Re: Democrats on a roll...

gringo wrote:


Dennis (Icarus) wrote:

"gringo" <gringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:J2nIg.20030$e9.13180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Dennis (Icarus) wrote:

You may want to check his record of genocide.
Ask the Kurds. Or the swamp Arabs.
drained wetlands - damaged the environment!
Surely thats sufficient to get a reaction?



no denying he was a bloody ***--as are most dictators. But he was OUR
bloody *** when it suited his purpose. Something to consider: the
reason they were such a pushover for American forces, may be that due to
their heavy losses fighting what was essentially our fight against Iran
(estimated somewhere to have been over one million Iraqis), they just had
no taste for war. Knowing firsthand how futile and bloody it can become,
many a brave aggressive soldier has returned from the battlefield

reluctant

to become involved in any kind of violence. That's the reason so many

vets

oppose Bush's wars in the middle east.


Didn't seem to bother 'em when they invaded Kuwait. And weren't the
progressive types saying how it was going to be a bloodbath. Its far more
likely, based of course on what the Iraqi soliders have said, that they just
didnt care to fight for Saddam. There were units that would do so, but for
the most part, they saw the writing ont he wall, and just left figuring that
this time, the Americans would finish the job.


few people opposed the invasion of Kuwait to kick Hussein out (even though Bush essentially gave the dictator permission to take over Kuwait). Wise people everywhere *including George The Father* realized what a losing proposition an occupation of Iraq would be.


Quite a few of the Iraq war vets are going back, willingly. The army's been
meetimng its re-enlistment goals - particularly in combat units.


They are receiving huge bonuses; my daughter's re-enlistment bonus would have been $45,000, check paid at time of signing.

Un-Volunteering: Troops Improvise to Find Way Out
By Monica Davey
The New York Times

Friday 18 March 2005

The night before his Army unit was to meet to fly to Iraq, Pvt. Brandon Hughey, 19, simply left. He drove all night from Texas to Indiana, and on from there, with help from a Vietnam veteran he had met on the Internet, to disappear in Canada.
Should be shot on site - as a traitor


In Georgia, Sgt. Kevin Benderman, 40, whose family ties to military service stretch back to the American Revolution, filed for conscientious-objector status and learned that he will face a court-martial in May for failing to report to his unit when it left for a second stint in Iraq.

Should be shot as a traitor - why would he join the all volunteer military?

One by one, a trickle of soldiers and marines - some just back from duty in Iraq, others facing a trip there soon - are seeking ways out.

and all should be shot on site

Soldiers, their advocates and lawyers who specialize in military law say they have watched a few service members try ever more unlikely and desperate routes: taking drugs in the hope that they will be kept home after positive urine tests, for example; or seeking psychological or medical reasons to be declared nondeployable, including last-minute pregnancies. Specialist Marquise J. Roberts is accused of asking a relative in Philadelphia to shoot him in the leg so he would not have to return to war.
tell him to shoot him in the head


A bullet to the leg, Specialist Roberts, of Hinesville, Ga., told the police, seemed his best chance. "I was scared," he said, according to a police report on the December shooting. "I didn't want to go back to Iraq and leave my family. I felt that my chain of command didn't care about the safety of the troops. I just know that I wasn't going to make it back."


he was scared???? why did he volunteer for the military?



Department of Defense officials say they have seen no increase in those counted as deserters since the war in Iraq began. Since October 2002, about 6,000 soldiers have abandoned their posts for at least 30 days and been counted as deserters. (A soldier who eventually returns to his unit is still counted as a deserter for the year.) The Marine Corps, which takes a snapshot of how many marines are missing at a given point in time, reported about 1,300 deserters in December, some of whom disappeared last year and others years earlier. The figures, Pentagon officials said, suggest that the deserter ranks have actually shrunk since the years just before Sept. 11, 2001. Of course, many things have changed since then, including the seriousness of deserting during a time of war.

Many of the tactics also defy simple categories like official desertion.

"There are a lot of people, many more than normal, who are trying to get out now," said Sgt. First Class Tom Ogden, just before he left for a second trip to Iraq with his Army aviation unit from Fort Carson, Colo. He said he had seen fellow soldiers in recent months who seemed intent on failing drug tests because they believed they would be held back if only their tests "came back hot," while others claimed bad backs and necks, with the same hope.

They are traitors, they volunteered, then asked to do their job they ran. They should be shot on site.


"I'll tell you what," Sergeant Ogden said, "they're coming up with what they consider some creative ways to do it now."

In the fall of 2003, Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia of Miami, in the Florida National Guard, was among the first to announce he was refusing to return to Iraq and filing for conscientious-objector status. A year ago, Pfc. Jeremy Hinzman, a South Dakotan, vanished from his post only to reappear in Canada, his family in tow.

He volunteered - he is a traitor - shoot him on site



Word of such cases spread among soldiers. Some reacted with disgust, accusing their colleagues of cowardice: how could they let down other soldiers in a time of war, when, unlike the draftees of the Vietnam War, they had all volunteered? Others, though, say the cases made them think more about their ambivalence.

"What I've seen is that soldiers are more afraid to make a stand for themselves than they are to go into combat," said Sergeant Mejia, who was released in February after nearly nine months of confinement at Fort Sill, Okla., for desertion. "Until I took a stand, I was really going against my own conscience. I was so afraid to be called a coward."

In the months since his case, more organized efforts have arisen.

A group of former soldiers who succeeded in achieving conscientious-objector status has created a Web site, www.peace-out.com, showing people how to apply. The site reported 3,000 hits the first day.
I wonder how many were soldiers


In Canada, residents banded together to help American soldiers who arrive there, supplying money, food and rooms. Michelle Robidoux, a leader of the War Resisters Support Campaign, said members were lobbying Canadian officials to grant the soldiers refugee status.

Thank god for our northerly neighbors - were they the "French Canadians"



These soldiers come from all different towns, all over the country, but their reasons for wanting out echo one another. Some described grisly scenes from their first deployments to Iraq. One soldier said he saw a wounded, weeping Iraqi child whom no one would help; another said he watched as another soldier set fire to wild dogs just to pass time. Others said they had simply realized that they did not believe in war, or at least not in this war.

And all are traitors


"It wasn't what I thought it would be," Private Hughey said. He said he enlisted at 17 from his home in San Angelo, Tex., because a recruiter promised that the military would buy him the education his father could not afford. He said he had tried to push aside little doubts he had, even back in basic training, but realized as his unit prepared to leave Fort Hood, Tex., for Iraq last March that he could not go.


What would a volunteer into the military think it would be???? sit around and play dominoes?? Noone does Dominoes anymore. Our military units fight, they kill, they take prisoners. just as Firemen fight fires.

They sure took the money to volunteer and sign up.

"There are people who would want to hang me for this," he said in a telephone interview from Toronto. "The thing is, yes, I did sign up for this. And, when I did, I had this vision that I'd be a good guy and defend my country. But killing people for something I don't believe in just to fulfill a contract just didn't seem right to me either."

shoot him on site - he is a traitor


At a base in Germany, Specialist Blake Lemoine, 23, who served in Iraq last year, sent his chain of command a letter this year, announcing all the reasons he should be allowed to quit: the Army conflicts with his religious beliefs and rituals; he and his wife are not monogamous, counter to military policy; he is bisexual. In February, Army officials brought court-martial charges, accusing him of refusing to perform his assigned duties.

didn't he think about this before he volunteered and took the money. He is a traitor and should be shot on site


Army officials have said the number of people searching for escape routes is relatively small and no different from that of the past.

probably very small - but keep trying to make a point


"There will always be some people who do this sort of thing, but I haven't seen any evidence at all of a trend," said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman. "There are more people that we hear about volunteering to be deployed, who want to go and serve. Remember, these are all volunteers."

Although available Pentagon records date back only a few years, they show a rise in applications for conscientious-objector status. In 2002, 31 soldiers and marines applied, compared with 92 in 2003. As of November, the latest month for which records were available, 75 soldiers and marines had applied in 2004. Of the 75 applications, 34 were approved, 41 turned down.

That path, though, can be slow and complex. Military rules require that a service member show that he has developed a true moral, ethical or religious opposition to all war.

Sergeant Benderman applied in December, days before his unit shipped to Iraq without him.

His conscientious-objector application is being processed, but so far, one military official has recommended against its approval, he said. He faces a general court-martial on charges of desertion and missing his unit's deployment. He could face penalties as severe as seven years in confinement, forfeiture of all pay, reduction in rank and a dishonorable discharge.

"Everybody wants to put you in a little box, wants you to have some grand epiphany and bolts in the sky when it comes to this," Sergeant Benderman said recently. "But it's not that way. Here's what happened: I spent six months over there, and I came back and thought about it. What I know is that it's inhumane. It's turning 18-year-old men and women into soulless people."

Among some desperate soldiers, the process of applying for conscientious objector may seem as remote a possibility as leaving for Canada.

In his interview with the police, Specialist Roberts said that his wife, worried about his imminent return to Iraq, had suggested a shooting: "She said, 'Why don't you do what everyone else is doing?' She meant for me to try to find some way out of it."

A hearing is scheduled for next week. The rest of his unit, meanwhile, is in Iraq.




I though you were leaving





.............


Army Trying to Keep Troops From Leaving
The Associated Press

Monday 05 January 2003

WASHINGTON - About 7,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan who were planning to retire or otherwise leave the service in the next few months are getting new marching orders: Stay put.

The Army is expanding what it calls a ``stop loss'' order to keep soldiers in uniform -- even those who have met their contractual service obligation or are scheduled to retire -- during a rotation of tens of thousands of troops that begins this month and is scheduled to finish in May.

Col. Elton Manske, chief of the Army's enlisted division, said Monday that the move was deemed necessary to maintain the cohesion and combat effectiveness of units now operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He did not explain why the Army cannot manage the readiness of its forces in Iraq and Afghanistan without forcing soldiers to stay in the service beyond their scheduled retirement or enlistment period. Critics say it is because the Army has too few soldiers and too many overseas commitments.

The order affects all Army units scheduled to return from Iraq, Kuwait or Afghanistan in coming months. Soldiers will be required to remain with their unit until it gets to its home base, and for a maximum of 90 days afterward, he said. The order mirrors one already in place for the units that are scheduled to deploy to those three countries to replace the units there now.

Manske said the Army also is using a more common management tool to keep soldiers in uniform: it is offering bonuses of up to $10,000 for soldiers in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan who are willing to re-enlist for three years or more, regardless of their military specialty.

The bonus program took effect on Jan. 1-2. The expanded ``stop loss'' order has yet to be implemented. Manske said it is expected to take effects ``within days,'' but he had no specific date.

The use of ``stop loss'' reflects the difficulty the Army is having in keeping enough soldiers available to meet the Army's worldwide commitments.

Prior to the war in Afghanistan, ``stop loss'' authority had rarely been used; it is seen by many as being in conflict with the principle of an all-volunteer military in which enlisted personnel sign contracts for a specific period of service. It was first used in the 1991 Gulf War.

Temporarily prohibiting soldiers from retiring or quitting when their enlistment is up can be a hardship for those who had made plans to leave the service, but it does not extend their unit's stay in Iraq.

The order also prevents soldiers from moving to new assignments during the restricted period.

Among the first combat units to return from Iraq, beginning this month, will be the 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, Ky.

The other major units returning this year are the 1st Armored Division, the 4th Infantry Division, the 173rd Airborne Brigade, the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment, the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and elements of the 82nd Airborne Division.

The expanded restriction also applies to the U.S. soldiers who are due to be replaced in Afghanistan this year.


.......


yeah, right: it really seems that "many" are volunteering to return to Iraq.



he attacked bin Laden in Afghanistan. Rather hypocritical of them to

whine

that he didn't act.

Clinton: Fire a few missles in response to attacks on US
Bush: Invade two countries, subduing Afghanistan rather nicely. And,

were it

not for the Sunni triangle....
Of course, the Sunni minority wants power back.

Fine job he has done, too. He won the war against the Taliban and

Saddam

using battle plans written during Clinton's control of the military and

the

military Clinton built and equipped. But Bush has lost the Occupation

of

both nations. Afghanistan is on the verge of collapse; Iraq is

enjoying a

civil war. This is the very reason that Bush Senior wisely left

Hussein

in

power--he knew that without a strong brutal dictator to control the
religious fanatics, the country would fall apart into bloody theocratic

war.

So Clinton was responsible for the lack of armored vehicles? :-)
The military he built & equipped, after all.


No, his term ended before he finished the job. And Rumsfeld refused to
spend the money. Plenty of American factories were begging for the
contracts to produce Humvee and personal body armor. For my daughter's
first tour in the Middle East, I personally bought her a vest. She was
Force Protection Navy, however, and never saw combat.


He was president from 1993-2001.
All the personal body armor that he set up.....what...disappeared?
You said "the military Clinton built and equipped".
If you want to give Clinto credit, then he'll also get the blame.



he did not place 145,000 soldiers in danger. the few he sent into harm's way were adequately equipped.



<snip>

Personally I credit the investigators - the President is just a bit too

busy

to run an investigation like that.

of course. He applied all the resources legally available to him, and got
the job done. Bush/Rumsfeld withdrew our troops and allowed Osama to

slink

out of the caves and into Pakistan, where we couldn't touch him. A favor
to his Saudi business partners?


No, he didnt get the job done, since Osama was free to leave Sudan and go to
Afghanistan. :-)



Keep stirring the settling mud, it won't change the facts.


Bin Laden: a 'Master Impresario'
Saudi Fugitive Spouts Militant Rhetoric, but Ties to Violence Remain Mysterious

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 13, 2001; Page A28

For the past few months, a videotape has been circulating in the Middle East showing Osama bin Laden appealing to his followers to join a "holy war" against the United States. Wearing white robes and a Yemeni dagger, the fugitive Saudi millionaire goes on to thank Allah for the "destruction" of a U.S. warship in Aden, Yemen.

The 100-minute videotape, a mixture of militant rhetoric and rambling theology, offers insight into the propaganda methods of a man whom U.S. officials have depicted as the leading suspect in Tuesday's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Although he openly rejoices in last October's bombing of the USS Cole, and calls for more "blood and destruction" in the months ahead, he *stops short of claiming responsibility* for the incident. [no direct evidence]

___ Bin Laden and His Network ___
• The goals, strength, funding and operations of accused Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden


Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, bin Laden has used his public statements to create an image as the leader of a religious struggle on behalf of the disgruntled and the dispossessed of the Islamic world. At the same time, he has maintained an air of mystery about his involvement in specific terrorist acts and his degree of control over a worldwide network of supporters known in Arabic as al Qaeda ("The Base").

"He is a master impresario and manipulator of the media," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert for the Rand Corp., a research center in the Washington area. "There has been a consistent pattern of him making statements and issuing threats ahead of time, but not taking responsibility afterward. He alternates between the psychological campaign and acts of death and carnage."

Bin Laden's statements in the period leading up to Tuesday's multiple terrorist attacks seem to fit into a well-established routine. Interviewed last month in the mountains of southern Afghanistan by a London-based Arab journalist, he boasted -- without going into detail -- that he and his followers were planning "a very big one." *Yesterday, however, al Qaeda spokesmen denied involvement in strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, while expressing support for the attacks.*

One reason for bin Laden's reticence, according to U.S. officials, may be a deal struck with the Islamic fundamentalist rulers of Afghanistan, where he has been based since 1996. Known as the Taliban, the Afghan fundamentalists have responded to repeated U.S. demands for bin Laden's extradition by depicting him as a Saudi political fugitive. Taliban leaders deny knowledge of any evidence that he has been involved in terrorism.

By seeking sanctuary in Afghanistan, bin Laden has returned to the source of his political inspiration. Bin Laden, the son of a wealthy Saudi construction magnate, was born in 1957 and is the 17th of 52 children. Bin Laden was an early supporter of the mujaheddin resistance movement formed to oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. "I was enraged," he has said. "I went there at once."

At first, his role was limited to fundraising activities in Pakistan. Toward the end of the war, he moved to Afghanistan and took part in several battles against the Soviet army.

At the time, the Afghan mujaheddin were receiving financial and logistical support from the United States and other Western governments. Bin Laden, however, saw little difference between the United States and the Soviet Union. In his view, both superpowers were equally culpable: For geopolitical reasons, the United States might be temporarily supporting "freedom movements" in Afghanistan, but it was on the side of the "oppressive forces" back home in Saudi Arabia.

According to former associates of bin Laden, his anger at the United States grew after the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and the decision to station thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia. In a lengthy statement in 1996 outlining his philosophy, bin Laden denounced the "occupation" of the Arab Holy Land by "American crusader forces," which he described as "the latest and greatest aggression" against the Islamic world since the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632.

"He sees himself as continuing the jihad, first against the Soviets and then against the Americans," said David Schenker, a terrorism expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"He looks at the world in very stark, black-and-white terms," said Joshua Teitelbaum, a research fellow at Tel Aviv University who has studied bin Laden's early career. "For him, the U.S. represents the forces of evil that are bringing corruption and domination into the Islamic world, and particularly to Saudi Arabia, the holiest land in the world for Muslims."

Kept under house arrest in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, because of his opposition to the Saudi alliance with the United States, bin Laden fled the country in April 1991, moving first to Afghanistan and then to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum. A fundamentalist Islamic government had just come to power in Sudan and was permitting Muslims to enter the country without visas, opening the doors for hundreds of suspected terrorists and former mujaheddin.

According to a former associate, Jamal Fadl, now in a witness protection program in the United States, bin Laden used his stay in Sudan both to set up legitimate businesses and to prepare for a terrorist war against the United States.

"In some ways, his organization resembles a government," said Jessica Stern, a terrorism expert at Harvard University who worked in the Clinton White House. "As in the government, people were often told only what they needed to know. There was almost a classification system for information."

According to U.S. officials, bin Laden financed several terrorist training camps in northern Sudan and Yemen, and appeared interested at one time in acquiring nuclear and chemical components. U.S. investigators also have established financial and logistical links between bin Laden and Ramzi Yousef, organizer of the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

*Sudan expelled bin Laden and most of his supporters in 1996 after the United States mounted political and diplomatic pressure*. He moved back to Afghanistan and set up training camps in the mountains. According to Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian thought to have been trained by bin Laden who was arrested on the Canadian border in December 1999, the camps offered training in areas such as "rocket-launching, urban warfare, assassination and sabotage."

Ressam, who told a New York court in July that he planned to disrupt millennium celebrations by bombing Los Angeles International Airport, said that later classes focused on how "to blow up the infrastructure of a country." But he also suggested that many of the operations were semi-autonomous. He said his cell was given leeway to choose its own targets, and to raise funds by robbing banks in Canada.

*Last year, a U.S. court found evidence of links between bin Laden and the organizers of the August 1998 bomb attacks against U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The United States responded to the attacks by bombing suspected training camps in Afghanistan and a factory in Sudan linked by the CIA to the production of chemical agents.*
[the evidence, you see, was eventually found, so Clinton acted].

Soon after the attacks, U.S. officials warned Afghan authorities that they risked further retaliation if they continued to give safe haven to bin Laden, who had been charged by a New York grand jury with "conspiracy to attack the defense utilities of the United States." But Taliban officials made clear that they were unwilling to surrender their guest.

According to U.S. terrorism experts, the Taliban appears to have reached an arrangement with bin Laden. In return for providing him sanctuary, they have received financial and military support for their efforts to gain control over the entire country. Some experts believe that bin Laden's followers may have played a role in the reported assassination earlier this week of Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of the last remaining resistance to the Taliban.

Researcher Robert Thomason contributed to this report.


In 1996, Osama bin Laden was asked to leave Sudan after the United States put the regime under extreme pressure to expel him, citing possible connections to the 1994 attempted assassination of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak while his motorcade was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A controversy exists regarding whether Sudan offered to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. prior to the expulsion. There are conflicting reports on whether the Sudanese government ever indeed made such an offer, but they were prepared to turn him over to Saudi Arabia who declined to take him.

Osama bin Laden finally left Sudan in a well planned and executed operation accompanied by some 200 of his supporters and their families traveling directly to Jalalabad, Afghanistan by air in late 1996.




<snip>

End result - Osama gets away.

Bush ordered American troops to pull out of the Afghan mountains and

turn

the capture over to Afghans. End result-- Osama got away.

Course, the troops were there.

Not there at the caves, where Osama was hiding in luxury.


Oh, so now its luxury? Should be easy to find then.



yes, his private cave was rather luxurious; it was discovered long after osama had disappeared.



<snip>

End result - Osama gets away.

Bush ordered American troops to pull out of the Afghan mountains and

turn

the capture over to Afghans. End result-- Osama got away. I add that

at

that time there was ample reason to go after him: he had admitted his

guilt

on videotape. Before 9/11, there was no proof linking him to anything
other than a smart mouth.

So then why in the world was the Clinton administration lobnbing missles

at

him?
No proof & all that, right?

I do believe all that was explained in the material I posted. which has
been snipped.


So the standard of proof to lob missles is different from what would be
needed to make an arrest?
That's the point I'm making, Gringo.



Read the above. That's the point I am making. He lobbed the shells AFTER evidence was found of Osama's complicity in acts of terror.





<snip>

End result - Osama gets away.

Bush ordered American troops to pull out of the Afghan mountains and

turn

the capture over to Afghans. End result-- Osama got away.

And that's all you can point to :-)


That ought to be enough. Osama had just admitted--from those very
caves--that he was guilty. bush ordered the troops away, and allowed him
to escape.


And Clinton turned down offers from Sudan to hand bin Laden over, which
would have prevented 9/11.
:-)


prove it.



Before Bush began to rip our Constitution to shreds, an American

president

was prohibited by law from engaging in illegal actions.

Still is.
<snip>

I do recall how folks bemoaned that somethng lik this didnt happen on
Clinton's watch, whioch wouldve given him a chance to show "decisive
leadership"

Then you admit that Bush benefited from 9/11. He benefited; the

republican

donor who owned the downed bldgs benefited; giuliani benefited; the
republican party benfited, and America cried as 3,000 dead Americans

were

memorialized.

Lets see, I state a rather repellent view that folks were complaining

about

how the attack or something similar didn't happen on Clinton's watch so

he

could show decisive leadership, an dyou say I admit that Bush benefited?


You are.


Not quite.

Clinton acted as decisively throughout his administration as the
republicans who controlled his Congress would allow him to.


Oh, so now it was Republicans who prevented Clinto from accepting Sudan's
offer?



first ,prove that such an offer was made, not by some malcontent, but by the Sudanese government. Then produce evidence that Clinton had proof at that time--not a mere suspicion--that osama was a terrorist.

reoublicans were snarling, they even fed their talking heads the claim that Clinton was a warmonger, seeking a war to prove his manhood.


I posted all this material yesterday: didn't you read it?



<snip?

So its ok that they sat unused? Some of the folks who died, may've

lived

if

they'd been on the buses being driven out of the area, or on the

train.

Still nothing to say about Nagin, or Blanco?

Dennis

lots of research you're demanding. I'll just say this. Both La

officials

sent formal requests for Federal assistance even before the storms hit.

So still nothing to say about Nagin or Blanco.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5396118
If Blanco's message to Bush had been an emphatic letter or frantic

telephone

call, and not merely a legal form-if it had actually communicated what
wasn't happening in Louisiana (i.e., evacuation)-various U.S. government
agencies might have mobilized more quickly. Just as New Orleans wasn't
properly communicating with Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge wasn't properly
communicating to Washington, D.C. There was a chain of failures.



All, bull***. I saw her on TV, literally begging for Federal

intervention

as she reiterated to the "Librul" Press that was attacking her that she

had

indeed sent the REQUIRED legal forms.



Blame Blanco


I take it you didn't rerad the link?

Well, contact npr - I'm sure they'd appreciate the corrections.
And the source for your "true chain of events" is......?

<snip>


posted.
and again.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509080022


PLEASE LEAVE A MESSAGE AT THE TONE....Time magazine does a decent job of explaining what went wrong at all levels in the aftermath of Katrina, but the paragraph that really struck me was this one, which describes Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco's attempts to get help from Washington:

The day the storm hit, she asked President Bush for "everything you've got." But almost nothing arrived, and she couldn't wait any longer. So she called the White House and demanded to speak to the President. George Bush could not be located, two Louisiana officials told Time, so she asked for chief of staff Andrew Card, who was also unavailable. Finally, after being passed to another office or two, she left a message with DHS adviser Frances Frago Townsend. She waited hours but had to make another call herself before she finally got Bush on the line. "Help is on the way," he told her.

She had to leave a message?

In a companion article, Mike Allen describes the "bubble" Bush lives in and how it prevents him from hearing bad news — this time to disastrous effect. But he also notes that although the plan to actually deal with Katrina was poor, the plan to save the president's political bacon is just revving up:

By late last week, Administration aides were describing a three-part comeback plan. The first: Spend freely, and worry about the tab and the consequences later....The second tactic could be summed up as, Don't look back. The White House has sent delegates to meetings in Washington of outside Republican groups who have plans to blame the Democrats and state and local officials.

....The third move:...Advisers are proceeding with plans to gin up base-conservative voters...focused around tax reform....no plans to delay tax cuts...veto anticipated congressional approval of increased federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research.

......................

this is the most damning: the actual legal request to Bush sent on the 26th.


* Contact:Denise Bottcher or Roderick Hawkins at 225-342-9037


Governor Blanco asks President to Declare an Emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina


BATON ROUGE—Today Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco forwarded a follow-up letter to President Bush requesting that he declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina. The full text of the letter follows:

August 27, 2005


The President
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Through:
Regional Director
FEMA Region VI
800 North Loop 288
Denton, Texas 76209

Dear Mr. President:

Under the provisions of Section 501 (a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), and implemented by 44 CFR § 206.35, I request that you declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period beginning August 26, 2005, and continuing.

Whether prompted by Governor Blanco or not, the President did indeed declare a state of emergency on the 27th, retroactively dated to the 26th.




.

Loading