|
Katrina
Sept 6, 2005 19:58:18 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 6, 2005 19:58:18 GMT -5
So the hurricane occurred in an area surrounded by Red states! Michigan is listed as offering to house 100-10,000 people; Arizona, 1,800; West Virginia, 500; Utah, 450; Ohio, 120; Colorado, 1,000; Pennsylvania, 900-1,200; Minnesota, 3,000; South Carolina, 18,000. And, New York, 0; New Jersey, 0; Connecticut, 0; California, 0. You may excuse it as Katrina occurred in Red state country but Michigan, Ohio, Utah, etc. are not exactly the deep South. No one seems to have any trouble blasting Bush for his response, but offer nothing but excuses about the lack of response to housing those who had to leave their homes. Having said that, I also believe the President did not respond to the crisis of Katrina and his decision not to drop everything to address the issue immediately was his worst performance in office. The same could be said about the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana. That's exactly my point - when Andrew hit Florida no one was blasting Washington state for not sending aid. I completely agree with you Ed that this is probably Bush's worst political mistake. For those of you who are blaming the local and state officials I would just remind you that Bush declared the area a FEDERAL disaster area BEFORE the storm hit meaning that all elements of the disaster relief were to be coordinated at the Federal level - the responsibility was his and he flubbed it pretty bad. In addition it was a horrible PR move to fly over a large number of poor refugees in his Billion dollar jet. A technical question: CNN is saying that the water in NO is infected with E Coli - does this mean that it can't be pumped into the Lake or does it need to be treated first?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Katrina
Sept 6, 2005 20:03:46 GMT -5
Post by Cambridge on Sept 6, 2005 20:03:46 GMT -5
So the hurricane occurred in an area surrounded by Red states! Michigan is listed as offering to house 100-10,000 people; Arizona, 1,800; West Virginia, 500; Utah, 450; Ohio, 120; Colorado, 1,000; Pennsylvania, 900-1,200; Minnesota, 3,000; South Carolina, 18,000. And, New York, 0; New Jersey, 0; Connecticut, 0; California, 0. You may excuse it as Katrina occurred in Red state country but Michigan, Ohio, Utah, etc. are not exactly the deep South. No one seems to have any trouble blasting Bush for his response, but offer nothing but excuses about the lack of response to housing those who had to leave their homes. Having said that, I also believe the President did not respond to the crisis of Katrina and his decision not to drop everything to address the issue immediately was his worst performance in office. The same could be said about the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana. So you are blaming it on the federal voting records of the states...not on the state government executive branches. That makes total sense. California has a red governor Connecticut has a red governor New York has a red governor EDIT looks like Jersey beat me to this point...oh well.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Katrina
Sept 6, 2005 21:55:30 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 6, 2005 21:55:30 GMT -5
However you view the Bush-Katrina debacle, the following article in the W. Post will be of interest. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601687.htmlExcerpt: "A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last Friday illustrates the point vividly. Just 17 percent of Democrats said they approved of the way Bush was handling the Katrina crisis while 74 percent of Republicans said they approved. About two in three Republicans rated the federal government's response as good or excellent, while two in three Democrats rated it not so good or poor." 67% of Republicans say the Federal Govt. responded well and 74% approved of the job Bush did. That is astonishing. I must admit, I do not understand how the vast majority of Republicans can honestly think that was a job well done. Is there ANY circumstance when they might see a job -- by a Republican -- poorly done?
|
|
|
Katrina
Sept 6, 2005 21:59:32 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 6, 2005 21:59:32 GMT -5
However you view the Bush-Katrina debacle, the following article in the W. Post will be of interest. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601687.htmlExcerpt: "A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last Friday illustrates the point vividly. Just 17 percent of Democrats said they approved of the way Bush was handling the Katrina crisis while 74 percent of Republicans said they approved. About two in three Republicans rated the federal government's response as good or excellent, while two in three Democrats rated it not so good or poor." 67% of Republicans say the Federal Govt. responded well and 74% approved of the job Bush did. That is astonishing. I must admit, I do not understand how the vast majority of Republicans can honestly think that was a job well done. Is there ANY circumstance when they might see a job -- by a Republican -- poorly done? That is astonishing. I am just wondering what Bush would actually have to do in order to get Republicans to say he's doing a poor job. Perhaps if he had actually gone to the Super Dome and stolen food from children then those numbers would dip bellow 60% ...
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Katrina
Sept 6, 2005 22:19:27 GMT -5
Post by TBird41 on Sept 6, 2005 22:19:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Katrina
Sept 6, 2005 22:51:22 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 6, 2005 22:51:22 GMT -5
Did anyone catch this in a CNN.com report?! The full story (a recap of the day) is at this link: www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/06/katrina.impact/index.htmlIt sounds like the GOP is going to keep the President from ever facing any real official pressure regarding his conduct of the recovery effort.
|
|
|
Katrina
Sept 6, 2005 22:53:31 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 6, 2005 22:53:31 GMT -5
I did some searching tonight and found a roll call on an amendment offered bv Rep. Oberstar (D-MN) that would have kept FEMA separate from DHS (Roll Call 353, 7/26/02). It failed 165-261 on party lines. clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll353.xmlA few selected quotations from the debate: "So if you are a Member of the Fire Caucus and you support this amendment, you are slapping your firefighters across the face like they do not matter." -Majority Leader Dick Armey "Under our amendment, FEMA will remain independent and will not be absorbed into a large bureaucracy, a bureaucracy with no experience addressing these issues. Without the continuation of FEMA's independent coordinating role, we cannot ensure that the government will be able to effectively respond to and recover from disasters." -Rep. Costello "But as we prepare to be better equipped to deal with terrorism, we are also better equipped to deal with tornadoes and hurricanes and floods and the things that FEMA has grown to do very well. If we go to the site of a disaster after it happens, it is pretty hard to tell the difference between whether it is a terrorist event or a flood. FEMA can do both well, as it is strengthened with the resources and with the relationships and as that critical channel of communication in the Department of Homeland Security." -Rep Thornberry (R-TX) "All right. This is July 2002. Let us fast forward to July 2003. The majority has prevailed. FEMA is a box in the mammoth bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security. Flood waters are swirling around your city. You call for help. You get the Department of Homeland Security. The switchboard sends your call to the Under Secretary's office which looks up ``disaster'' on their organizational chart and sends you to the Congressional Liaison Office, which then promises to get a message back to you in 24 hours. Eventually, they find FEMA, by which time you are stranded on the roof of your house waving a white handkerchief and screaming for help. FEMA, the word comes back, sorry, is looking for suspected terrorists some place in the hinterland of America and will get back to you as soon as we can. " -Rep. Oberstar The last one is perhaps the most prescient.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Katrina
Sept 6, 2005 23:37:23 GMT -5
Post by Joe Hoya on Sept 6, 2005 23:37:23 GMT -5
I haven't posted on this topic mostly because the thought of politicizing such a horriffic event is sickening, and anyone who does so should be...well, let's stay above the fray, here.
I've read most of the posts in this thread I think, and it seems the title could be changed to "How President Bush F'd Up This Week - Katrina Edition." The one thing that I don't remember anybody bringing up is that this is a COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED EVENT. I think that no political party or organization could possibly be prepared for something like this. I imagine that many in the area had to feel like this was as close to an apocalypse that they could get and still have a chance to survive.
My point is that George Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore, or anyone else would be accused of mishandling the situation no matter what. Much like 9/11, I think that even if you have a contingency plan for such events, there's nothing quite like the real thing. Sometimes, you have to wait for the storm to run its course (literally) before you can start to pick up the pieces. And when local, state, and federal resources are needed, those things take time to sort out. Unfortunately, time was not something anyone had very much of in this case.
The mayor of New Orleans, while understandably upset, hasn't been much of a help from what I've seen. All I've read is his complaining about the President and the federal government's response. There probably isn't much he can do, but what he's been saying isn't doing any good, either. And that trusted source for political insight, Kanye West, obviously isn't helping anything either. Instead of saying that the President hates minorities, how about you shut up, auction off some autographed bling and donate the proceeds to the relief fund. Saying that one person is doing nothing, and then not doing anything yourself is counterproductive, and kind of hypocritical.
I don't care who declared what area what kind of disaster first. When you are part of the local or state government, you need to be responsible for/accountable to your people, just like federal authorities. Everybody dropped the ball on this one - Democrats, Republicans, federal officials, state officials, city officials, everyone. Nobody had a clue as to how horrible this would be; no matter what anyone says, this is beyond everyone's worst nightmares. There's no reason to point fingers; it does no good now. The one good thing is that now we have a better grasp on the potential catastrophies that can arise, and hopefully if such a tragedy occurs again, we can get everyone out (and get everyone who needs to get in in) with as minimal a loss of life as possible.
Instead of saying that the President hates black people, or that Mayor Nagin is a whiner seeking to duck the blame for failing his own people, let's just call this what it was: an unavoidable natural disaster that destroyed an entire city, just like you see in movies. If we focused all the bile we're aiming at the politicians towards the relief effort, New Orleans would be thriving again in no time.
Sadly, neither of those is going to happen anytime soon.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 1:13:24 GMT -5
Post by Cambridge on Sept 7, 2005 1:13:24 GMT -5
I haven't posted on this topic mostly because the thought of politicizing such a horriffic event is sickening, and anyone who does so should be...well, let's stay above the fray, here. I've read most of the posts in this thread I think, and it seems the title could be changed to "How President Bush F'd Up This Week - Katrina Edition." The one thing that I don't remember anybody bringing up is that this is a COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED EVENT. I think that no political party or organization could possibly be prepared for something like this. I imagine that many in the area had to feel like this was as close to an apocalypse that they could get and still have a chance to survive. My point is that George Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore, or anyone else would be accused of mishandling the situation no matter what. Much like 9/11, I think that even if you have a contingency plan for such events, there's nothing quite like the real thing. Sometimes, you have to wait for the storm to run its course (literally) before you can start to pick up the pieces. And when local, state, and federal resources are needed, those things take time to sort out. Unfortunately, time was not something anyone had very much of in this case. The mayor of New Orleans, while understandably upset, hasn't been much of a help from what I've seen. All I've read is his complaining about the President and the federal government's response. There probably isn't much he can do, but what he's been saying isn't doing any good, either. And that trusted source for political insight, Kanye West, obviously isn't helping anything either. Instead of saying that the President hates minorities, how about you shut up, auction off some autographed bling and donate the proceeds to the relief fund. Saying that one person is doing nothing, and then not doing anything yourself is counterproductive, and kind of hypocritical. I don't care who declared what area what kind of disaster first. When you are part of the local or state government, you need to be responsible for/accountable to your people, just like federal authorities. Everybody dropped the ball on this one - Democrats, Republicans, federal officials, state officials, city officials, everyone. Nobody had a clue as to how horrible this would be; no matter what anyone says, this is beyond everyone's worst nightmares. There's no reason to point fingers; it does no good now. The one good thing is that now we have a better grasp on the potential catastrophies that can arise, and hopefully if such a tragedy occurs again, we can get everyone out (and get everyone who needs to get in in) with as minimal a loss of life as possible. Instead of saying that the President hates black people, or that Mayor Nagin is a whiner seeking to duck the blame for failing his own people, let's just call this what it was: an unavoidable natural disaster that destroyed an entire city, just like you see in movies. If we focused all the bile we're aiming at the politicians towards the relief effort, New Orleans would be thriving again in no time. Sadly, neither of those is going to happen anytime soon. We simply disagree on the fact that it was unavoidable or unforeseeable. That is a huge copout that I'm not willing to accept. I heard the local levee official in near panic on CNN before Katrina even landed, saying that this was EXACTLY what would happen. I heard him tell us what had to happen to prevent it. Now, if that's the first we heard of the threat and possible solution, then I'd agree with you. However I tend to believe that this isn't the first time anyone brought up the issue. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like anyone was paying attention. Looking back, it was exactly what happens in a disaster movie, with the one expert crying out in desperation while the government underestimates the problem. As for your potshots at the mayor, what exactly is he able to do? At least he's still on the ground with his people...not in a plane, on vacation or shopping on 5th avenue.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 1:23:50 GMT -5
Post by Joe Hoya on Sept 7, 2005 1:23:50 GMT -5
They weren't potshots, merely comments that he wasn't doing a service to anyone by saying some of the things he's said.
And if there was that "one expert crying out," they were ignored by ALL of the governments, not just the federal one. If New Orleans or Louisiana simply did not have the capability to do what was needed to prevent this (again, if it was preventable, and that's up for interpretation...I guess it's something none of us will change our minds on), then who shoulders the blame? The city and state for resting on their laurels, knowing full well what would happen? Or do we find a way to blame Congress?
Once the finger-pointing starts, it can be pointed at anyone and everyone. You can't blame one group while absolving another at the same time, regardless of your party affiliation/sympathies.
It sickens me to see that the focus of the coverage of the story is now centered around the blame game instead of on rescue efforts and what lies ahead in the future for the region and its people.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 1:34:39 GMT -5
Post by Cambridge on Sept 7, 2005 1:34:39 GMT -5
They weren't potshots, merely comments that he wasn't doing a service to anyone by saying some of the things he's said. And if there was that "one expert crying out," they were ignored by ALL of the governments, not just the federal one. If New Orleans or Louisiana simply did not have the capability to do what was needed to prevent this (again, if it was preventable, and that's up for interpretation...I guess it's something none of us will change our minds on), then who shoulders the blame? The city and state for resting on their laurels, knowing full well what would happen? Or do we find a way to blame Congress? Once the finger-pointing starts, it can be pointed at anyone and everyone. You can't blame one group while absolving another at the same time, regardless of your party affiliation/sympathies. It sickens me to see that the focus of the coverage of the story is now centered around the blame game instead of on rescue efforts and what lies ahead in the future for the region and its people. Which is worse angry indignation and outrage at the fact our government failed to protect our fellow citizens or grandiose goosestepping and repeated jingoesque references to past tragedies for political gain? When is the time for blame? When do we start to wonder who caused this? I suppose it will be long after the anger of the American public subsides and they are lulled back to sleep by the news cycle. You're right, the best time to question and push the issue is long after Americans stop paying any attention...that way no one will notice when no changes are made whatsoever.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 3:04:07 GMT -5
Post by Joe Hoya on Sept 7, 2005 3:04:07 GMT -5
When do we start to wonder who caused this? It was an act of God, an unavoidable natural disaster that caused this. How the aftermath was handled by all parties is open for debate I suppose, but the point is that no one branch of government "caused" this more than another (although I'm sure some would get behind the idea that George Bush himself engineered a government weather machine...but those people have no place in legitimate adult discussion of anything). When the arguments and debate are over governmental response to something like this, then it's already too late for it to matter. And I think that's what I've been trying to say...what good does it do the people in the Astrodome if the President says "Yup, we goofed?" Or if the governor of Louisiana says "Hey, maybe we should share the blame too?" They're still living in the Astrodome tomorrow, wondering when and if they'll ever return home. Save the partisan bickering for the hearings and elections. Right now, everyone's first, foremost, and only concern should be with the victims.
|
|
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 6:57:46 GMT -5
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Sept 7, 2005 6:57:46 GMT -5
Yes, Joe it was an act of God for which no one can be blamed or held accountable. But leadership, real leadership that supposedly is concerned for the welfare of all its citizenry, would at least plan and allocate resources (under the guise of "Homeland Security" no less!!!!!) to safeguard the most vulnerable of its people to any threat (recall the three most feared scenarios in the FEMA report--terrorism. earthquake in SF and hurricane in NO). And when such a scenario could be foreseen unfolding, it would proactively marshal those resources to protect the homeland as best it could. Instead our president was clearing brush in Crawford and attending political fundraisers in San Diego the day after the hurricane struck (can you imagine the reaction if Clinton had done that?!??!). Some leader.... Friedman says it better in today's NYT--the only serious issue I have with the editorial is that this Administration never seriously fought Osama (it did so in the first three months to take out the Taliban, botched things in Tora Bora, and used 9/11 as an excuse to take out Saddam--the original intended target all along....) www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/opinion/07friedman.html?th&emc=th
|
|
Gold Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,578
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 9:21:02 GMT -5
Post by Gold Hoya on Sept 7, 2005 9:21:02 GMT -5
Friedman says it better in today's NYT--the only serious issue I have with the editorial is that this Administration never seriously fought Osama (it did so in the first three months to take out the Taliban, botched things in Tora Bora, and used 9/11 as an excuse to take out Saddam--the original intended target all along....) www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/opinion/07friedman.html?th&emc=thI don't follow his argument. It appears that he's saying that Bush should use Katrina to impose a big federal tax on gasoline?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 10:12:46 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Sept 7, 2005 10:12:46 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 10:51:51 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 7, 2005 10:51:51 GMT -5
I don't follow his argument. It appears that he's saying that Bush should use Katrina to impose a big federal tax on gasoline? Excerpt from Friedman editorial: "So many of the things the Bush team has ignored or distorted under the guise of fighting Osama were exposed by Katrina: its refusal to impose a gasoline tax after 9/11, which would have begun to shift our economy much sooner to more fuel-efficient cars, helped raise money for a rainy day and eased our dependence on the world's worst regimes for energy..." Friedman was suggesting (as he has many times in the past) that 9/11 presented the administration and the nation with an opportunity to do so many smart things -- with the bi-partisan support of that time -- to make our country safer and more productive, including developing an energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Of course, none of that was done. Today, oil is almost 3 times as expensive as it was then, and the vast majority of the increase is money that goes to the middle east nations that are responsible for the terrorism in the first place. The fact that the USA has no national energy policy is staggering. The Bush team also dropped the ball on Osama, and switched to Iraq (their target since the day they took office) which -- despite administration claims -- had nothing to do with 9/11, or Al Qaeda, or WMD. They never even found the Anthrax mailer They took a budget with a surplus and created the largest deficit in our history -- burdening the economy and future generations They are overseeing the largest trade deficit in our history. The list just goes on and on And yet, Bush defenders will claim that gasoline prices, trade deficits, and all the rest are all beyond the president's control -- just like responding to a major national crisis like Katrina is beyond his control. (If anyone is really interested, the WSJ did a story on the Bush team's dismantling of FEMA, an organization that was working quite well when they came to office). If everything that goes badly is "beyond his control", why do we need this guy at all?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 11:57:40 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 7, 2005 11:57:40 GMT -5
WSJ Story -- I don't have a link, but is was on PAGE 1 of yesterday's (9-6-05) WSJ, entitled:
Power Failure: Behind Poor Katrina Response, A Long Chain of Weak Links; Changing Structure of FEMA, Emphasis on Terrorism Contributed to Problems; A Shortage of Helicopters
Excerpt:
"Some critics have blamed the war in Iraq, and the deployment of thousands of troops, including National Guard members, to that effort. President Bush has vehemently denied that charge. The administration has said problems on the ground were due to an unexpectedly severe storm and unanticipated flooding.
Four weeks before the hurricane, Lt. Colonel Pete Schneider, of the Louisiana National Guard, told WGNO, a local ABC affiliate, that when guard members left for Iraq last October, they took a lot of needed equipment with them, including dozens of high-water vehicles, Humvees, refueling tankers and generators that would be needed in the event a major natural disaster hit the state."
Excerpt:
"The U.S. Army has a large facility, Fort Polk, in Leesville, La., about 270 miles northwest of New Orleans. Officials at Fort Polk, which has nearly 8,000 active-duty soldiers, said their contribution so far has consisted of a few dozen soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division manning purification equipment and driving half-ton trucks filled with supplies and equipment. The first contingent of soldiers didn't receive orders until Saturday afternoon.
A spokeswoman at Fort Polk said she did not know why the base received its deployment orders so late in the game. "You'd have to ask the Pentagon," she said. A senior Army official said the service was reluctant to commit the 4th brigade of the 10th Mountain Division from Fort Polk, because the unit, which numbers several thousand soldiers, is in the midst of preparing for an Afghanistan deployment in January."
Excerpt:
"Just two weeks ago, five state emergency managers brought a tough message to a meeting in Washington with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and his top deputies.
"We told them straight out that they were weakening emergency management with potentially disastrous consequences," says Dave Liebersbach, the director of Alaska's Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. The department's focus on terrorism was undermining its readiness for other catastrophes, said the visiting officials, who included emergency managers from Mississippi and Alabama."
Excerpt:
"What the events of the last week have shown is that over the last few years since 9/11 we have slowly disassembled our national emergency response system and put in its place something far inferior," says Bill Waugh, an academic expert on emergency management at Georgia State University. "We reinvented the wheel when we didn't need to and now have something that doesn't roll very well at all."
While the WSJ and its writers are located in NYC, Republicans -- in the past -- have always been staunch supporters of its content and heavily conservative editorial slant.
|
|
Gold Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,578
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 12:13:36 GMT -5
Post by Gold Hoya on Sept 7, 2005 12:13:36 GMT -5
While the WSJ and its writers are located in NYC, Republicans -- in the past -- have always been staunch supporters of its content and heavily conservative editorial slant. Keep in mind that WSJ's editorial board never supported the creation of the Homeland Security Department in the first place - the basic gist of their argument was that homeland security - in all its forms - is too important to turn over to a massive new bureaucracy. They'll no doubt point this out as Democrats call for the removal of FEMA from HS. Anyone who defends FEMA's response is not paying attention. Conservative "Sports Talk" radio host Mike North www.northtonorth.com/ had Senator Durbin on today; they're very polite to each other, but they don't agree on much. The only issue of substance that they agree on is that FEMA Director Brown should be fired.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 13:13:05 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 7, 2005 13:13:05 GMT -5
Anyone who defends FEMA's response is not paying attention. I guess that would start with Bush then.. see below from NY Times website: ---------------------------------------- At a news conference, Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush's choice for head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency had ''absolutely no credentials.'' She related that she had urged Bush at the White House on Tuesday to fire Michael Brown. ''He said 'Why would I do that?''' Pelosi said. '''I said because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week.' And he said 'What didn't go right?''' ------------------------------ Link to article: nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Katrina-Washington.html?hp&ex=1126152000&en=4af1952a8a967c88&ei=5094&partner=homepage
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Katrina
Sept 7, 2005 13:47:16 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Sept 7, 2005 13:47:16 GMT -5
|
|