery, perjury, and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category.

Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

It was a clear reference to Clinton's impeachment because of his sexual affairs with Lewinsky. I was comparing the actions of the last (two) impeachment(s) with the actions of the current President. Your question implied Bush has not committed an impeachable offense. 1 and 3 of my list are clearly impeachable offenses. (Even Powell repeatedly has admittted that the White House gave him forged documents to bolster the case for Iraq.) Granted, the Dems will never get a majority vote in the House to actually begin impeachment proceedings.

Either you are that incredibly obtuse or you are playing at it to get my goat. Either way you are only embarassing yourself.

Why do I want Bush impeached? Let me count the ways. Actually if you go to www.impeachbush.tv you can find the ways.
As for the yellow ribbon on my vehicle? Hell, no. Those yellow ribbons only serve to support the Chinese slave labor that made them, and make people feel they are doing something when they are not. If you really want to support the military personnel you will oppose the targeted pay raises, the erosion of the Veteran's Administration, and impeach Bush for lying to this country about the reason for going into Iraq and getting a lot of good people killed.

I have seen way too many mistakes or misstatements on here to just let them go.

Bush said "I don't think anyone could have anticipated the breach of the levees." Fact: no one anticipated a breech of the levees. This article was supposed to finally catch Bush in a lie; it failed.

Someone on here suggested the response to Katrina was racist. Fact: on a per capita basis, more whites were displaced by Katrina than blacks.

Krampus, your list of impeachable offenses is highly flawed.

1. Bush did not lie about nuclear weapons programs in Iraq. He was repeating many of the same things Clinton stated a few years earlier. If you remember, Clinton also warned about the impending danger of Iraq's WMD's as well. That is why both he and Hillary supported the war in Iraq. Both men obtained their information from the same source: U.S. intelligence. Repeating what you have been told by your intelligence agencies is not a lie, and thus, not an impeachable offense.

2. A President's response to a national disaster is never an impeachable offense - you are clutching at straws here.

3. Spying on your enemies' attempts to communicate with people here during wartime is perfectly constitutional. Imagine if a German U-boat was along the NY shore, sending signals to someone here in the U.S., do you think FDR would have been allowed to listen in? Of course he would have, and this is no different.

Also, Clinton was not impeached for lying to Congress, he was impeached for lying to a grand jury.

Butte, you said "Both breaching and overtopping are terms that mean that the levees are gonna fail." You say you lived near the Mississippi, so you should know as well as anyone that your statement is utterly false. A topping means the levee did not fail, and in fact, did its job of standing in place during the storm. Breaching means the levee did fail. And saying there is not much difference between the two is complete nonsense. Think about it, if a 10 foot wall is topped, then that means only that water over and above that 10 feet of water would flood the area. If the leve was breached, that means that all the water, including the 10 feet that would not have flooded the area otherwise, is now free to flood. The best example to illustrate the difference would be to imagine a full glass of water. Topping would be like shaking the glass and having some of the water spill out; breaching would be like hitting the glass with a hammer and having all the water spill out.

I am amazed at the powers you people seem to give the President, as though he has this big console at his desk with dials and switches so he can control everything everywhere. Clinton never got actively involved in hurricanes, nor would I ever expect him to. He had FEMA for that, and at the time, it was a cabinet-level position. Putting it under Homeland Security, in hindsight, was probably a mistake. But FEMA only assists local authorities, they need to be ready as well. It does not appear the mayor or the governor were prepared, but that can be somewhat expected, they don't get the number of hurricanes that Florida does - you will notice that hurricanes don't seem to be such a big deal in Florida because they are prepared for them. But we should also remember that Katrina represented the largest evacuation in our country's history; of course there are going to be problems. And it was predicted there would be 10,000 deaths, yet there were only about 1,000, I would consider that a success, wouldn't you?

I am very disappointed that the DNC has not corrected its story, even though the AP has. Doesn't the truth matter anymore?

Hey folks - just wanted to place some facts on the table. To begin, let's look at the undisputable physical facts:

1) Change.

2) Death.

3) Man made time and religion - so time is relative and there is no proof of a god.

4) Nothing humanity does in this realm will matter when the earth's extinction occurs.

Now for some undisputable human facts:

1) George Bush is a liar like his father - "Read My Lying Lips".

2) George Bush and Dick Chaney need to resign or be impeached for the Katrina fiasco alone.

3) America is the financial whore of the world - speading it's capitalism - while on the backs of others the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

4) Humanity is nothing but a fungus depleating the natural resources of this earth.

Open your minds. Think outside of the box. If you don't the USA will not last to it's 300th birthday.

Let the people have control of their country back. Career politicians and special interest groups aren't to America's benefit anymore.

American Democracy is just another step in the evolution of Humanity. At some point humans will have to brake down the lines of the governmental bonds and join together universally if they are to survive as a species. Now that is a FACT.

Thanks for the soapbox...Enoch

New Orleans still lacks hospitals for its poorest residents, so doctors have set up clinics under tents. Last month thousands of residents got free treatment amid the animal houses of the Audubon Zoo, the only site big enough to cope.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11677332/site/newsweek/

Overtopping does mean levees are going to fail. If you don't think so, then you don't know what you are talking about.
Most levees are built out of dredge sand from channel clean-up, some are either clay or regular soil, which are better, and will hold longer. They can be covered with riprap which is coarse rock put down the water side to cut down on erosion.
Levees'll hold for a while, but once they're overtopped, the force of the water rushing over them erodes the material, even if it's dirt or clay and not sand. We aren't talking about a spring rain, we are talking either flood water or hurricaine-force wind-driven water, either of which can derail a freight train, that can take the rip rap off like it's not there. Once levees are overtopped, that section of the levee gets destroyed, bottom line. After the water leaves you will see a big gouge out of the levee where it was overtopped.
I've seen both news photos and actual flood damage to levees ever since I was a little kid. I've also seen a towboat that got swamped by a fall storm and sunk. Just the pilothouse was sticking above water, and that wasn't that bad a storm. When you live near the Mississippi, you develop a deep respect for the power of both flood waters and high winds.
BTW, I have 30 years in the Army, 21 Active, including Active Reserve(AGR) & 9 Reserve. I figure the best way to help the soldiers is to speak up about their abuse at the hands of the Bush administration.

I'm a human - not a donkey. I believe the 2-party system should be abolished or made into multiple sects. Americans have done this with their religious sects. I also believe the catholic religion should be disbanded - they are nothing but perverts anyway. If I molested some child, I'd be under the prison - but these preist, so-called men of god, walk free. It is the fault of the catholic church!

Insane rant? They called Einstien, the Wright brothers, and George Orwell insane. I told the truth of life in my post, but I don't guess too many jarheads can understand that. Hope you use that GI Bill wisely. I mean get an education past what mom, dad, uncle sam, and the bible teaches.

Just because it sounds insane doesn't mean it's not the truth. The world is round - not flat! Life happens - it's not dealt out by some fairy tale being. Just for fun - here's a future insane rant: "The USA will be in a civil war within the next 20-years". Why? - abortion, immigration, death penalty, political unrest, foreign relations, capitalistic greed, and egotistical citizens.

I'm not insane - I see the truth!

The CHINESE ARE IN CONTROL OF THE PORT AT LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. To my amazement, this is what I heard on C-Span this morning in C-Span's live coverage of the House of Representatives. How can the government of the United States allow such a breach of security? CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IS HOW AND WHY.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE has been and is in control of the Government of the United States. PRIVATE CORPORATIONS are in control and running our country which means PRIVATE CORPORATIONS are making their PRIVATE CORPORATIONS decisions for PRIVATE CORPORATIONS CONTROL of the WORLD'S ECONOMY and these decisions are NOT in the best interest of security for the United States as a country or her people. This corporately selected President is told what to do by PRIVATE BUSINESS CORPORATIONS and the name of this type of government control is FASCISM. Fascist control by the large corporations is why it is irrelevant whether this selected President knows about anything or not. When this president is told something it is only because the PRIVATE CORPORATE CONTROL HAS CHOSEN TO DO SO for PRIVATE CORPORATE CONTROL'S REASONS which will never be in the best interest of the United States as a country or her people, or the World's people as they too will suffer, not be helped.

TAKING PRIVATE CONTROL OF THE WORLD IS ALL THE FASCIST CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF THE UNITED STATES IS INTERESTED IN, AND ALL THEIR EFFORTS WILL BE TOWARD THAT GOAL. PEOPLE ARE INSIGNIFICANT.

ALL EFFORT MUST BE PUT TO STOPPING THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF THE UNITED STATES because it is NON-CARING CORPORATE GOVERNANCE in the United States that exacerbated the disaster after Hurricane Katrina and will be exacerbating any disaster from now on. CORPORATIONS are treated as people, but do not act as people, care about people, or feel as people. FASCIST CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IS IN CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES AND MUST BE STOPPED.

The CHINESE ARE IN CONTROL OF THE PORT AT LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. To my amazement, this is what I heard on C-Span this morning in C-Span's live coverage of the House of Representatives. How can the government of the United States allow such a breach of security? CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IS HOW AND WHY.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE has been and is in control of the Government of the United States. PRIVATE CORPORATIONS are in control and running our country which means PRIVATE CORPORATIONS are making their PRIVATE CORPORATIONS decisions for PRIVATE CORPORATIONS CONTROL of the WORLD'S ECONOMY and these decisions are NOT in the best interest of security for the United States as a country or her people. This corporately selected President is told what to do by PRIVATE BUSINESS CORPORATIONS and the name of this type of government control is FASCISM. Fascist control by the large corporations is why it is irrelevant whether this selected President knows about anything or not. When this president is told something it is only because the PRIVATE CORPORATE CONTROL HAS CHOSEN TO DO SO for PRIVATE CORPORATE CONTROL'S REASONS which will never be in the best interest of the United States as a country or her people, or the World's people as they too will suffer, not be helped.

TAKING PRIVATE CONTROL OF THE WORLD IS ALL THE FASCIST CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF THE UNITED STATES IS INTERESTED IN, AND ALL THEIR EFFORTS WILL BE TOWARD THAT GOAL. PEOPLE ARE INSIGNIFICANT.

ALL EFFORT MUST BE PUT TO STOPPING THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OF THE UNITED STATES because it is NON-CARING CORPORATE GOVERNANCE in the United States that exacerbated the disaster after Hurricane Katrina and will be exacerbating any disaster from now on. CORPORATIONS are treated as people, but do not act as people, care about people, or feel as people. FASCIST CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IS IN CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES AND MUST BE STOPPED.

Please forgive the duplication.

It's interesting to compare the sorry-ass response of this administration with how Cuba responded to a Cat 4 hurricane that hit at about the same time: 1.4 million evacuated without a single loss of life. Sure, the situation was a bit different, a Cat 4 hurricane not complicated by a levee breech. But still it blows my mind that a nation so horribly impoverished by Washington performs so magnificently while Bush & Co still can't get it together after 6 months. It's also notable that while we had people dying in the streets for lack of medical care and our own docs working around the clock, Bush snubbed an offer from Castro to send 1500 well-prepared Cuban doctors to tend to Katrina victims; as usual, politics given priority over saving lives. And where was the Democratic outrage!

Butte, thanks for your response. You are right about the levees in NO, that if they are topped, they will most likely breach. The point I was making is that a lot of people may not know that, say if you grew up in Midland Texas like Bush did, he is then relying on the experts to fill him in. The expert in the AP tape only mentioned overtopping, he never said that this topping could then cause the levees to fail. I grew up near the Ohio River, and my hometown is much like NO, in that it is a bowl completely surrounded by floodwalls. If the walls I am familiar with had water overtop them, there would be no erosion or anything like that, they are extremely solid. But NO is different, and the ground any levee would be sitting on is not as stable as other places. But unless the President grew up there, he would not know this, so when he said that they could not anticipate breaching of the levees, he was not lying one little bit.

Which leads to a more important point: when are we going to stop politicizing Katrina, and start getting to figuring out what is best for New Orleans? As Butte has illustrated, NO is a unique place with unique problems, and simply building the levees bigger and taller won't fix them (the bigger they are built, the more they sink into the ground). The levees are also wreaking havoc with the ecosystem around NO. If we continue to play politics with this, then all Bush is going to do is build big massive levees in order to make everyone happy, when in fact, that would be a terrible solution. But no national Democrat has come forward with any solutions, they just use it as an opportunity to criticize. Have you ever known someone who does nothing but complain all the time? Doesn't it drive you crazy? Well, this is exactly how the Democratic party looks to most Americans. The lack of ideas from this party makes it very difficult for me to see how I could vote for it. My only motivation for voting Democratic at this point is so that the constant whining might stop. That is a sad reason to vote for anyone.

DeaniacForever & MidwestModerate:

Mama D, a highly respected citizen of New Orleans, sat in a Congressional Hearing in Washington, DC that I watched on C-Span and told everyone as well as she possibly could that the levee was blown up, exploded, or dynamited and it has been checked and found out that the levee was destroyed by demolition.

Mama D said as plain as day that the Hurricane had already gone passed before the massive explosion that blew up the levee. She said she was outside about a mile from the levee after the Hurricane had past and heard the humongous explosion that blew up the levee, and it was not Hurricane Katrina that exploded the levee.

Now, if the levee has been checked and it has been found that demolition blew up the levee, how can people keep thinking that Hurricane Katrina destroyed the levee? The levee was destroyed by man, not Hurricane Katrina and it was I believe to get rid of the poor black people in that area. I am not certain if it was to get rid of the poor or the black or both; Republicans have no use for the poor. What I do know is that the levee was destroyed by man after the Hurricane had past from her very good testimony.