2007-10-24 09:58:44 · 10 answers · asked by Yahoo Sucks 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
The declaration just means that Federal money can be used to aid the victims.
It really has nothing to do with safety, per se.
2007-10-24 10:06:38 · answer #1 · answered by Dave C 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't make anyone safer, but it opens up some avenues for support and relief organizations. It's just a level of bureacracy that bascially says "x amount of relief can go to a region until it is declared a Disaster. After a Disaster or State of Emergency is declared, y amount more of relief can be applied."
2007-10-24 17:07:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How would that make it safer?? The fires are still burning out of control and declaring a disaster doesn't change that.
2007-10-24 17:03:40 · answer #3 · answered by Miss C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Watch for the terrorists who according to Fox News are responsible for the fires.
2007-10-25 09:54:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Unfortunately his declaration did not extinguish all of the fires. Darn.
2007-10-24 17:17:17 · answer #5 · answered by MichCal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only in that the national guard has been deployed to protect neighborhoods that were evacuated and remain on lockdown from looters and people who don't belong there.
2007-10-24 17:16:05 · answer #6 · answered by eskie lover 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not quite yet. Our beloved President has to pray first.
He will then be as successful at putting the fires out as he has been introducing democracy in Iraq
2007-10-24 19:32:23 · answer #7 · answered by OO 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's safer cause they caught an arsonist.
2007-10-24 17:08:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I wonder how much resources they had to pull from the lines to insure GW's safety? Think about it folks....
2007-10-24 17:24:59 · answer #9 · answered by Special Ed 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I suppose you blaim Bush?
2007-10-24 17:14:56 · answer #10 · answered by TriSec 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋