Who thinks that Bush's visit to NOLA on the anniversary of Katrina thinks Bush is courageous to go there?

Question

(considering to collosal failure of FEMA)

Who thinks this is another demonstation of Bush's unaccountable self-esteem? Who bears more responsibility for W's presidency? His mother? Or, Karl Rove?

Answer 1

Bush is pretty safe there now. As people navigate the paper trail that is FEMA they are beginning to see that it was Blanco who failed to declare a disaster area and Nagin who failed to evacuate the city that caused much of the damage; certainly they are responsible for all post storm deaths.

Despite his inane posturing and finger pointing at why the city still is in disrepair, the citizens of NO now know it is because he wants lump sum control of the money and doesn't want to be accountable for how its spent. Democratic politics at its best.

Answer 2

Bush Bashing seems to be popular today, but to blame Bush for the problem in New Orleans would be like spanking your momma for your errors. I think if he goes to NOLA it is out of a sincere desire to show support for the people. Sure, Fema Messed up, so did Nagin, but remember, the Commander in Chief has a lot more on his plate than you or I know about

Answer 3

IT should not be A conflict!! If we had not invaded their u . s . there must be no "Iraq conflict" , sensible they there own wars between cultures yet we ought to continually not are transforming into in touch. If we hadn't there must be way a lot less bloodshed. So are you extremely in basic terms that stupid the have self assurance all that crap that were helping them. If we were they would not hate us a lot! Wars are a militaristic way of attempting to instruct something or in basic terms being so finished of pompous greed (word that i'm speaking about bush the following) that you make certain to bypass invade inspite of u . s . has what you want! therefore oil! Oil, that's area of the large problem of international warming that Bush denies reason he would not favor to regulate it! Plus, a lot of human beings say he's keeping the U.S. yet #a million how is making more beneficial human beings hate us keeping us? and #2 why ought to you bypass and invade another u . s . to provide your self with protection! If he theory they were risky, he ought to keep position of beginning safe practices at domicile. i wager that's if he were sensible! So tell, why did we initiate an finished "new" conflict to assist i do not call thousands of human beings useless, helping. initiating wars to make peace makes no experience initiating wars to damage peace is what occurs make love, not conflict

Answer 4

Yes, I can see how it would be courageous. Lots of people down there are angry at him over the response issue. So his being down there could cause a riot or something. They would be too mad to listen to him or too mad to see him there.

On the other hand, it could also look less caring on his part if he didn't bother to visit on the anniversary. Like not even acknowleding the significance of the day.

It depends on how you look at it.

I don't know what to think on the other questions. But, overall when it comes to President Bush, there are things I support him on and other things I don't.

Answer 5

For what it's worth, a good PR move for the White House.

The residents of NO can always recall their mayor and elect a GOP mayor. Worked quite well in California a few years ago.

Answer 6

Bush when fishing on the remains of Katrina, shortly after it happened.

I think he is going fishing again.

Answer 7

It's more outrageous than courageous, at least he had the decency to finally show up, he's only a year late!

Answer 8

He's got the Secret Service to protect him from public stoning, so nah, no courage there.

Answer 9

The man doesn't even have enough sense to be ashamed of himself.

Answer 10

bush is a muthafucken *****.