Re: New Orleans, The part that pisses me off about it...

In article <vtiui1l497ltj9kcitb8p2ei7eean27v1c@xxxxxxx>, Jim Blansett says...
>
>On 19 Sep 2005 16:06:32 -0700, Phil Earnhardt <pae@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>In article <6sydnWxIcNN9p7LeRVn-3A@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Maher says...
>>>
>>>>>That is amazing to me. We watched this administration claim that 911
>>>>>happened because we were "vulnerable" and that they had to make drastic
>>>>>changes to "protect the Homeland" but somehow they were unable to do
>>>>>anything to prepare for a storm that had already passed over US territory
>>>>>doing lots of damage and took three days to get to the Gulf Coast.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Nobody could have anticipated the breach of the levies." What a crock of
>>>>>***.
>>>>
>>>>What a crock, indeed. Who exactly are you quoting here?
>>>>
>>>>Where is a reference to your alleged quotation? I can find no
>>>>reference. If you have "evidence" that such a statement was ever made,
>>>>please provide it.
>>>>
>>>>>Bush supporters, have you seen enough, yet?
>>>>
>>>>I've seen far too many of your unsubstantiated statements. Just like
>>>>we've seen way too goofy statements from Cindy Sheehan where she calls
>>>>for us to "'[...] pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans." That,
>>>>by the way, is an example of real quotation:
>>>>http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=503
>>>>
>>>>> Feel safe and secure?
>>>>
>>>>No. I'm have no idea what can protect us from your mis-quotings and
>>>>mis-attributions.
>>>>
>>>>I have absolutely no idea how to protect our children from people who
>>>>make such outlandish statements -- and fail to be accountable when
>>>>their statements are just plain wrong. Doing in this name of "waging
>>>>peace" gives you no mandate to just make up statements out of thin
>>>>air.
>>>>
>>>>>Wage Peace
>>>>
>>>>Wage disinformation. Make outlandish statements. Fail to account for
>>>>your mis-quotations. Hardly what anyone would call waging peace.
>>>>
>>>>Now: would you like to explain your "quotation"?
>>>>
>>>>--phil
>>>>
>>>
>>>He quoted President Bush on Good Morning America (9/1/05). Exact quote was "I
>>>don?t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"
>>
>>Bush's point was that nobody thought that the levees would be breached *after
>>the hurricane had
>>passed*. You can see a larger segment of the dialog in a blog at
>>http://www.henrylewis.org/blog/
>
>"What a crock of s##t."
>
>Go to the link I provided. Here the quote for yourself. Then, see if
>you still want to spin this the way you are attempting to do.
>http://tinyurl.com/7w3tv

Yes, the statement makes sense that way.

Nobody thought that the levees would break *after* the hurricane departed. I
didn't. Did you, Jim?

And: What I really wonder is why people have their fixation on this. Clearly,
New Orleans failed categorically to exectute on their own evacuation plan. That
plan spelled out how to move people who could not move themselves; very little
to none of that plan was executed. And, now, the city of NO has removed the plan
from their own website.

Why doesn't "Wage Peace" ever talk about this? To me, that seems a bit more
important than trying to put a negative spin on a statement the President made.


>>>Do you want to change your response at all?
>>
>>The more interesting qutestion: does looking at Bush's quote in contxt change
>>your attitude at all?
>>
>
>Looking at in context - in the midst of a Diane Sawyer interview - he
>said anticipate, not only in relation to the levee breach, but in
>relation to the impending storm.

It looks like you would like to spin it your own way.

Jim: what was your reaction to NO's failure in the last 10 years to persue the
studies that were funded by congress on whether or not their evac plan would
work? They ended up using the money to fund a fancy report on thier highway
system -- with barely a mention whatsoever of their evac plan.

You did follow those investigations in the WSJ (or the paper of your own
choice), right?

Again, I'm boggled why people are fixated on spinning this one quotation -- and
why media like the BBC fails to include proper context in their quote. I'm far
more interested in looking at *actions* that were taken.

I'm sorry George W. Bush didn't speak clearly enough for you. However, it is
perfectly clear what the message was. Thanks to the rabid left for choosing to
misinterpret.

BTW: do you also support Cindy Sheehan's request to end the military occupation
of New Orleans? Or do you think that's just plain goofy?

--phil

.

Loading