I agree SB! During Condi Rice's speech when asked about denying help from other countries, she said they aren't denying help from anyone. However, she said there's a person "in charge" who will be determining what countries and what help we will accept. Isn't this a time we take at minimum food/first aide without having to have it approved and/or go thru the red tape? These people werent' getting it from our government and needed the help.

Like with 911, certain images stay in my mind. With Katrina, without a doubt, what will remain with me is the image of the hordes of people begging for help, especially the mothers holding sickly babies pleading for assistance. I just can't get that out of my mind. Makes me cry. What a helpless feeling, and how deserted they must have felt.

TIS

I also agree, but SB, what was the President supposed to say? In all honesty, if he had gone out there and said "Do whatever you need to do to survive, be it looting and theivery," he would've been stoned by the media. Of course he's going to try and keep people calm by supporting the official relief effort.

By that same token, as I've said in the big thread, the relief has been taking way too long to arrive, imho.

And as far as refusing aid, I can see refusing people like Chavez and whatnot, but from our European brethren, it should be almost rubber stamped.

Not to start a political debate, but what would you have preferred that he say?

We all know that people with sick, starving families will do (and have done) whatever they have to to get their loved ones fed. But I can't picture the President of the Unites States getting on television and saying we certainly understand the looting & shooting so go right ahead and continue to do so until food & water arrives.

I guess what you're saying is that it might've been best had he not touched on the issue at all. But it's quite possible he was briefed on the crime situation and was asked or felt a responsibility to address it in some small way.

Apple

I think that the mantra we will remember the most is, "How could this happen in the wealthiest nation in the world?" I don't understand how these people could be sitting on the Interstate or at the convention center for days on end, with no supplies, with criminals roaming in their midst, and not have anyone giving them any sense of direction? It seems they were plucked from their roofs and dumped on the highway, with no further direction, nobody to meet them. It's beyond comprehension.

Apple and JJ, I understand your point. While he might have been trying to calm the situation and support law and order, he only came across as clueless to their suffering, IMHO.

Yes, the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana both handled this very badly...from the preparation stages, when Katrina was still on the way (and clearly a storm of historically destructive proportions)...right up to the current moment.

By the way, before the Katrina hit, President Bush called the State and offered Federal Gov't help in a full scale PRE-HURRICANE evacuation of the city. It appears that the his assistance was refused.

Apple

To most who already don't care for the man (not that that covers anyone here), no matter what he does or says he will appear clueless to just about everything. The usual characters will pick apart every word of every speech or interview and latch onto some phrase that doesn't come out quite right...and beat it to death.

So predictable. But again...this must not turn into a political debate.

Apple

Can't you just put politics away for people's lives? Seriously. If Bush did this to governments he didn't agree with, then we'd only be getting aid from GB right now. We can use anyone down there right now to help. Just because you don't agree with Chavez' political agenda doesn't mean we should deny his aid. He's offering 'planeloads of aid workers, food, and water.' Do you know what people would do down there if they heard that our government rejected this just because they don't agree with Chavez' government? And I think you know that if a disater happened in Venezuela, we would certainly send aid down there to help.

Oh, you mean pointing nukes at us was just for the good of the Proletariat revolution, right? :rolleyes:

Not true. Despite their stance on Iraq, the United States is on amicable terms with most of the superpowers, and certainly all of the G-8.

Accepting Chavez's aid would be like accepting aid from Bin Laden.

Quantify a planeload for me, please.

Also, this is clearly a farce by Chavez, he's doing it with a smirk on his face because of the comments by Pat Robertson.

I think they've got more important things on their minds right now, like getting the food and aid, worrying about whether the government refused aid from a murdering dictator probably is the least of their concerns.

I'm sure we already have monies going down there through the IMF or other foundations. Of course the US would help, because if we didn't, the media would ape-shit on us.

BTW - love the title, Pat.

Avoiding my statement, eh?

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Are you telling me that our Republican ruled government sees eye to eye with all of the liberal goverments in Europe? Germany? France? Sweden? Russia? Isn't it Bush who criticized Putin for human rights offenses and not wanting to give up control of the media? Welp, can't accept from Russia. There is no way that our government is on good terms with the majority of the world's governments. Just because they may have troops in Iraq doesn't mean they agree with everything else. I'm sure they all loved the fact that Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty.

Last I checked, Chavez wants to help the American people in suffering right now. He disagrees with Bush, just like I do. He has nothing against the citizens of our country. He just loathes our government.

Ask your buddies at Fox News to quantify it. That's where I saw it.

Exactly. There's food and aid being offered from Venezuela.

You wouldn't even begin to understand, so don't even get me started in a music debate.

Not particularly. But I was trying to act like you for a second.

What the hell are you talking about? The G-8 countries are all on relatively good terms, and are still trading partners.

Clearly you're overanalyzing the impact that not supporting the Iraq War is having on US diplomacy.

Well, maybe if they hadn't used it as a political tool to penalize the United States (did you ever bother to read it, Pat?) :rolleyes:

He's also a murderous, anti-American dictator.

Again, it would be like taking aid from Hussein, or Bin Laden, or Khomeini.

I was asking you.

You missed the point of my statement.

Oh, try me. I still think I'm not so old that I can't understand this newfangled high-school culture which I left behind only 3-4 years ago.

You could never act like me. You wouldn't be able to handle it.

No, you're the one overanalying with the Iraq War. You think just because a country has given up some troops that we're on eye to eye terms with them.

What's more important to you? The US 'being penalized' or signing a treaty that relates to the enviroment? I know how much it hurts you to want to do something good for the enviroment.

Murderous? Source please. Anti-American? Hardly. He's anti-Bush. Can't blame him. Just because he hates our government doesn't mean he hates America.

And I told you. Fox News had it on the bottom of their screen that Chavez offered 'planeloads.' Ever seen a plane?

No, you're missing the point here. You're trying to politicize human life right now. There's no reason we shouldn't accept this aid from Chavez, especially the oil and water. It's absolute stupidity on part of the US government to decline aid from anyone at this point when Bush himself even said that the job we're doing right now for these people is relatively poor.

The sheer ineptitude would kill me. :p

First of all, I never said that. All I said was that just because countries like France and Germany didn't send troops, doesn't mean we have our diplomatic ties severed. Despite what you'd like to believe, the G-8 is still on relatively amicable terms. I have no idea what "overanalying" is, though.

I think that treaty should be fair to all nations, not being used simply as a political tool to punish the US.

I'm all for the US giving them the big thumbs down if it's going to hurt America. It's like signing up for a fight but only if you agree to have your hand tied behind your back.

Ohohoho. Please find posts where I've ever done anything of the sort, where I've been anti-enviroment. Though, I suppose if you want to keep making generalizations, I could just call you a self-serving pinko commie, but that wouldn't be nice. After all, we know how you liberals hate labels!

Stange, much like other dictators, its well known that his poltical opponents, especially after he took the election in 1998, some high ranking officials "disappeared."

Well, isn't that just too bad, because guess who's running the most powerful nation in the world? Sorry, it's not Charlie-Brown wannabe Jimmy Carter anymore.

And again, quantify it. I want to know, is it a ton? 2 tons? Of what? Food? Men? Women? Children? What?

Riddle me this - if Osama Bin Laden offered to give us planeloads of humanitarian aid, would you accept it?

Well, it might be a good way to finally find him!

Still waiting on that source.

The guy who is approved by 30 % of us.

Food, water, rescue workers, oil, and even free eye surgery for those with no health care.

That's a BS comparison. Bin Laden is a terrorist and wants Americans dead. He'd probably send terrorists over here to kill civilians. Chavez wants to help American citizens. I've never heard him ever speak bad about America's people. He just hates our government, as you hate his. Would you be against giving Venezuelans aid just because you disagree with their leader?

Try reading a history textbook (foreign matter to you, I know). I know that's where I read it during high school.


Too bad he was elected by the majority. :rolleyes:

Newsflash: Healthcare doesn't mean shit in New Orleans right now, so it's not like those with health care are getting preferential treatment.

DC has already talked about the oil.

We don't need Chavez, if anything, we will accept from the rest of the G-8's.

Not really.

Who says Chavez doesn't?

Duh...he did, in 1993 bombing the World Trade Center, and then again, in 2001, when he send his followers in four planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania which was destined for the White House.

Yeah, I'm sure, he's all heart.

So he's anti-American, but he doesn't hate the American people. Hmm.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I don't hate anybody.

Possibly, but then again, I'm not the one in charge. I'm sure the US does currently give them some forms of aid or monetary profit, either directly or indirectly.

Still waiting...

Look, it's very easy for people in general to have 20/20 hindset and play monday morning quarterback. Including myself.

But the truth be told, I posted something a few days ago about how this was handled :

That governer needed to act BEFORE theis hurricane hit. Instead she RE-Acted after it hit. Fully knowing that this was a category 5 hurricane 5 days before it struck, why didn't she take the proper steps, as is her right as governer to do, in making her requests to the Federal Government to have the national gaurd on standby and have the needed things in place, so once this Hurricane hit, they would have been on standby and ready to go right in there and rescue and help these people.

Instead she waited until after the hurricane and then she requested federal help as a governer! By asking for federal intervention AFTER the hurricane, the procedures to grant her request had to go through proper channels and procedures, as set up by law, and that cost precious time for this rescue effort, and that is the reason that it looked as though it took so long for the federal governement to intervene. I am fully convinced that she did not take advantage of her rights as a governer and her failing to act several days BEFORE that hurricane hit caused this horrible delay in having the National Guard and the federal governemnt react in a timely manner.

And at the same time I do not think that there was any malice on her part, as some on radio and TV are now saying. It was negligence, poor judgement, and inaction on her part, but not a malicous act. Those kinds of remarks about it being a malicious act are just ridiculous.

IMO she was just plain irresponsible and stupid as a leader of that state.


Don Cardi

Oh, didn't you know? It's all because Bush hates black people, and because the American government is racist! :rolleyes:

Yeh...that's great. Didn't ask for your life story. Still waiting on that source.

That is correct. It's also correct that he is currently only approved by 30 % of America.

DC was WRONG about the oil. DC said that all of our refineries were shut down and we couldn't refine the oil Chavez would send. That was incorrect information. Their is a Citgo refinery that is still up and running that Chavez said he would send the oil too.

Last I checked, Chavez wasn't an Islamic terrorist in Al Quaeda.

Who says he does?

Alright? Which is why I said he would do it again.

I feel the same way.

He's anti-Bush. Since when did Bush represent all of America? If someone doesn't like Bush, that means they hate America? I hate Bush. Does that mean I hate America?

So you like Chavez then?

I thought my first post was quite obvious that I would not accept it from Bin Laden.

Patrick, you are way out of your league on this one! You need to sit back and learn a little bit here.

Yes, there are several other refineries around the nation. Your'er correct about that. But they only to handle so much of the refinery duties for the oil that we have. Then there is the matter of what states they are located in and what the standards for refining and converting are for that particular state. Different states where some refineries are have different delivery and refinery specifications that can determine what the price of the gasoline or heating oil are sold at. And many of these states have strict specs and rules that add expense to the process which in turn makes the price of cracked and refined oil from that state more costly. So it's not as black and white as you think it is and even if we took that oil from Chavez, it would in all likelyhood be meaningless as we already have crude oil in those refineries that are being converted and cracked for distribution of product. The loss of the refineries in The Gulf was a devestating loss economically for this country because of the refning capabilities there, the lower spec requirements, etc. You also fail to realize that the Gulf is one of the cheapest ways to refine and distribite oil to the rest of our country because of it's location and because of it's postioning. The location in that area makes it much more cost effective to refine and distribute oil to the rest of the country. Besides oil, that location is one of the busiest areas of commerce for our country. Coffee and Cocoa also come through those ports for distribution and we may very well see a rise in those items in the next few weeks as we've seen in gasoline.

Sometimes Pat, you've got to know when to keep quiet and listen. You just may learn something.


Don Cardi

Over in the other thread that we've agreed to keep NON Political, Patrick writes :

Yes Pat, you are correct, it didn't. But not because of the reasons that you've stated. The national guardsmen were in there right away because the Governer of Florida was responsible enough and had the forsight and the brains to make sure that his request for federal assistance was made and put in place BEFORE the hurricane hit, and did not wait until after it hit, like this Governor did!

So the Florida Governer started the process to request that federal assistance be waiting and in place before the Hurricane hit. And once that hurricne hit and caused the massive damage that it did, the federal government was ready and standing by to go in there and help.

This irresponsible Governer waited to see if it a category 5 hurricane would really do any damage :rolleyes: , and only after it hit, and all hell broke loose, did she finally apply to the federal governement for help. And that is why it took so many days for the National Guard to go in there.


Don Cardi

Yes, but there was no reason that she couldn't have requested assistance before, which would have had the National Guard in place in case those levees broke. If the damage would have turned out no to be that bad, then no harm, no foul. If the damage was devestating as it did turned out to be, then they would have been in place and ready. There was no gamble in HAVING them ready just in case. And unfortunately the just in case turned out to be a reality.

Don Cardi

Nothing wrong with being over prepared than being under prepared .

I wouldn't have learned anything if I wouldn't have said anything to your original post. Also, how about the other forms of aid being offered by Chavez? Where is your stance?

Monday Katrina hit. Tuesday everyone was saying how New Orleans looked to be spared. The levees then broke. On Wednesday, it was evident that New Orleans was a disaster area. It took 2 days for federal aid to come. Explain to me that. The Louisiana state government officials requested federal support on Wednesday. What was going on Thursday and most of Friday?

And that is where the ball was dropped by the state Governer!

There are laws in place that protect a state from becoming controlled by the federal governement. The laws are written so that the Federal Governement cannot come in on it's own to take over your state. A procedure must be taken by the state Governer to get the federal government to come into the state and run things. I've written about this twice, in case you missed it here it is again :

That governer needed to act BEFORE theis hurricane hit. Instead she RE-Acted after it hit. Fully knowing that this was a category 5 hurricane 5 days before it struck, why didn't she take the proper steps, as is her right as governer to do, in making her requests to the Federal Government to have the national gaurd on standby and have the needed things in place, so once this Hurricane hit, they would have been on standby and ready to go right in there and rescue and help these people.

Instead she waited until after the hurricane and then she requested federal help as a governer! By asking for federal intervention AFTER the hurricane, the procedures to grant her request had to go through proper channels and procedures, as set up by law, and that cost precious time for this rescue effort, and that is the reason that it looked as though it took so long for the federal governement to intervene. I am fully convinced that she did not take advantage of her rights as a governer and her failing to act several days BEFORE that hurricane hit caused this horrible delay in having the National Guard and the federal governemnt react in a timely manner.

And at the same time I do not think that there was any malice on her part, as some on radio and TV are now saying. It was negligence, poor judgement, and inaction on her part, but not a malicous act. Those kinds of remarks about it being a malicious act are just ridiculous.

IMO she was just plain irresponsible and stupid as a leader of that state.


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]That is why it took so long for the Federal Governement to get in there.

And at this time it is niether condusive or fruitful for any of the authorities to start pointing fingers or making accusations. They must work together and focus and concentrate on the situation at hand.

There will be plenty of time for investigations and accusations somewhere in the future, believe me. But this is not the time for that.


Don Cardi

Hi all,
On the aid issue, it strikes me that when faced with a catastrophe like this, with millions of people displaced and in dire need of food, water, medicines and shelter, any country offering those things should be treated with gratitude. If the US government can't get the supplies in place in time, leaving people to die in their thousands, then it seems to me that anyone else willing to help is doing the US people a favour.

This is a terrible disaster which I do not mean to diminish in any way. You all have my deepest sympathies and I hope on a personal note that nobody here is directly affected - however...
Enormous sections of Africa are living this same biblical destruction, every day, year after year after year with no media spotlight and no politicians promising to give them back their lives and livelihoods. There is no National Guard, no federal aid, nobody to airlift them out. No help is coming. Babies are dying in their thousands, whole families starving to death, horrific diseases spreading like plague. I sincerely doubt that if you offered the equivalent of Venezuelan aid to the people of Sudan right now, they would get sniffy about the politics of accepting it.

Having said that, I understand that this problem relates also to the rest of the world's perception of 'people worthy of saving' and 'people who don't even make it into the news anymore'.
In response to the inevitable Osama Bin Laden question; it is preposterous to discuss the prospect of an organisation that devotes itself to attacking the western world, sending genuine aid to help the western world.
But in terms of other unpopular organisations/governments let me put it this way: if I was getting bullied at school and one of the bullies set my hair on fire, I don't think I would stop someone else from putting out the flames just because he/she too had been a bully Offering aid is a positive gesture, and throwing it back in people's faces, particularly when others need it so desperately, seems to me a rather complacent and ungracious thing to do.

Speaking of uh-oh, another NYT article, this time about possible political ratifications:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/nation...2850b28f9&e x=1283486400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

"The last-minute overhaul of the president's plans reflected what analysts and some Republicans said was a long-term threat to Mr. Bush's presidency created by the perception that the White House had failed to respond to the crisis. Several said the political fallout over the hurricane could complicate a second-term agenda that includes major changes to Social Security, the tax code and the immigration system."

Thoughts from everyone?

I posted the same sentiments at the end of my post right above yours.


Don Cardi