For the out of control fires, in California????
2006-10-27 09:27:41 · 16 answers · asked by Delia 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He's blamed for everything else, right?
2006-10-27 17:49:03 · update #1
Sure and global warming and Katrina and anything else you can think of....I think I left some food in the refrigerator too long and now it has liquified......that's his fault too. Now that I think about it I need two gallons of milk. It is his fault I forgot to buy some earlier too.
2006-10-27 10:05:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's not so much bush's fault as it is the federal governments. i was a wild land fire fighter, and so i paid close attention to bushs' 2003 speach about fire prevention.
neocons can point this out and say yeah " Bush cares."
but in reality every guy on my crew knew his speach was BS. These guys where good old back wood oregon boys too, not liberals. he only had easy non-plausible answers.
like in simple terms " chop down the forest"
there is a reason fires get worse and worse every year, and bush has no clue to what it is.
when you chop down the forest that just elimates trees, but brush still grows, and on a rainy year a tree less forest will grow like crazy. but that's just short under brush a fire will shread to pieces. it'll burn hot and leave nothing. back in the day when there was old growth, a fire would naturally go through the floor and burn off all the low dry stuff, leaving trees intact. Fire is am essential natural occurance in nature and bushs' stance on combating it is none sense. you might agree with bush on this, but the majority of people who actually fight these fires don't.
2006-10-27 16:45:04 · answer #2 · answered by sapace monkey 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, but must be the liberals who started them so people will blame Bush.
No Carl must have done it so people will accuse the liberals for starting them so Bush will be blamed.
Should I continue? Expect to see 20 or 30 people on this site will accept this as a valid idea, why not they are all true.
2006-10-27 16:36:23 · answer #3 · answered by madjer21755 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all we have NO president. Dictator Dumbya has had SO MANY abysmal failures that even IF CA was deprived of resources that would be there for a fires because of mismanagement, it just doesn't go to the top of the list. But perhaps there are some National Guard who WOULD be available who are instead now stuck in the hell of the Dictator Dumbya Big Lie Iraqi Crusade. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2006-10-27 16:40:23 · answer #4 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No its those pesky tree huggers, if only the government would have been able to cut down all of those old growth forests in northern California and Oregon then those fires in the desert would not be happening.
2006-10-27 16:36:45 · answer #5 · answered by Chuck P 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Without a doubt. He conspired with the arsonist to set the fires. He did it because people were thinking about using the dried brush as firewood for the upcoming chilly season. Bush wants people to burn oil, so that he can make more money.
2006-10-27 16:40:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
How can you blame Bush for that??? If you are meaning that there are not enough firefighters to do the job, cut backs in the job market started long before Bush.
2006-10-27 16:30:49 · answer #7 · answered by FireBug 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What the hell of question is that? Bush is guilty for some things but not for control fires.
2006-10-27 16:37:39 · answer #8 · answered by cynical 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why not, he's blamed for everything else. I heard that he caused the Hawaii earthquake and that hurricane brewing in the Pacific.
2006-10-27 16:32:07 · answer #9 · answered by mikey 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, he is. Have you read his environmental policies? And by the way, he's also responsible for destroying the English language.
"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling." January 23, 2004."
2006-10-27 16:52:43 · answer #10 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋