Bush could have saved thousands by stopping his vacation, and by sending troops into New Orleans. Instead, Bush did nothing, and relaxed in San Diego. Dick Cheney was fly fishing, and condoleeza, sho shopping.
How's that for morals?? Enjoy your vacation, but kill thousands.
2006-08-25 14:43:30 · 24 answers · asked by Scott 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Because there was only water in the streets and not oil.
2006-08-25 19:32:26 · answer #1 · answered by jack jr 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
All of the politicians on every level are responsible for the disaster that was New Orleans after Katrina left. I am so sick and tired of people saying, "Oh, he couldn't call the troops. It was against the law." Or "He should have called in the buses sooner or had a better plan." Or "why didn't she (referring to the governor) do something faster?"
The point is ALL of them failed the people of New Orleans and are continuing to fail the people of New Orleans as they posture a year after the horrendous event.
I say this with much tredipation because I live in Sacramento, a city the Army Corps of Engineers predicts is closest to having a flooding diaster like KatrinMF
2006-08-26 02:19:21 · answer #2 · answered by Shelley 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I see somebody else saw the Spike Lee video. I posted a similar question but worded it differently and here's what I learned.
First, alot of people think its the fault of those who stayed behind. Apparently things like having no legs or no car or no damn place to go cuz you're third generation NOLA and your whole family *is* where the danger's at, THAT didn't get much media coverage.
SECOND the media sensationalized many things that never happened, like anarchy in the the streets and at the center. People don't tend to pay attention to retractions, they only recall that "refugees" from NOLA were eating each other and causing trouble in the cities to which they were shipped.
THIRD alot of people think that it's basically cleaned up down there. Even Spike Lee didn't mention that fact that--at least as of May--St, Bernard Parish STILL had no power or water. (How long did it take to restore power to Baghdad?)
All of these public perceptions, which in my opinion are largely the fault of the media, go to *allow* not just Bush but the entire admin to DO NOTHING. And for the most part, we (the voters) are still not angry about it. (That was MY original question, WHY are we not angry?)
Finally, my brother, who lived there for 2 and a half years expects Disney or some comparable developer to show up with buy outs and make it look like they are doing these people a favor. He's been saying this long before Katrina ever hit, that's all prime coastal area with mostly poor people and nobody wants that.
Kanye West, I think, was correct.
Lousiana was a red state. I sure hope they remember come election year, and VOTE in THIER OWN BEST INTERESTS.
2006-08-25 22:03:19 · answer #3 · answered by War News Junkie 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your a moron.
Bush couldn't send troops, the national guard is controlled by the Governor (a lib), nor could he have save thousands by sending buses to pick them up, cuz they were controlled by the mayor (a lib) and where exactly has all the billions (with a B) gone that has been sent by the federal government. Maybe you should be asking the politicians of one of the most corrupt states in the nation (all of them libs)
You all voted for them, ya get what you got.
2006-08-25 21:51:34 · answer #4 · answered by rikv77 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The City of New Orleans is responsible for first response, they failed themselves. New Orleans is below sea level. The Mayor not the President of the United States should have provided buses to evacuate the city, instead the buses were convoyed to safety without any passengers.
2006-08-25 21:58:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Scott, don't listen to these idiots who are trying to tell you that it was the mayors fault, that it was the governors fault ect. Thats just typical conservative republicans blaming the victims. If what they say were true, WHAT IS THE POINT IN HAVING FEMA? Why are they not complaining about having an unnecessary and useless bureacuracy?
You're on the right track. Don't fall for their garbage.
2006-08-26 01:24:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
He wasn't on vacation......and the fact is....but the most important part of this was.....the govt. is a second responder, not the first....and he told the Governor and mayor to get them out 4 days in advance....and neither did a thing about it......your questions are getting more stupid
2006-08-25 22:20:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't even know how to answer this question because your ignorance is beyond reason.
But i will try. Since Bush was a governor, he expected the governor of LA to do the ordering since he had a better idea of the situation, and Bush would have done that if he was governor. Thanks, and um y is it Bush's fault for everything to you?
2006-08-25 21:50:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because there were no troops to send to New Orleans. They were all in Iraq on their silly desert misadventure.
He has no morals. But that's your so-called compassionate conservative. Just go to church, toss in the odd buzzword referencing God and/or the bible, and be damned what actually transpires...
2006-08-25 21:50:20 · answer #9 · answered by The ~Muffin~ Man 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
You think that if he would mind the war could be over long time ago? Or poor people could have some money to eat and dress something everyday? He is trying to enjoy his power and money before the citizens of this country kick his a** away from the trone.
2006-08-25 21:51:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
For the 935th time, he was, listen carefully, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED from sending in federal aid until the governor of Louisiana ( a Democrat, imagine that) expressly requested it.
What don't you ask why she and Mayor Wonka fiddled while Rome burned?
2006-08-25 21:51:14 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋