Zhukov
VIP Member
spillmind said:
What? That I'm right?
Exposing the Myths of Katrina
- Thread starter Adam's Apple
- Start date
What? That I'm right?
spillmind
Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_go_ot/katrina_washington_14
this people, is how you earn respect!
i have to admit, i never thought i'd see him own up to it, and it's a step in the right direction.
this people, is how you earn respect!
i have to admit, i never thought i'd see him own up to it, and it's a step in the right direction.
dmp
Senior Member
spillmind said:
Behold a man with 'Character' and 'Personal Strength'. "you people" on the left aren't used to such behaviour..
I feel bad in a way - The Feds weren't jacked up...it was the Liberals in charge of the state of LA who caused the most problems.
spillmind
Member
-=d=- said:Behold a man with 'Character' and 'Personal Strength'. "you people" on the left aren't used to such behaviour..
I feel bad in a way - The Feds weren't jacked up...it was the Liberals in charge of the state of LA who caused the most problems.
yes, it's the first time i've seen him take some accountability in 5 years. hell must be freezing over. that or his approval rating is the total shits and his bonehead strategists are finally figuring it out.
and dude, he took the blame. get over it.
dmp
Senior Member
spillmind said:
More accurately, because the LEFT 'NEVER' takes responsibility for shit - they only point fingers - seeing a man do the right thing is such a shock.
And remember - he is MUCH smarter than you...he's a much better man, and better american.
Zhukov
VIP Member
"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.
"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said
He's the President, the Chief Executive of the Federal Government and it goes without saying that he is ultimately responsible for failings of the executive branch.
Did he say where the Fed didn't fully do its job right? No.
Did he compare the Fed's failings to the failings of the governments of the state of Lousiana or the city of New Orleans? No.
Does anything he said give even an ounce of credibility to your argument that he deliberately obstructed relief efforts because the people in trouble were black and poor? No.
Are you skipping forward yet again, moving to the next point, without bothering to address the rebuttals to the last? Yes.
"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said
He's the President, the Chief Executive of the Federal Government and it goes without saying that he is ultimately responsible for failings of the executive branch.
Did he say where the Fed didn't fully do its job right? No.
Did he compare the Fed's failings to the failings of the governments of the state of Lousiana or the city of New Orleans? No.
Does anything he said give even an ounce of credibility to your argument that he deliberately obstructed relief efforts because the people in trouble were black and poor? No.
Are you skipping forward yet again, moving to the next point, without bothering to address the rebuttals to the last? Yes.
spillmind
Member
-=d=- said:More accurately, because the LEFT 'NEVER' takes responsibility for shit - they only point fingers - seeing a man do the right thing is such a shock.
And remember - he is MUCH smarter than you...he's a much better man, and better american.
grow up, child.
spillmind
Member
Zhukov said:
rebuttals to things like:
'Trying to score political points against the President by standing athwart this tragedy and pointing a finger is the most disgusting and ignoble thing I have yet seen from you delusional, ignorant, and very very dangerous liberals.'
'I'm not. Your posts irritate me, both because I'm sick of reading your shit, and because I feel compelled to respond to it lest some poor random person accidentally stumble upon it and become infected by it.'
'I'm saying your comparison is completely fucking idiotic.'
what a joke. these aren't points, they are INSULTS 
why reply to everyone defending bush saying he wasn't to blame WHEN HE TOOK THE RESPONSBILITY LIKE A MAN TODAY? you should all take a lesson from him on this.
spillmind
Member
Zhukov said:
w00t you finally acknowledged: 'and it goes without saying that he is ultimately responsible for failings of the executive branch.'
i guess he's admitting the mistake that the fed did it's job correctly? ok, man.
did i EVER say that the goverment of lousiana is completely absolved of responsibility? i want you to quote me on that.
are a majority of the victims black and poor?
and was it handled very well? we all know the answers to those. let's just chalk it up to a baffling coincidence and call it a day, shall we?
Zhukov
VIP Member
We provided ample examples of their neglect. You ignored it all.spillmind said:
spillmind said:
How quickly you forget your own arguments as you skip merrily along when facts hound your footfalls.spillmind said:
dmp
Senior Member
...think of that come-back all by yourself, did ya?spillmind said:
lol
GotZoom
Senior Member
-=d=- said:...think of that come-back all by yourself, did ya?
lol
He's the king of "come-backs"....
Go back to bed loser...
grow up, child
Yep...he has 100's of them.
Zhukov
VIP Member
spillmind said:
You can post my comments and pretend no legitimate points were made that directly conflicted with your contentions, but the fact remains that those points are still there for everyone to see.
You can pretend you don't see them, but we all know you did and that's why no one takes you seriously.
Skip along.
Said1
Gold Member
Jimmyeatworld
Silver Member
A little something interesting for the enviromental crowd. Sorry if it's a re-post, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/berlau200509080824.asp
September 08, 2005, 8:24 a.m.
Greens vs. Levees
Destructive river-management philosophy.
By John Berlau
With all that has happened in the state, its understandable that the Louisiana chapter of the Sierra Club may not have updated its website. But when its members get around to it, they may want to change the wording of one item in particular. The site brags that the group is working to keep the Atchafalaya Basin, which adjoins the Mississippi River not far from New Orleans, wet and wild.
These words may seem especially inappropriate after the breaking of the levee that caused the tragic events in New Orleans last week. But wet and wild has a larger significance in light of those events, and so does the group using the phrase. The national Sierra Club was one of several environmental groups who sued the Army Corps of Engineers to stop a 1996 plan to raise and fortify Mississippi River levees.
The Army Corps was planning to upgrade 303 miles of levees along the river in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. This was needed, a Corps spokesman told the Baton Rouge, La., newspaper The Advocate, because a failure could wreak catastrophic consequences on Louisiana and Mississippi which the states would be decades in overcoming, if they overcame them at all.
But a suit filed by environmental groups at the U.S. District Court in New Orleans claimed the Corps had not looked at the impact on bottomland hardwood wetlands. The lawsuit stated, Bottomland hardwood forests must be protected and restored if the Louisiana black bear is to survive as a species, and if we are to ensure continued support for source population of all birds breeding in the lower Mississippi River valley. In addition to the Sierra Club, other parties to the suit were the group American Rivers, the Mississippi River Basin Alliance, and the Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi Wildlife Federations.
The lawsuit was settled in 1997 with the Corps agreeing to hold off on some work while doing an additional two-year environmental impact study. Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in New Orleans is difficult to ascertain.
But it is just one illustration of a destructive river-management philosophy that took hold in the 90s, influenced the Clinton administration, and had serious policy consequences. Put simply, its impossible to understand the delays in building levees without being aware of the opposition of the environmental groups to dams, levees, and anything that interfered with the natural river flow. The group American Rivers, which leads coalitions of eco-groups on river policy, has for years actually called its campaign, Rivers Unplugged.
Over the past few years, levees came to occupy the same status for environmental groups as roads in forests an artificial barrier to nature. They frequently campaigned against levees being built and shored up on the nations rivers, including on the Mississippi.
In 2000, American Rivers Mississippi River Regional Representative Jeffrey Stein complained in a congressional hearing that the rivers levees that temporarily protect floodplain farms have reduced the frequency, extent and magnitude of high flows, robbing the river of its ability to sustain itself. Similarly, the National Audubon Society, referring specifically to Louisiana, has this statement slamming levees on its website, Levees have cut off freshwater flows, harming fishing and creating salt water intrusion. The left-leaning Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, in describing a grant it gave to Environmental Defense, blasted the numerous levees and canals built on the lower Mississippi River because such structures disrupt the natural flows of the Mississippi Rivers sediments.
Some went beyond opposition to building or repairing levees. At an Army Corps of Engineers meeting concerning the Mississippi River in 2002, Audubon official Dan McGuiness even recommended looking at opportunities to lower or remove levees [emphasis added] from the river.
The groups argued that the natural way would lead to better river management, but it was clear they had other agendas in mind besides flood control. They were concerned because levees were allegedly threatening their beloved exotic animals and plants. In his testimony, American Riverss Stein noted that the Mississippi River was home to double-crested cormorant, rare orchids, and many other species, which he implied were put at risk by man-made levees.
So far the environmental movements role in the events leading to the flooding has been little discussed. One exception is former Rep. Bob Livingston (R., La.), who told Fox News on Saturday that environmentalists were one of the major reasons levee projects were held up.
At this point, there are still questions about the particular levees that broke in New Orleans. Care should be taken about drawing direct conclusions about the causes until there are more facts. But there are some important points that are clear that should put in perspective about levee funding and flood control.
Nearly all flood-control projects even relatively small ones are subject to a variety of assessments for effects on wetlands, endangered species, and other environmental concerns. These reviews can be costly and delay projects by years. In the 90s, for instance, the Clinton administrations Environmental Protection Agency required a comprehensive environmental impact statement just to repair a few Colorado River levees that had been destroyed in the floods of 1993.
The Clinton administration would frequently side with environmentalists on flood-control projects, even against local Democrats. The Army Corps of Engineers under Clinton began implementing a planned spring rise of the Missouri River that would raise water levels on the Missouri River during part of the year. This was supported by eco-groups, who argued that this restored the rivers natural flows and protected a bird called the piping plover. But farm groups and others said that combined with the ice melting from winter, the project could increase the risk of flooding in river communities and affect more than 1 million acres of productive farmland. Nearly all the Republicans and Democrats in Missouris congressional delegation opposed the plan, as did Missouris late Democratic governor, Mel Carnahan. But the Clinton administration refused to budge, and this was a major factor in Bushs carrying of Missouri in 2000.
The Bush administrations flood-control efforts were often relentlessly opposed by environmental groups, and this opposition was frequently echoed by liberal activists and in the press. Bush kept his promise, and his appointees at the Corps of Engineers have stopped the spring rise plan that concerned so many about flooding. Environmentalists launched a barrage of criticism and a series of lawsuits. This was also the case with Bushs moves to stop the Clinton administrations plans to breach the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers in the northwest. Even though the dams greatly help to control flooding in the region, American Rivers blasted the administration for failing to do enough to save the sockeye salmon native to the region.
Ironically, among those criticizing Bush for his actions to prevent flooding of the Missouri River was the ever-present anti-Bush environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He chastised Bush in 2004 for managing the flow of the Missouri River. If, before Katrina, Bush had proceeded full-speed ahead and fortified the levees of the Mississippi for a Category 5 hurricane, Kennedy and others of his ilk would very likely have criticized Bush for trying to manage the natural flow of the Mississippi. And its a good bet that many of the lefty bloggers now critical of Bush for not reinforcing the levees would have cited Bushs levee fortification as another way he was despoiling the natural environment.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/berlau200509080824.asp
September 08, 2005, 8:24 a.m.
Greens vs. Levees
Destructive river-management philosophy.
By John Berlau
With all that has happened in the state, its understandable that the Louisiana chapter of the Sierra Club may not have updated its website. But when its members get around to it, they may want to change the wording of one item in particular. The site brags that the group is working to keep the Atchafalaya Basin, which adjoins the Mississippi River not far from New Orleans, wet and wild.
These words may seem especially inappropriate after the breaking of the levee that caused the tragic events in New Orleans last week. But wet and wild has a larger significance in light of those events, and so does the group using the phrase. The national Sierra Club was one of several environmental groups who sued the Army Corps of Engineers to stop a 1996 plan to raise and fortify Mississippi River levees.
The Army Corps was planning to upgrade 303 miles of levees along the river in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. This was needed, a Corps spokesman told the Baton Rouge, La., newspaper The Advocate, because a failure could wreak catastrophic consequences on Louisiana and Mississippi which the states would be decades in overcoming, if they overcame them at all.
But a suit filed by environmental groups at the U.S. District Court in New Orleans claimed the Corps had not looked at the impact on bottomland hardwood wetlands. The lawsuit stated, Bottomland hardwood forests must be protected and restored if the Louisiana black bear is to survive as a species, and if we are to ensure continued support for source population of all birds breeding in the lower Mississippi River valley. In addition to the Sierra Club, other parties to the suit were the group American Rivers, the Mississippi River Basin Alliance, and the Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi Wildlife Federations.
The lawsuit was settled in 1997 with the Corps agreeing to hold off on some work while doing an additional two-year environmental impact study. Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in New Orleans is difficult to ascertain.
But it is just one illustration of a destructive river-management philosophy that took hold in the 90s, influenced the Clinton administration, and had serious policy consequences. Put simply, its impossible to understand the delays in building levees without being aware of the opposition of the environmental groups to dams, levees, and anything that interfered with the natural river flow. The group American Rivers, which leads coalitions of eco-groups on river policy, has for years actually called its campaign, Rivers Unplugged.
Over the past few years, levees came to occupy the same status for environmental groups as roads in forests an artificial barrier to nature. They frequently campaigned against levees being built and shored up on the nations rivers, including on the Mississippi.
In 2000, American Rivers Mississippi River Regional Representative Jeffrey Stein complained in a congressional hearing that the rivers levees that temporarily protect floodplain farms have reduced the frequency, extent and magnitude of high flows, robbing the river of its ability to sustain itself. Similarly, the National Audubon Society, referring specifically to Louisiana, has this statement slamming levees on its website, Levees have cut off freshwater flows, harming fishing and creating salt water intrusion. The left-leaning Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, in describing a grant it gave to Environmental Defense, blasted the numerous levees and canals built on the lower Mississippi River because such structures disrupt the natural flows of the Mississippi Rivers sediments.
Some went beyond opposition to building or repairing levees. At an Army Corps of Engineers meeting concerning the Mississippi River in 2002, Audubon official Dan McGuiness even recommended looking at opportunities to lower or remove levees [emphasis added] from the river.
The groups argued that the natural way would lead to better river management, but it was clear they had other agendas in mind besides flood control. They were concerned because levees were allegedly threatening their beloved exotic animals and plants. In his testimony, American Riverss Stein noted that the Mississippi River was home to double-crested cormorant, rare orchids, and many other species, which he implied were put at risk by man-made levees.
So far the environmental movements role in the events leading to the flooding has been little discussed. One exception is former Rep. Bob Livingston (R., La.), who told Fox News on Saturday that environmentalists were one of the major reasons levee projects were held up.
At this point, there are still questions about the particular levees that broke in New Orleans. Care should be taken about drawing direct conclusions about the causes until there are more facts. But there are some important points that are clear that should put in perspective about levee funding and flood control.
Nearly all flood-control projects even relatively small ones are subject to a variety of assessments for effects on wetlands, endangered species, and other environmental concerns. These reviews can be costly and delay projects by years. In the 90s, for instance, the Clinton administrations Environmental Protection Agency required a comprehensive environmental impact statement just to repair a few Colorado River levees that had been destroyed in the floods of 1993.
The Clinton administration would frequently side with environmentalists on flood-control projects, even against local Democrats. The Army Corps of Engineers under Clinton began implementing a planned spring rise of the Missouri River that would raise water levels on the Missouri River during part of the year. This was supported by eco-groups, who argued that this restored the rivers natural flows and protected a bird called the piping plover. But farm groups and others said that combined with the ice melting from winter, the project could increase the risk of flooding in river communities and affect more than 1 million acres of productive farmland. Nearly all the Republicans and Democrats in Missouris congressional delegation opposed the plan, as did Missouris late Democratic governor, Mel Carnahan. But the Clinton administration refused to budge, and this was a major factor in Bushs carrying of Missouri in 2000.
The Bush administrations flood-control efforts were often relentlessly opposed by environmental groups, and this opposition was frequently echoed by liberal activists and in the press. Bush kept his promise, and his appointees at the Corps of Engineers have stopped the spring rise plan that concerned so many about flooding. Environmentalists launched a barrage of criticism and a series of lawsuits. This was also the case with Bushs moves to stop the Clinton administrations plans to breach the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers in the northwest. Even though the dams greatly help to control flooding in the region, American Rivers blasted the administration for failing to do enough to save the sockeye salmon native to the region.
Ironically, among those criticizing Bush for his actions to prevent flooding of the Missouri River was the ever-present anti-Bush environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He chastised Bush in 2004 for managing the flow of the Missouri River. If, before Katrina, Bush had proceeded full-speed ahead and fortified the levees of the Mississippi for a Category 5 hurricane, Kennedy and others of his ilk would very likely have criticized Bush for trying to manage the natural flow of the Mississippi. And its a good bet that many of the lefty bloggers now critical of Bush for not reinforcing the levees would have cited Bushs levee fortification as another way he was despoiling the natural environment.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
illegal alien fined $1.82 million, $500 for every day in the US after removal order
- Started by scruffy
- Replies: 0
-
-
Male football player attacks girl in classroom......the school punishes both with a 3 day suspension.
- Started by Persuader
- Replies: 1
-
-
