‘Deliberate’ Neglect Laid to Bush In Policy on Katrina’s Aftermath

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stephanie, Jan 31, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    I've think I've figured out the OLD, NEW slam the dems are going to start regurgitating againist the president , since Alitio is over. "Katrinia", thats why the Rev. Jackass is planning a protest march in April. Mark my words... :smoke:

    By JOSH GERSTEIN Staff Reporter of the Sun



    SAN FRANCISCO — Senator Clinton told a largely friendly audience here Saturday night that the slow pace of government-sponsored reconstruction following Hurricane Katrina was the result of a deliberate decision by the Bush administration and may have been motivated by a desire to discourage Democratic voters from returning to the devastated region.

    “I think that basically we are now watching a deliberate policy of neglect take root,” Mrs. Clinton said during an appearance at a fund-raiser for legal services charities. “It is deeply troubling for any American to believe that your government would abandon such a huge part of our country and such an important part of our history.”

    Mrs. Clinton said she suspected that the assignment of President Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, to oversee the relief effort indicated that political mischief was afoot. “Cynical minds might suggest that the destruction of the Democratic vote in Louisiana was a mixed blessing. If you rebuild New Orleans, all those Democrats might come home,” she said during a 90-minute public interview conducted on an auditorium stage by a former television host, Jane Pauley.


    A White House spokesman, Trent Duffy,rejected Mrs.Clinton’s claims that the administration was intentionally foot-dragging on disaster recovery in the Gulf. “It’s patently untrue and it’s unfortunate she would suggest such a thing,” he told The New York Sun yesterday.

    Mr. Duffy said Mr. Bush has already directed $85 billion to recovery efforts in the Gulf.“He stands by that commitment just as he did in the rebuilding of New York City after 9/11. I think it might be best if we return to the spirit that brought New York back from the ashes,” the spokesman said.

    Ms. Pauley’s questioning of Mrs. Clinton was not particularly pointed, but ranged across a variety of subjects, from the new Medicare drug benefit to political developments in the Middle East. The senator warned that the recent victory of a terrorist group, Hamas, in elections held by Palestinian Arabs was bad news not only for Israel, but also for nearby Arab countries such as Jordan and Egypt.

    “It sows instability and gives a foothold in their neighborhood of an extremist Islamist regime,” she said.“It is not at all a positive development.”

    At the outset of her comments on the subject, Mrs. Clinton said flatly that America could not deal with Hamas under current conditions. “We cannot negotiate with Hamas unless they renounce violence and renounce their commitment to destroy Israel.They will have to make a decision,” she said.

    However, the senator went on to indicate talks with Hamas might be possible even before such a renunciation took place. “For the Israelis, it poses a public challenge but a private opportunity,” she said.

    Mrs. Clinton noted that in the early 1990s Israel secretly negotiated the socalled Oslo Accords with the Palestinian Liberation Organization before that group formally withdrew its call for the destruction of Israel. Britain also talked with the Irish Revolutionary Army and its political wing, Sinn Fein, before they agreed to renounce violence.

    “So,there are precedents,”Mrs.Clinton said. “If you could get the right signals from the Hamas leadership, the Israelis might sort of give us a little bit of a go ahead to do some kind of discussing on issues with them. But, absent any reassurance about how they would deal with you,the Israelis cannot go forward and the United States cannot support any kind of aid for the Hamas government until they take some steps to demonstrate that they’ve changed their attitude.”

    A question about Mrs. Clinton’s 2002 vote on the Iraq war, prompted the senator to launch into a nine-minute-long response. Mrs. Clinton never conceded that the pivotal vote was about going to war in Iraq, although the resolution in question was titled, “To authorize the use of United States armed forces against Iraq.”

    Mrs. Clinton insisted that the vote was, in essence, about getting U.N. weapons inspectors readmitted to Iraq. She said she never expected Mr. Bush to go to war before the inspections were complete.

    “I did vote to give the president authority based on what the president said he was going to use the authority for,” the senator said.“I thought we did need to get inspectors back into Iraq.… I don’t regret my vote. I regret the way he used the authority.”

    Mrs. Clinton said she does not agree that the Bush administration should have authority to keep American troops in Iraq indefinitely. However, she said she also disagrees those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal.

    “I believe it’s a much more complicated calculation,” she said. “We cannot root for failure. We cannot take actions now that would further undermine whatever chance for stability the new Iraqi government might have,” Mrs. Clinton said.

    Organizers said nearly 1,800 tickets were sold for the public colloquy with Mrs. Clinton.The actual attendance appearance to be somewhat lower, perhaps because the event was rescheduled twice due to conflicts with Senate schedules. The interview was part of a three-dayWest Coast swing that included a fund-raiser in Seattle for Senator Cantwell, a Democrat of Washington, and a $100,000 fund-raiser in Portland, Ore., for Mrs. Clinton’s re-election bid in New York. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, declined to say if Mrs. Clinton also raised funds during her stay in San Francisco, a Democratic stronghold.

    Ms. Pauley never asked Mrs. Clinton directly whether she is considering running for the presidency in 2008. However, the pioneering television host noted that in an interview with CBS on Friday, Mr. Bush was asked about the widely held view that Mrs. Clinton is maneuvering to launch a presidential bid.

    “She’s formidable,”Mr.Bush replied. Musing about the possibility of Mrs. Clinton’s election, the president said,

    “Yeah. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.”

    During the exchange Saturday, Mrs. Clinton did say she was heartened by polls showing that most American would consider voting for a female candidate for president. “People are saying,‘Well,at least we’re ready,’”the senator said. She also said she has detected “a certain impatience” to see a female president in America following the election of women to similar roles in other countries.

    Minutes after Mrs. Clinton took to the stage, several protesters from a women’s anti-war group, Code Pink, began shouting from seats in the balcony. The senator continued speaking as the demonstrators called out,“Hillary, stop supporting the war.” There were two similar interruptions later in the program. One protester dropped a pink handkerchief onto spectators a level below. Police led at least three women out of the hall in plastic handcuffs.

    Mrs. Clinton’s comments got a warm reception from most in the audience, though some were peeved that she showed up more than half an hour late for the event.

    At one point, Ms. Pauley, noting Mrs. Clinton’s strong approval ratings from voters in upstate New York, said, “It makes me wonder if you’re a liberal.”

    “Well, you’re not the only one,” Mrs. Clinton shot back to great laughter from the crowd.

    Before Mrs. Clinton arrived, about two dozen protesters gathered outside the hall where she was to speak. One man, clad in an orange jumpsuit similar to those worn by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, was chained to several other demonstrators who led him back and forth on the sidewalk.

    “We believe Hillary is not listening, 62% of women are against the war and Hillary Clinton is for the war,” a member of Code Pink,Vicky Leidner, 55, of San Francisco, said.

    SPEAKING OUT Senator Clinton speaks at a re-election fund-raiser as Oregon’s governor, Ted Kulongoski, looks on in Portland, Ore., Friday. GREG WAHL-STEPHENS/AP
    http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/g...html&Path=NYS/2006/01/30&ID=Ar00103&Mode=HTML
    :cow: :cow: :cow:
     
  2. GotZoom
    Offline

    GotZoom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,719
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cordova, TN
    Ratings:
    +366
    It's all because Bush is a Republican and Republicans dislike African-Americans.
     
  3. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    When all else fails they run to play race agianst race. But I really think if the dems win a majority in 2006 they will attempt to impeach Bush.
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    and it's time to start flinging some shit up against the wall to see what sticks.
    It's not surprising to see the usual attempt to drum up some emotional hysteria so the Dems can plant something for the moonbats to echo.
     
  5. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    very true!!
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    So where are the disasters for NY, CA, IL, etc? What's taking so long?
     

Share This Page