Especially since he has done NOTHING to help that city back onto its feet?
I am. This man has no shame.
2007-08-28 23:43:16 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush is not only responsible for the cutbacks in the levees, it might be remembered that it was the federal governments lack of response that led to panic in the Astrodome.
I know, the federal government must be notified and asked to come in, I hope common sense has changed that somewhat.
With no phone system, no electricity to recharge phones, and a large portion of the population dispersed, maybe someone with a brain could have called into NO, or Louisiana? Why didn't someone call them, instead of waiting for a call?
Money that was pledged for rebuilding has been held up and no one seems to be able to coordinate a darn thing. We rebuilt Europe with the Marshall plan, we let an American city rot. The Midwest floods got a lot of press lately, over a thousand people were left homeless over several states,the scope of the problem is so much less than in Louisiana, and the other Gulf states. In NO over 400,000 people were left homeless, jobless, no water, sewerage, roads, electricity, hospitals, schools, it is a federal problem, without regard to color or wealth, it is an American problem and it was and it is being handled so badly that all we really have is shame that Bush took so long in the first place.
2007-08-29 00:13:41 · answer #1 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
New Orleans has already received 7 1/2 Billion dollars to assist the victims their, and due to the bureaucracy they are running out of money. 60,000 of the victims will not see a check! They will be going to congress to ask for more money! I for one believe they received enough of my tax money. If this is how they run that state, then how can Bush possibly be to blame for the levees? This is a job for the Army corps of engineers. The engineers plan to rebuild when it is already known that the rebuilding is not the answer. The answer is restoration of the wetlands. So, there goes more of our hard earned tax dollars being wasted by the billions. That state needs more competencey to run the government both state and locally. The President has every right to be there to survey the area without any shame whatsoever! And justagramma where was the local and state governments culpability?
2007-08-29 07:18:59 · answer #2 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. New Orleans is part of the President's jurisdiction and he can go there.
I have never seen as much done after a hurricane, by the federal government, as what was done for New Orleans.
2007-08-29 07:30:44 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Cut the perverbial crap! Mr. Bush had NOTHING to do with the aftermath of what happened in NEW ORlEANS. Since New Orleans is below ocean level, the LA corps of engineers should have had proper safety precautions in place decades ago. Stop such improper blame on our President for every damn thing you don't like!
2007-08-29 07:44:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
You are absolutely right,he has no shame.
Some critics are suggesting President Bush was as least partly responsible for the flooding in New Orleans. In a widely quoted opinion piece, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal says that "the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature," and cites years of reduced funding for federal flood-control projects around New Orleans.
Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for projects specifically designed to strengthen levees. Indeed, local officials had been complaining about that for years.
2007-08-29 07:00:21 · answer #5 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I have to say that we tend to put all the blame for such a disaster on one person's shouders. It is not all his fault. it was a lack of planning on all the officials parts that caused such a nightmare. Local, state and federal officials all need to learn to work together for the good of the people who voted them into office.
2007-08-29 12:59:24 · answer #6 · answered by Candace C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll say. Although I am no advocate to politics...from the looks of it and all of the unfulfilled promises that he made...I would say a Brazenly bold man who is marked by Jingoistic Audacity of embittering intrepidity. I have nothing more to really say of Bush that it would only be a appeasement to me to see him out of office...
2007-08-29 13:22:55 · answer #7 · answered by sesshoumaru sama 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He should bring more debit cards, they'll love him. I have a friend from New Orleans. He's hoping to get another debit card from the US Govt so he can get a surround sound system to go with the 42in. plasma TV that he purchased with the other debit card that they gave out. He couldn't buy it the first time because he had already used most of the card on lap dances.
2007-08-29 06:58:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
I am not disgusted, but Bush is two years late.
2007-08-29 07:28:46 · answer #9 · answered by Justin T 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, I'm not. What disgusts me is how most people blame him for something that is their fault. That's right...THEIRS ALONE. Of course, most of these people have grown up having government make all of their decisions for them, so when crunch time comes, they are totally helpless.
2007-08-29 06:50:42 · answer #10 · answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋