Re: So You Really Believe Bush Is Competent Huh?

In article
<DoNotSpamthegoat4-24DBA1.23421007092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"B.B." <DoNotSpamthegoat4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <iambobb-D26937.10055707092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Bob B." <iambobb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >This is just silly. The levees in NO have been inadequate for 50+ years.
> >Why does Bush get the blame? Why not get mad at Clinton, or Kennedy?
> >They didn't fix the levees either.
>
> So? I was quibbling with the Mayor's assertion that Bush didn't
> "cut" the funding. It had nothing to do with whether or not Bush is
> receiving blame for the disaster. If you want to argue blame, argue
> with someone's who's actually talking about it.

Here is what I responded to, which for some reason you cut:

> As a direct result of decisions made by Bush and of policies
> supported by Bush, the levee projects in NO did not receive enough
> money. If you want to split hairs and call it something other than a
> "cut," have at it. If you want to pretend that the asshats in charge of
> the government aren't somehow responsible for what happens within our
> borders, have at it. Not enough people are buying that line of bull***
> these days for it to amount to anything anymore.
> Besides, if the Democrats had really done such a terrible job for
> such a long time, and this disaster was predicted so accurately, why
> didn't Bush, somewhere in his prior five years, do anything? Would it
> have eaten into too much of his vacation time?

Seems clear you are blaming Bush, since the levees have been underfunded
for so many years, but he is the only one you find fault with. The funny
thing is, the "cut" in funding most likely made no difference:

http://factcheck.org/article344.html

Bob B.
.