Does Bush himself need to bring Air Force 1 to the 'soon-to-be' destroyed areas to force the people to leave?
Wouldn't it be cool to ride in the President's plane?
2007-07-06 04:36:00 · 23 answers · asked by Frank Dileo 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course he should, according to his detractors.
2007-07-06 04:38:58 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Heed the warning, leave, then get your house looted. Ignore the warning, stay, and get trapped by floodwaters. A guy just can't win! For years we handled hurricanes well, then FEMA got led by a political crony and things went to heck. A ride in the plane would be cool-think of all the stuff (matches, coasters, napkins) you could swipe and put on E-bay!
2007-07-06 11:41:36 · answer #2 · answered by aackpht 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Blame FEMA! Even though Katrina came with at least two days’ warning, authorities waited to issue an evacuation order. There was no transportation for people without cars or money. There were no sufficient facilities to house and care for refugees. There were no forces in place to deliver needed supplies or to secure order. There were not enough boats, helicopters and other means to rescue stranded people. Forty percent of the National Guard is in Iraq and getting military personnel to the right areas was very slow. The Bush Administration sapped FEMA’s long-term ability to prevent or even to cushion disaster due to it’s obsession with the war on terror and with the ideology of privatizing functions of the government. FEMA was downsized and downgraded from a cabinet position and placed under the Dept. of Homeland Security.
2007-07-06 11:45:12 · answer #3 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, but he will be held responsible, as will anyone in the oval office. It isn't Bush's fault that people didn't heed the warnings. It is however his fault that aid was not sent in sooner and that more people were not bussed out before the Hurricanes hit. The Department of Homeland Security, his creation, really dropped the ball on that one.
2007-07-06 11:42:29 · answer #4 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
For the record, Bush wasn't "blamed" for people staying despite hurricane warnings during Katrina. He was blamed, rightly so, for appointing a horse-breeder to the head of FEMA and for doing a horrible job reconstructing New Orleans, which isn't even close to being finished yet.
"HECK OF A JOB, BROWNIE!"
Thanks for playing though.
NEXT.
2007-07-06 11:51:09 · answer #5 · answered by Retodd 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He should be blamed again if he is guilty of having incompetent people making big money who do not have a clue about emergency situations in charge. He should be blamed again if he is guilty again of ignoring the situation and flying off to California to give a political speech instead of checking on the progress of the incompetent people making big money who are in charge and have no clue about emergency situations.
"Doin' a great job Brownie!"
2007-07-06 11:47:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why would or should he do that? This sounds like a crazy idea to me. Fast reaction and proper reaction following any disaster would, I am sure, be appreciated by the people hit by the storm. If he reacts swiftly and not like Katrina I will be first in line to say he has done a good thing. I praised him when he went to the Virginia university shooting incident which he reacted to quickly. When he does good he deserves the praise but when he screws up he also deserves chastisement.
2007-07-06 11:40:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Of course, it is part of the socialist-liberal indoctrination to absolve yourself of all responsiblity and rely on the governemnt to provide you with everything and take care of you. Even if you have a 5 day warning that a class 5 hurricane is bearing down on you and you live in a city that is below sea level.
2007-07-06 11:42:57 · answer #8 · answered by booman17 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If there is another hurricane or disaster, and Bush declares a FEDERAL DISASTER AREA, two days before the disaster... he'd better damn-well help the people whom he makes himself responsible for. As he did not do during Katrina.
2007-07-06 11:44:29 · answer #9 · answered by Incognito 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Uh, if you're referring to New Orleans, how, exactly, were they supposed to leave?
If another corrupt and incompetent Bush appointee again allows people to die because he refuses to do his job, then, yes, Bush should be held responsible for those deaths, too.
2007-07-06 14:09:24 · answer #10 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
yes. because if GW doesn't use his magical presidential superpowers to stop the hurricane, or to prevent Cat. 3 levees from breaking under the force of a Cat. 5 hurricane, or get the mayor of NOLA to comandeer school buses to evacuate the poor (y;know, the ones Kanye West says GW doesn't care about...) then he should get the blame.
;-)
2007-07-06 11:42:21 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋